> That'll do. I really think it matters morally if these
> deaths are due to deliberate intent to kill or just to
> deliberate indifference -- not caring whether the
> policies kill.
Here's the full quote from Albright's interview: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." I hardly see how it reveals any intent to kill. Surely the adminstration was aware that sanctions would claim many lives--but that wasn't the end desired by those who implemented them.
> Wouldn't you describe the Iraqi sanctions policies as murderous?
No. But that doesn't preclude them from actually being worse than policies that might more aptly be called "murderous" (e.g. ethnic cleansing in the Balkans).
> I never said that. If diplomatic efforts and police
> methods, seriously attempted, failed, and the threat
> remained real, and other requirements for a just use
> of force were met (proportionatility, etc.), it might
> be OK, Of course this is wholly speculative.
Again, our difference here is that I believe diplomatic efforts and police methods alone were bound to fail.
> By leading to the capture and arrest of its leadership, duh.
An unlikely consequence to my mind.
> You might as well say the same thing
> about the Mafia. Are they too big for police methods?
> Shall we bomb Nevada? Sheesh. (Btw the Mafia's average
> _intentional_ annual body count is probably way above
> al Qaida's. A-Q has existed for say, ten years. It has
> probably killed four thousand people in that time, say
> five thousand, though that is a high estimate--500 a
> year. The Mafia (worldwide) has to top that easily,
> probably double or more, and it's existed for over a
> century. So: shall we forget police prosecution and
> send in the army?)
It all depends on how large you believe the threat once posed by Al Qaeda was. They nearly did manage to take out 40,000 people in a single day, but perhaps they just got lucky.
-- Luke