Member Profile

Total number of comments: 5 (since 2014-07-12 02:18:01)


Showing comments 5 - 1

  • Today's Top 7 Myths about Daesh/ ISIL
    • Unfortunately Wood goes further than that--he basically claims that ISIS understands Islam correctly and moderate Muslims do not. It's the same as saying that Russian pogromists understood the anti-semitic passages in the New Testament correctly and were the true exemplars of Christianity. This is a debateable point at best. The Bible contains passages that justify brutal conduct and compassionate conduct--I've not read the Koran, but I gather the same is true of it. Cruel people focus on the cruel passages.

  • Why Obama is Right to avoid double standard about Modern Christian Atrocities
    • During the 1980's the Christian Right supported people like Roberto D'Aubisson, Rios Montt, Jonas Savimbi, and the guerrilla group Renamo in Mozambique. I am surprised that so few people seem to remember this anymore,but morally speaking these men were as bad as any modern day Islamic terrorist.

  • Stop Saying 'If X fired Rockets at U.S.': It's Racist, & assumes we're Colonial
    • Israel in fact does shoot at Gazan fishermen and it does shoot at Gazans who wander into the buffer zone inside Gaza. So they might or might not bomb Gaza if there were no rockets, but they do enforce the inhumane blockade and they shoot at Gazan civilians from time to time.

      You seem completely oblivious to the larger background.

  • Post-American Iraq by the Numbers
    • "If Albright did not, as she has made clear she did not, believe that the “cost” of the policy was as high as Stahl claimed, then her support for the policy does not in any way demonstrate that she thought the policy was worth the cost.,"

      As I explained above in more polite terms, this is fatuous. I don't believe the 500,000 figure myself--from what I've read it's probably in the low hundreds of thousands. But there is no doubt that the sanctions caused immense economic damage to Iraq, prevented repairs to the water and sewage systems and even without any statistics one could trust, obviously this would cause innocent deaths.

      Albright thought it was okay to inflict harm on Iraqi civilians and she had to know the harm was on a large scale, without necessarily knowing how large.
      And of course the US disclaimed all responsibility most of the time. That's what made Albright's statement so striking and it's why she walked it back.

      Imagine how the US would react if somehow a hypothetical Arab superpower could impose similar sanctions on Israel, after a bombing campaign that had damaged civilian infrastructure. If an Arab Albright said that the Israeli suffering was "worth it", I doubt anyone would bother to deny that this person had said something brutal and callous.

    • The sanctions death toll is disputed, but is most likely in the low hundreds of thousands. What shouldn't be disputed is that the US intended the sanctions to cause civilian suffering while of course denying it. The policy had its birth in the bombing campaign of Gulf War I, as shown by Barton Gellman in a June 23 1991 article he wrote for the Washington Post (you can find it online). The bombing damaged Iraqi infrastructure and the sanctions were meant to prevent repair.

      As for Albright, obviously any American political hack would deny that our policy had killed 500,000 or 100,000 or 200,000 children. But she did say "the price was worth it", so yeah, she had a moment of honesty and then tried to take it back.

Showing comments 5 - 1