sabotabby | In depth post on American politics from me

I'm a myth? Do I at least get a nifty doublet?

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

I find this sort of thing impossible to take a moderate stance on or be nostalgic for. It's not like the Clinton administration was the first U.S. administration to commit a war crime, but that shouldn't let anyone off the hook.

Dude, our United States of America is a country founded on a genocide. Canada too, incidentally.

Look, us moderate Clintocrats get a bad rap these days, mostly because the guy got a blowjob that led to the election of George W. Bush. That said, inasmuch as I don't approve of an awful lot of stuff he did as President, there are moderate, centrist reforms he made that I think made the country better.

And yeah, I kind of hope, as a Woody Guthrie-listenin' fan of the wobblies, that the current anti-secret ballot initiative being proposed by democrats in Congress fails.

But hey, I may be a proponent of killing Iraqi kids, your mileage may vary.

there are moderate, centrist reforms he made that I think made the country better.

I don't doubt it. There are murderous administrations better and worse than others—Clinton killed more Iraqis than Bush I, but fewer than Bush II. This said, I wouldn't consider myself a fan of any government that does these things.

Of course, Saddam Hussein was out of town at the time.

Seriously? Clinton was a murdered of Iraqi children and a war criminal? Is this seriously your position? Because that ain't the kind of Hope I bought into when I voted Obama.

Are you suggesting that the American-imposed sanctions didn't kill a lot of Iraqis? I'm very confused. I mean, Albright admitted to it. Sanctions killed people, and in an even sicker, less targeted way than the Gulf War killed them, because sanctions directly target civilians. She was cool with it. I am not, because I can't think of what would be worth killing half a million children over.

If the sanctions were okay, is the current Israeli tactic of starving out Gaza also okay? How about what Reagan did to Nicaragua?

I'm saying that policy qua policy kills people. Heck, I imagine Jesus was trying to preach the nicest damned policy he could, look what it did to Judas.

Yeah, sanctions hurt. That's their point. Should we have invaded instead to convince Hussein to stop being a dick? Should we have invaded Sudan to make them stop being dicks? Should we invade China? Or should we impose no sanctions, let businesses freely operate, and condone rogue governments? You seem to be against a fair bit in this discussion, but not really for much.

- Yes, the sanctions hurt people it wasn't designed to. A smart sanction is about as effective as a smart bomb.
- The sanctions, it should be mentioned, were not merely American. Kofi Annan might have something to say about that.
- "Food For Oil" worked awesomely, didn't it?
- Statecraft ain't for the weak of heart.
- Damn, I wish I could murder myself an Iraqi child right about now. I knew something had been missing from my day.

(Aaaaaand with that, methinks I've overstayed my welcome at this party!)

did the sanctions stop saddam from being a dick, or was he still a dick plus a hell of a lot people died, thanks to policies pushed and supported by Clinton. He is culpable. I guess the question is do you think the sanctions were justified, it was unavoidable that HALF A MILLION CHILDREN died. that's half a million, right? we're all reading the same thing? half a million?

Big numbers aren't sadder than small ones. How many children is it OK to kill in your book? How many adults?

No, the tactic is not OK, denying life-saving supplies and technologies to people is not OK, but being OK or not OK isn't the sole determiner of whether an action is equivalent to murder. Sanctions didn't kill anyone. I don't see Albright admitting it, either. No coroner wrote "cause of death: sanctions" on any death certificate.

Do you look at people who die in traffic collisions each year and say "car manufacturers killed these people" or "the Canadian government killed these people"? After all, cars could be manfuactured to move no faster than 2 kph, and laws could be passed to make it so, and highways could be built out of foam and bubble-wrap. Where does the buck stop? It's not like the Clinton administration wrote the sanctions in such a way that they were impossible to lift; nor was Saddam Hussein incapable of acting in such a way as to secure for his country the necessary supplies. Putting pen to paper to set up the sanctions did not equal an inevitable death sentence for even one child. The deaths were certainly a by-product of the sanctions, the way traffic fatalities are a by-product of people driving at unsafe speeds on unsafe roads, but I would say the politician responsible for the deaths was the one in power in Iraq, as the driver behind its wheel.

I don't see Albright admitting it, either.

If she didn't think that these policies caused those children to die, that interview would have been a pretty good time to bring it up. Rather than saying that it was "worth it."

Where does the buck stop?

Well, if the Canadian government passed a law saying that cars no longer needed to go through any sort of testing before they were put on the market, or legalized drunk driving, or stopped having speed limits, I'd say they were pretty culpable if deaths from traffic collisions increased. Yes, the drunk driver would be responsible too—more than one party can be responsible.

Who do you hold to be primarily responsible for sanction-related deaths in Nicaragua and Gaza?

Well, if the Canadian government passed a law saying that cars no longer needed to go through any sort of testing before they were put on the market, or legalized drunk driving, or stopped having speed limits, I'd say they were pretty culpable if deaths from traffic collisions increased. Yes, the drunk driver would be responsible too—more than one party can be responsible.

Wait wait, I didn't bring up making the roads worse, but failing to make them better (as in "failing to adjust the sanctions when it became clear Hussein wasn't done playing chicken"). I'm talking about all drivers. Sober drivers cause collisions too. At some point, the government passed laws allowing people to drive cars, yes? Before that, there were no car-related traffic fatalities. The government, by failing to prohibit driving, is responsible for every single car-related death since then, yes or no?

Who do you hold to be primarily responsible for sanction-related deaths in Nicaragua and Gaza?

I'd have to look at the letter of the sanctions and choices available to all parties. Until then, I'll blame God!

[and now I am 10 minutes late for a meeting. Argh! Why must you be interesting on a Friday night? *tries to leave again without hitting refresh*]

I am always interesting on Friday nights. Go to your meeting; the post will still be here.

(Perhaps not irredeemable, but does need work)

"At some point, the government passed laws allowing people to drive cars, yes? Before that, there were no car-related traffic fatalities. The government, by failing to prohibit driving, is responsible for every single car-related death since then, yes or no?"

At some point there were roads, for rolling hogsheads of bulk goods to port, or for foot and horse traffic, or even for wheeled carriages and wagons. Some of these roads were owned and maintained by various governments. There were no automobiles.

Then somebody invented mechanically-powered vehicles, and people started wanting to drive cars and motorcycles. And the roads were there, so they wanted to drive on the roads, especially the public roads. I don't know about Canada, but as I understand it in the US, folks just assumed that they could drive cars on public roads, and all the laws that came about after that regarding cars were to institute limits on that -- the government didn't pass a law saying people could drive cars; the government passed a law to settle an argument between people who were already driving cars on roads, and other people using the roads who didn't like the cars. First the laws about having someone walking ahead of the car to warn folks with horses that something scary-to-horses was approaching (I think some of those are still on the books, just not enforced -- I recall one jurisdiction even mandated that if a horse spooked, the motorist had to start disassembling his car until it stopped being scary to the horse). Then came things like speed limits (I don't know whether right-of-way laws for intersections, or driving on the right, were legislated before or after the introduction of the atomobile), and as cars became both more common and more dangerous, laws requiring registration, licensing, etc.. And then design-safety laws for automobile manufacturers and safety inspections for registered vehicles. And, many places, mandatory insurance.

So it was never, "Oh, let's pass a law to allow cars," but rather a series of instances of, "Cars (or arguments between motorists and pedestrians or horsemen) are causing this problem, so what's a reasonable, not too terribly intrusive, way of addressing it with a law?" That's where the difference between "can we make the sanctions policies better?" and "can we make the highways safer?" is: lawmakers didn't introduce cars in the first place, just reacted to them, but sanctions started out as designed and imposed (though yes, themselves in turn being in reaction to what was seen as a "We have to do something!" foreign-policy situation).

The children died due to economic sanctions stopping the flow of medicine, water-purification equipment, etc. into the country, as I understand it, flow which was entirely within Hussein's power to restore. Calling Clinton a murderer due to this is some kind of anarcho-Jesuit logic which elevates sins of omission over those of commission, not uncommon but not very convincing. I understand why it would rile you, as a Clinton fan. Sorry, sabs! The way I see it, if any cause, no matter how far removed, can be "pegged" as culpable for a death, then in an interconnected and deterministic universe everyone's responsible and nobody's responsible, the idea of war crime and murder diluted to dirty dishwater.

flow which was entirely within Hussein's power to restore

Theoretically, it is within Hamas' power to restore the flow of medicine, water-purification equipment, and food into Gaza. However, this sets up a situation where a stronger political power can demand whatever it likes of a weaker political power. I'm fairly certain that the country doing the embargo-ing is the one directly culpable for any deaths that result, rather than the country being embargoed. One doesn't need to be a fan of Saddam Hussein to see why caving to American pressure might not have been in anyone's best interest.

(Of course, if he were a decent leader, he would have redirected his own vast wealth and resources to stop his people from dying. But I'm not arguing that he was a decent leader, just that the Clinton administration was perfectly capable of seeing the fatal consequences of their policies and went ahead with them anyway.)

Anarcho-Jesuit? I hardly think it's an extremist position that economics can be as violent as bombs. Otherwise no one would bother with a thing like sanctions.

And I haven't even brought up NAFTA yet.

Well, unfortunately I've got to leave work now, and won't be back at a computer for a while, so I'll just focus on the one point I cannot see us agreeing on: no, of course economic pressure is not as violent as bombs. WTF kind of a crazy idea is that? What's your definition of violence? Anything that makes anyone feel bad? *throws up hands*

Seriously, I do not understand. It's like I am back at church and the priest is trying to tell me the little wafer is literally the body of Christ. You're doing violence to my brain! My synapses are frying! Won't someone think of my synapses?! ;_;

Is it still Godwinning if I bring up the fact that if we don't count economics as a form of violence, Stalin's off the hook for practically everything but the purges and gulags?

But I'm not arguing that he was a decent leader, just that the Clinton administration was perfectly capable of seeing the fatal consequences of their policies and went ahead with them anyway.
Yes. But I am inclined to believe the alternatives were not especially appealing either. We now know that Saddam spent several years trying to maintain WMD programs after the Gulf War, and only really shut them down after his sons-in-law defected with information on them. Had Iraq been allowed unrestricted trade, he might've continued to build up these programs, and he would certainly have continued to brutally and violently oppress his own people. Which again amounts to large-scale suffering, although it is hard to quantify and compare this counterfactual case. Plus other countries may have been tempted to develop WMD programs as well, and the slippery slope there could easily involve well over a half million deaths should nuclear war have been the outcome. The West tried (belatedly, it must be said) to ease the suffering of Iraqis through oil for food, and Saddam stole from those funds too, conniving with the governments and/or officials of a number of countries (although not the US or UK, for obvious reasons) using the vouchers scheme.

Did Saddam have to give in to demands from other powers to get rid of sanctions? Sure, but opening Iraq up to inspections was reasonable, given the circumstances, and would have been in the interests of the world as whole. So yeah, the large-scale deaths were obviously a terrible, terrible thing, but I'm not sure Clinton had any good options there, and I certainly don't think he can be held culpable at a level even remotely resembling Saddam.

I disagree, but then, I think that the threat Saddam posed, even locally, has been vastly overrated and besides, hypotheticals are not enough to justify such a thing.

But then, I have the unpopular opinion that the U.S. is on extremely shaky ground demanding inspections from anyone, even bloodthirsty tin-pot dictators.

the threat Saddam posed, even locally, has been vastly overrated
The conventional threat he posed to his neighbors? Sure. But this was a man who attacked four different countries and used chemical weapons in war and against his own people. Keeping WMDs out of his hands was worth paying a high price for, because there was every chance he would want to use them.

I believe the real question is whether the price was too high, given that it involved so many deaths. The answer depends on your view of various hypothetical situations. I don't have a firm view myself, but I can at least make a convincing case it was the least-bad alternative. As a consequence, I can't use the term 'war criminal' to describe Clinton when speaking about his actions here.

Also, for the record, the inspections were conducted by the IAEA which had every right to be there under international law owing to Iraq's treaty obligations, including the peace deal it signed after Kuwait was liberated.

I don't have a firm view myself, but I can at least make a convincing case it was the least-bad alternative.

By all means, do so. Because I haven't read one yet.

(no subject)

dubaiwalla.livejournal.com - 2008-11-15 21:31 (UTC) - Expand

"And yeah, I kind of hope, as a Woody Guthrie-listenin' fan of the wobblies, that the current anti-secret ballot initiative being proposed by democrats in Congress fails."

Have you ever seen how an NLRB election works? I'm guessing no.

First, you try to make sure 80% of the workers on board without tipping off management. At some point they find out, or you realize that you've talked to everyone you can without tipping off the boss, so you "go public" trying to talk to everyone. The moment management finds out, they will use a standard set of tactics to derail the election.

Of course, there are mandatory meetings, both group and one-on-one. They will intimidate workers - who can legally be fired if they refuse to go to the meetings. They will interrogate them to find who the union supporters. They will threaten to shut the place down, and promise to give everyone raises. Much of it is illegal, and the union is free to file unfair labor charges, but that means delaying the election until many months or years down the line when the charges is dealt with.

They will find excuses to fire pro-union people, they will hire new anti-union friends and relatives, they will promote pro-union people to supervisor roles so that their vote isn't counted. They will challenge the election, claiming that it's not an appropriate bargaining unit and that certain people need to be added or excluded. The union can challenge all this and can often win, but that means putting off the election indefinitely while they argue their case with the NLRB.

So they cut their losses, letting individual pro-workers be picked off one-by-one. Meanwhile, the workplace has become hellish, with workers getting disciplined for the tiniest of infractions and yelled at and demeaned all day long. The anti-union workers get promises of promotions and raises if the union is shot down, so they have an incentive to stay, but everyone else wants to leave, and some do.

By the time the election comes, if the pro-union workers have balls and ovaries of steel, did everything right, and started with a solid 80% super-majority, then they have a good chance of winning the election, but even then it isn't guaranteed.

If management can successfully stall a first contract for a year, then they will push for a decertification election, and the same election tactics come back.

Sure, *requiring* a card-check would be a problem, but if over 50% of the workers sign cards saying they voluntarily authorize a union to represent them in collective bargaining, how is it a good thing to say, "No, I'm sorry, but you need to be terrorized by your boss for a few months before we can trust that you honestly agree with the statement you signed."

The NLRB isn't on my most-favored list these days either, for what it's worth. It's not the organization it once was.

(No, I've never actually been a part of an NLRB election. My best friend down here in New Orleans had worked for labor organizers for five years before working with the NLRB for a year and a summer during law school. I'd love to be able to have the benefit of his input, but sadly he's not on LJ.)

The reason Ms. Clinton was my third choice, not first or second, for president, is that she struck me as too conservative.

Obama is a moderate conservative being painted as a leftist; I think he already is pretty much centrist, about as much so as is currently feasible in US politics (anybody actually liberal gets laghed off the stage -- but maybe four years of a centrist-conservative will shift the Overton Window enough that a moderate-liberal won't seem so strange later.

(My big question about an appointment for Clinton is this: where will she do the most good for Democratic (and less-conservative-as-opposed-to-ultra-con) causes: in the Senate, or in a cabinet post? And, of course, which post -- the two questions there would be where she'd do the least damage and where she'd do the most good. Despite her being too conservative for me (I still would've voted for her this month if she'd won the nomination) I do think she can do some good. I just wonder where she'll be most effective. (And maybe in eight years under Obams, she'll have shifted leftward enough for me to want her as president.))

Wow, my being half-asleep really shows in that last paragraph. My apologies to whoever tries to muddle through it.

In depth post on American politics from me

As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Analogy Failure

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

no subject

(no subject)

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

Re: As an unapologetic remaining fan of the Clinton years

"moderate, centrist"