muy_thaiguy wrote:Point missed.
I was pointing out that Saddam deliberately targeted the Kurds to try and wipe them out. You know, the one group that isn't stuck in continuous tribal warfare, not afraid to fight the terroristic ISIS, are not radicals, and do not target civilians?
I'm not going to make excuses for what happened out of my control, but it doesn't mean I'm going to overlook these sorts of things either when others will.
Good point. Benefits and costs make for proper analysis.
muy_thaiguy wrote:1. Yes, we used the A-bomb on Japan. An evil, but at the time, considered the lesser of two evils (before it was understood the after effects of radiation from them), as the alternative was a massive land invasion in order to end an already long and costly war.
False, that's a myth. Several prominent generals at that time rejected that reasoning. It was mainly Truman pushing for the nukes--seemingly because he just wanted kill a lot of people and greatly ensure that the Russians would hold no claim on future American territories. The Japanese government was essentially suing for unconditional surrender weeks before the bombs were dropped, but the issue hung on retaining the emperor (which the USG allowed anyway).
An imagined assault on the mainland was hardly likely, and its estimated losses were greatly exaggerated since the previous bombing campaigns, years of rationing, 10+ year war weariness, ec. greatly crippled the Japanese mainland's ability to fight. And a peace treaty was already being taken seriously and credibly by the Japanese government. In short, that alternative was hardly likely to be true, and this wasn't a 'lesser than two evils' situation. In my opinion, it's just another case of US government terrorism.
muy_thaiguy wrote:2. Tzor covered Agent Orange.
If you buy into that story, you'd probably believe the myth behind the decision to nuke Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
muy_thaiguy wrote:3. You make it sound like all US citizens approve of whatever the US government does, especially when it happened say, before I was born/too young to even understand it at the time. Kind of shows your understanding (or lack thereof) of Americans and Western countries in general.
But yeah, my point was that Saddam targeted a group for genocide, the means of which don't really matter, but that he tried. But let's just forget about it and pretend nothing like that happened, after all, he otherwise kept Iraq stable. Right?
The original point was about unsavory dictators preventing militant extremists from running rampant. Goran mentions that Saddam was better than the rulers afterward; you counter with Saddam's genocide of the Kurds which killed about 5000 people. The US and Co.'s attack and occupation of Iraq resulted in about 50k dead soldiers on all sides, about 100k civilians dead--with an estimated 120k-600k civilians dead (wounded omitted).
So, if dead bodies is the criteria, then you need to find another 31-120 genocides to make a convincing case.