Has anyone heard this rightie-libertarian argument before?

[arbusto_baboso]

I was debating a so-called "libertarian" recently (right-leaning lib) and of course, the subject of Iraq came up.

And this d-bag basically claims that the war wasn't actually that much worse for the Iraqi people than the years of sanctions were, and that by making war on Iraq, the Bushies might actually have been more humane than Clinton, Albright, etc. Admittedly, the sanctions cost Iraqi lives, but his claims as to the numbers are highly suspect, and I'm not defending that policy anyway.

I'd ask for info to debunk this troglodyte, but I don't think it would matter the slightest bit.

Seriously? All-out war and civil war not as bad as economic sanctions? Has anyone else ever heard this lunacy before?

[annabanana]

1. A stance that can ONLY be held by

people who have never seen or seriously considered the effect of violence.

i.e. evil or profoundly ignorant

[GopperStopper2680]

2. Quote: "I'd ask for info to debunk this troglodyte, but-"

-"I don't think it would matter the slightest bit. "

It would not. One of the hard and fast rules of a debunker's toolkit applies here too: "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's made up." In other words, if 'I want to belive the sky is orange, it's orange. Don't bother calling it blue. I'll just say that 'blue' means 'orange'." They believe what they will.

[geardaddy]

3. He probably thinks shooting and bombing civilians

is more humane than cutting their supplies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Of course ...

prosecuting a war is more humane than sanction ... In a war, most/alot more of the victim are killed quickly; whereas, with sanctions, the victims might or might not starve to death.

Do I really need the sarcasm thingy?

[kudzu22]

5. Most libertarians are against the war

Haven't heard that one before. Most libertarians (at least those who know what a libertarian actually is, as opposed to Republicans who like to get high) are against the war as an unnecessary exercise of Federal power.

[The Magistrate]

6. Welcome To the Wonderful World Of Left-Propaganda Back-Fire, Sir

It was long maintained by anti-colonialists and pacifists and various others that sanctions imposed by the wicked U.S. of A. on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Iraqi children. The claims do not stand up to demographic analysis, mind, but were widely bruited about, sometimes even from official agencies, and were, and in some quarters still are, believed.

[gratuitous]

14. Pacifists?

Uh, no. We were usually advocating for measures other than sanctions on medicine, food and the like. But it serves a certain narrative to make such a shameful lumpenclaim, I suppose.

[ashling]

16. anti-colonialists and pacifists and various others

what part of "various others" do you not understand.

[gratuitous]

19. What part of "pacifists" got by you?

I presume there was a reason for this shameful claim, and its inclusion of pacifists along with the anti-colonialists (whoever they might be) and the "various others" (perhaps related to the "some" of "some say X or Y" standard straw man formulation?). But since you didn't make the fatuous statement, I won't look to you to explain it. Thank you, however, for your concern.

[ashling]

20. I apologize for not using the sarcasm smiley

that is all

[Taverner]

7. Both were bad. The war was worse.

[Warpy]

8. Libertarians live in a dream world

so of course they'd think wearing threadbare and heavily mended clothing and living on beans and rice and not enough of them to be equivalent to having your house reduced to smoking rubble and your children crushed and dismembered by explosives used in warfare.

Most libertarians are well under 30 and will eventually have all the horseshit kicked out of them. A few, like Ryan, both Pauls and Greenspan, live privileged lives and cling to the rubbish, doing a lot of damage whenever they get into any responsible position.

You're doing well not to poke the crazy, but if you must, send my first paragraph.

[Vincardog]

9. Make him prove his points. You can never get enough facts to change his mind so make him

do the work to prove it to you.

[dballance]

10. And what about all our dead and maimed soldiers?

And their families? And the complete loss US credibility in the world?

How human was the war to them?

[ellisonz]

11. +1

And the trillions of dollars that could have been better spent nation-building at home.

[Cirque du So-What]

12. I've heard that argument

but it was from neocon apologists - never from a libertarian, who, for the most part, were opposed to the war in the first place.

[gratuitous]

13. Short answer: Do your own homework

He's making the specious argument about comparative body counts due to sanctions or wars; let him back it up with some actual figures. Be sure to include the money spent prosecuting a war and occupation thousands of miles away. We probably lost a few lives here because of lack of funds.

[CBGLuthier]

15. Both things sucked. Clinton and Bush both have Iraqi blood on their hands. Ugly but true fact

[NNN0LHI]

17. Ask him if he thinks it would be a good idea to just nuke them and put them out of their misery

Bet he says yes.

Yep, I have heard this before.

Don

[librechik]

18. just more of the constant Clinton blaming they rewrite history to justify

it's making me nauseous