>The other reason why Iraq was moral was that the sanctions in Iraq from 1991-2003 were actually more genocidal than the US invasion of 2003.
The US played a big role in these sanctions so your statement amounts to: "This one evil thing the US did was ok because it wasn't as bad as this other evil thing they were involved in before".
>nd up to 30k indirect deaths. That is 10x less than during the Afghan civil war of the 1990s, and far less (2+ orders of magnitude) than the Soviet invasion.
Are these comparative numbers meant to excuse the unnecessary 30k deaths caused by US interference? Because I assume you must know that it doesn't work like that. If it did hostage situations would be a great deal easier. Just kill everyone involved because the hostage taker would have likely caused more damage then we did anyway, right?
> If I lived in South Sudan, Somalia, or Eastern Congo, I would welcome a US/international invasion and occupation, even if it meant a 5-10% chance of death for me of my family.
Those are some bad places to be sure, but I don't think you comprehend what an occupation is exactly. Do you remember the L.A. riots? Everything was out of control, innocent people were dying, the police were powerless. A news anchor asked a member of the military who was on the show "at what point should the military get involved" to which the military person replied "Please don't bring in the military". He knew that as bad as things were, bringing in the military would make it much worse because they are not a police force.
The US played a big role in these sanctions so your statement amounts to: "This one evil thing the US did was ok because it wasn't as bad as this other evil thing they were involved in before".
>nd up to 30k indirect deaths. That is 10x less than during the Afghan civil war of the 1990s, and far less (2+ orders of magnitude) than the Soviet invasion.
Are these comparative numbers meant to excuse the unnecessary 30k deaths caused by US interference? Because I assume you must know that it doesn't work like that. If it did hostage situations would be a great deal easier. Just kill everyone involved because the hostage taker would have likely caused more damage then we did anyway, right?
> If I lived in South Sudan, Somalia, or Eastern Congo, I would welcome a US/international invasion and occupation, even if it meant a 5-10% chance of death for me of my family.
Those are some bad places to be sure, but I don't think you comprehend what an occupation is exactly. Do you remember the L.A. riots? Everything was out of control, innocent people were dying, the police were powerless. A news anchor asked a member of the military who was on the show "at what point should the military get involved" to which the military person replied "Please don't bring in the military". He knew that as bad as things were, bringing in the military would make it much worse because they are not a police force.