Average annual death toll went down after Saddam removed

Brian Miller wrote:

BM) I find it interesting that once again, you're descending into pedantry
rather than engaging in the direct issue of the matter. (BM

Translation: your facts are wrong, your quotations are fabricated, your
analogies are specious, and I patiently diagnosed every single one of these
transgressions.

BM) First of all, nobody, not even Saddam, is responsible for the activities
of the US government other than the US government. BM

Argument by truism.

BM) The US government, not Saddam or anyone else, decided to pursue a
sanction regime that ended all food and medical supplies to the people of
Iraq. (BM

Saddam, not the US government, decided to ignore the demands of the UN
Security Council -- i.e. of at least America, Russia, China, U.K., and
France -- that he was treaty-bound to obey, and that were entrained by his
war crime of annexing by force the sovereign state of Kuwait.

BM) The Clinton and Bush administrations have had their apologists scramble
to produce rationales that "Saddam could have committed suicide at any time
and thus prevented us from killing his people at any time," (BM

Yet another fabricated quote. All Saddam had to do was agree in 1991 to
what he agreed in 1996. I don't recall Saddam committing suicide in 1996.

BM) I could make the same rationale in my earlier analogy (which you avoided
addressing (BM

I explained precisely why your analogy did not apply, because it failed
utterly to establish even a single predicate for the use of force against
the Saddam-like alleged victim in it. You clearly recognize that failure,
because now you belatedly attempt to correct it, by comparing Saddam's
genocides and war crimes that killed over a million to -- wait for it --
"trying to annex another neighbor's garden shed". LOL

BM) all you have to do is go shoot yourself in the head and then everything
will be A-OK. (BM

Saddam must have a pretty tough head, that when he shot it in 1996 to resume
the flow of food and medicine, he didn't suffer a bit of harm. Too bad for
him his neck wasn't similarly invulnerable.

I don't know which is more pathetic -- you analogizing Saddam's
9-figure-death-toll career of aggression down to an "attempt" to annex a
"garden shed", or you analogizing the UN's demands up to Saddam committing
suicide. Normally I give my interlocutors the benefit of the doubt, and
assume that there might be someone somewhere who at some time might consider
my opponent's arguments to be serious and worth rebutting. In this case,
I'm going to challenge you to find a single person in our audience who
doesn't find your shed/suicide analogy embarrassing.

So how about it, LPSF? Will anybody go on record as saying they find it
persuasive to analogize Saddam's history of aggression to an "attempt" at
annexing a "garden shed", and to analogize the UN Security Council's demands

Thanks Brian....I hear what you are saying and can accept that there is
value there. It would be easier to accept the potential value of foreign
intervention if there were good examples of where this foreign policy
has actually worked to the benefit of the "people" and not just the
parochial interests of Global mercantilists. Even if performed
properly...in the end it seems politics and the war machine end up
taking control with the "intended good" left on the sidelines. That
seems to be the case with the "good wars" in WWI, WWII IMHO. So where's
the beef? There may be good examples in all the work you've done...could
you steer me to that section. I'd like to review.

It seems like the idea that the average Joe is going to keep control of
the war machine so that it only performs a "surgical strike" and only
takes out the bad and leaves the good is a similar fable and fantasy to
the one about how the poor are going to somehow beat the rich in
politics.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best

Mike

Thanks Brian....I hear what you are saying and can accept that there may
be value in what you are saying that others are missing. It would be
easier to understand the premise of the value of foreign intervention if
there were good examples of where this foreign policy has actually
worked to the benefit of the "people" and not just the parochial
interests of global mercantilists who run the game. Even if performed
properly...in the end it seems politics and the war machine always end
up taking control with the "intended good" left on the sidelines. That
seems to be the case even with all the "good wars" IMHO. So where's the
beef? There may be good examples in all the work you've done...could you
steer me to those sections. I'd like to review.

It seems the idea that the average Joe is going to keep control of the
war machine so that it only performs a "surgical strike" taking out the
bad and leaving the good is as much a fable and fantasy as the one about
how the poor are going to somehow beat the rich in politics. But I stand
ready to be educated.

Best

Mike