Albright stopped a life genocide in the balkans with a few weeks of air strikes. That was a war so unavoidable, Germany reversed 60 years of pacifism and felt obliged to participate. The region, today, is prosperous and peaceful. It’s really the best possible example the concept of humanitarian intervention could have, apart from WW2.
They were in power when they sanctioned and starved millions of innocent iraqis after the war. You know the "silent war". Hundreds of thousands of iraqi children starved to death - something she said was worth it. Not someone people should be defending but everyone has their supporters I guess.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717930/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/04...
She got asked a loaded question for a soundbite. She wrote, "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright#Sanctions_a...
War crimes need a war, and crimes. Albright didn't commit any crimes, and you can't even name a war.
Who was allied with said dictator and provided the chemical weapons to use on iraqis and others? I wonder. Which is more evil. Being an evil dictator or giving the evil dictator chemical weapons?
> Never mind the invasion of Kuwait, either, the monster in this story was clearly Albright. /s
I don't remember anyone praising saddam. And there is nothing preventing both saddam and albright from being monsters. Saddam and Albright are both monsters. If there is a hell, I'd imagine they are both there right now. Wouldn't you agree?
Edit: Here, with sources and all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program