Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."
This is from a 1996 interview with this woman [1] about the Iraq invasion. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Rather than deferring to Liz Sly from WaPo, why doesn't the U.S government submit itself and the administrations of the 90s to The Hague so this can be confirmed?
Actually in regards to the sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton admin.
> Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I’m sure we’ll hear plenty of swamp creatures lauding what a trailblazer she was over the next few days.
Which administration were the sanctions imposed under?
It seems really weird to make a partisan jab over that.
Both parties carried this out.
Looks like GHWBush after the Kuwait invasion[1]
That said, presidents have the power to adjust sanctions if they affect too many innocents.
What’s more weird is implicating partisanship where there is none.
Maybe you think of things in this frame. Not everyone else does.
-Lord Farquaad
But I have to wonder what info she had that made her believe this? How many Iranians does in the 1980s in the war against Iraq? How many Kurds died to the government in Baghdad?
I have started to question whether those in power actually have perverted value systems (as is a common meme) or whether they are privy to different facts.
Not trying to apologize for this woman’s statement, just genuinely curious.
Most internet commentary and discussion on any matters of significance is hopelessly warped by an inability to understand context and scale. Some of that inability is bad faith argument, the rest is a mess of laziness, naivety, and shallow displays of superiority.
The point was to point out that epistemology works best when you make a good faith effort to understand how other people arrived at their conclusions.
I have spent a lot of time recently trying to understand why many people are convinced about things like New World Order / Global Cabal / QAnon / Soros, Stop the Steal, various vaccine/COVID topics, multiple religious beliefs, and even why Putin believed he should “protect” Ukraine (assuming good faith). It’s far easier to bridge misunderstandings if you understand their motives, intent, desires, and the chain of facts that inform their worldview.
And what is it you are objecting to, exactly? Saddam was a sadist who gassed his own citizen. People demanded someone go in and stop him back then, like they are now asking for a no-flight-zone in Ukraine. Sometimes, there are no good choices.
At the time, embargoes were seen as effective because they had just brought down South Africa’s regime of Apartheid, and (to some degree) the Soviet Union. The alternative in US politics was not non-interventionism. It was outright invasion, something that had to wait for an administration without Clinton and Albright. The “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iraq” party came in and that likely killed an order of magnitude more people, especially if you consider that it caused the collapse in Syria, as well.
Russia: Right now, worth it.
North Korea: Who knows if it's worth it.
Cuba: Not worth it. We're still upset that they kicked out our dictator.
Iran: Not worth it. We're still upset that they kicked out our dictator.