# Almost 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2004, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794 "2004-02-06T04:34:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gomez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d78d45/32.png) [@Gomez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gomez)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/41 "2004-02-08T04:31:11Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > So anyone that argues that we should have kept the status quo was effectively arguing that it wasn’t worth saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis by deposing Hussein. Only in the same way that someone arguing for opem markets is “in effect” arguing for the complete ecological devastation of the third world. Besides, how on earth do you figure that opposing the sanctions is incompatible with an anti war stance? The sanctions should have been done away with years ago and reiterating how much damage they’ve done doesn’t magically transform the spectre of their continued existence into an argument for pre-emptive war. This isn’t Beetlejuice, arguments and things don’t just magically change if you repeat them. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/42 "2004-02-08T04:39:30Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Are you seriously suggesting that he had nothing to do with them? Or with mutliplying the number of deaths that resulted from them? No, and that’s one of the most pathetic strawmen I’ve ever seen. Congrats. > [@](#): > > Even if you think Saddam Hussein was just sitting around in his gold-plated bachelor pads and preparing lesson plans for Cub Scout meetings while the big, bad UN was hammering his people with sanctions, it doesn’t matter. Although that one takes the cake. > [@](#): > > The sanctions were causing thousands of deaths. The sanctions were inextricably tied to Saddam’s regime. Bzzt. Wrong. Try again. You see, the terms of the sanctions were dictated by the UN, largely at the urging of the US. We were not powerless to change them. If people were starving, it was a simple matter to simply LET MORE FUCKING FOOD IN, now wasn’t it? When cholera outbreaks were killing thousands, we could have, oh, for instance, LET FUCKING MEDICINE IN. Sadaam had jack shit all to do with it. The restrictions were not only alterable by the outside world, they were placed in such a way as to have maximum detriment to the civilian populace while Sadaam sat in his aforementioned mansions. In point of fact, that exact list of things that could and couldn’t cross the border was altered, several times at that. You see, a sane, rational human being is capable of seperating the idea of punishing Sadaam and restricting the expansion of his military power from a specific piece of paper. If the specific set of banned items wasn’t a good idea, it was within the power of the UN to alter the list. And if it was killing people without sufficient offsetting cause, it was morally required to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/43 "2004-02-08T05:12:59Z")
> [@Gomez](#): > > The bottom line is that we put the civilians of Iraq in harms way by invading. The Iraqi people, 40% of whom are under the age of 14, were unable to make their conformed consent to take the risk of being put in harms way. I think that for the Iraqi dead, the Iraqi’s maimed, widowed and orphaned by our bombs the solution was worse than the problem and we didn’t have the right to make that decision for them. Wah? 😕 So we should have waited until the Iraqi population was of voting age, and then let them vote for an invasion? Was there a referendum process or something that we would have had to apply for? And do you have any reason to believe that such a referendum would fail? Of course we had the right to make the decision. The reason that we had that right is because the Iraqi people didn’t have the ability to make the decision for themselves, and their inability to get rid of him affected us (although the amount that Hussein affected us is certainly debatable). It’s the same reason that the State can take away the children of an abusive parent: it’s for the good of the children, for the good of the state, and for the good of society as a whole. > [@Gomez](#): > > At the moment the Iraqi’s have very little by way of electricity or clean water. Vast swathes of the land are littered with unexploded cluster bombs. Inflation has seen the price of food skyrocket by about 700% (and no I _don’t_ have a cite for that, I saw it on BBC news the other day). Insurgents are still blowing themselves up with horrific results. The stage seems to be set for lasting political conflict between the Sunni’s and Shiites and what’s more we still have absolutely no indication whatsoever that the new boss will be any better than the old boss. I doubt the accuracy of many of these claims. But even if they were true, how is this worse than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Take a look at the link to the 2001 report that I provided above. It details the numerous ways that life in Iraq sucked under Saddam Hussein: - 50% of all rural people had no access to potable water - Food may have cost 700% less (an especially dubious claim), but there wasn’t nearly enough of it. According to a UNICEF report, “32 percent of children under five, some 960,000 children [were] chronically malnourished.” - “The UN’s Department of Humanitarian Affairs report[ed] that Iraq’s public health services [were] nearing a total breakdown from a lack of basic medicines, lifesaving drugs and essential medical supplies.” - The functional capacity of the health care system has degraded further by shortages of water and power supply, lack of transportation and the collapse of the telecommunications system. - According to charges drawn up by Ramsey Clark, sanctions led to the Iraqi people being deprived of “essentials to support and protect human life. These essentials include[d] medicines and medical supplies, safe drinking water, adequate food, insecticides, fertilisers, equipment and parts required for agriculture, food processing, storage and distribution, hospital and medical clinic procedures; a multitude of common items such as light bulbs and fluorescent tubes; equipment and parts for the generation and distribution of electricity, telephone and other communications, public transportation and other essential human services.” - “Insurgents” may have not been blowing people up (as far as I know), but Saddam Hussein was [killing thousands](http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/009311.html). And the overall rates of violent crimes now appear to be in line with [many American cities](http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/14687.htm) (I’ll leave it up to you whether that’s good enough). - And in case you didn’t know, the conflict between the Sunnis and Shias pre-dates even Hussein’s regime. > [@Gomez](#): > > What we have done in Iraq is instigate the worlds first ever mass mercy killing, without the consent of the people we killed and at the moment we have absolutely no idea whether or not it did any good. I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. “The world’s first ever mercy killing?” Has there really never been a mercy killing? Even if you characterize the collateral damage from a humanitarian intervention as “mercy killing” (and I don’t see how that makes any sense), surely you don’t think this is the first time that’s happened in the history of the world, do you? And again, how do you suggest that we go about getting the “consent of the people we killed”? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/44 "2004-02-08T05:53:25Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > I don’t think you looked very hard. You’ve cited to a preliminary judgment (on jurisdiction and other minor issues) issued by the International Court of Justice, _an organization that the US does not recognize as legitimate_. Are you suggesting that the US couldn’t have cared about genocide because they didn’t bring Hussein up on charges before an organization that they refuse to participate in? > [@Demostylus](#): > > I take your point. I guess that’d explain why Milosovic is still running Serbia, instead of being on trial for Genocide. Oh, wait a minute… I take your point. Because I had forgotten that Milosevic [straightened up right after he heard that the ICJ had issued a ruling on jurisdiction](http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm), and that the reason he’s no longer running Serbia is because the ICJ issued a ruling, and not because he was [booted out of power](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/960747.stm). Oh, wait a minute . . . . ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/45 "2004-02-08T06:02:55Z")
> [@Gomez](#): > > Besides, how on earth do you figure that opposing the sanctions is incompatible with an anti war stance? I don’t. I was responding to **elucidator** ’s charge that Bush & Co. had obviously figured that some number of civilian casualties was fine. I was pointing out that the anti-war crowd made the same determination. > [@Gomez](#): > > The sanctions should have been done away with years ago I agree. > [@Gomez](#): > > reiterating how much damage they’ve done doesn’t magically transform the spectre of their continued existence into an argument for pre-emptive war. But it does respond to your charge that Iraqis could have more worries now than with Hussein in charge. > [@Gomez](#): > > This isn’t Beetlejuice, arguments and things don’t just magically change if you repeat them. Did that happen in Beetlejuice? I can’t remember that scene. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/46 "2004-02-08T06:36:20Z")
> [@me](#): > > Are you seriously suggesting that he had nothing to do with them? Or with mutliplying the number of deaths that resulted from them? > [@laigle](#): > > No, and that’s one of the most pathetic strawmen I’ve ever seen. Congrats. Oh, I’m sorry. Was it someone else that said “I’m sorry, but are we seriously suggesting Sadaam is to blame for the results of UN sanctions?” So I guess you actually meant that Hussein was to blame for the results of UN sanctions? > [@laigle](#): > > Although that one takes the cake. It was meant to be fascetious, Cruella. > [@laigle](#): > > You see, the terms of the sanctions were dictated by the UN, largely at the urging of the US. We were not powerless to change them. If people were starving, it was a simple matter to simply LET MORE FUCKING FOOD IN, now wasn’t it? When cholera outbreaks were killing thousands, we could have, oh, for instance, LET FUCKING MEDICINE IN. Sadaam had jack shit all to do with it. But wait! Didn’t you just accuse me of constructing a strawman for insinuating that you’d said that Saddam had nothing to do with the effects of sanctions? And here you say exactly what I suggested you’d said? . . . So I guess it wasn’t a strawman, after all? But naturally, you have no point. Once again, I’d encourage you to read the 2001 report I linked below: > [@](#): > > Of course the role of the Iraqi government in exacerbating the devastating impact of sanctions cannot be denied. As the London-based Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) reports: > > “[The government’s] problems were greatly exacerbated by imposition of economic sanctions in 1990, but the Iraqi government has continued to manage - or mismanage-economic and fiscal policy, deploying increasingly scarce resources to its own advantage and that of favoured groups. The government took some steps to provide a safety net in the form of basic rations, often meagre and of low protein content, but nonetheless preventing mass starvation. It has evidently used this system politically as a means to increase the dependence of the population and as a form of control.” And since you seem to have forgotten, advancing coalition troops in Iraq found storehouses of rotting food and medicine from the UN’s “Oil for Food” Program. The UN had lifted sanctions sufficiently to let more medicine and food get in, and Hussein and his henchmen had foisted the medicine and food for themselves. They had grabbed so much, in fact, that the unused portions were literally spoiling, while Iraqis were starving and dying from lack of basic medical supplies. So what makes you think that if we’d sent more food and medicine, it would have made it to the people that needed it, when the stuff we were already sending them wasn’t being allowed to get off the docks or out of the warehouses? > [@laigle](#): > > The restrictions were not only alterable by the outside world, they were placed in such a way as to have maximum detriment to the civilian populace while Sadaam sat in his aforementioned mansions. **All** sanctions effect the civilian population more than they effect the government being sanctioned. It’s one of the reasons that I almost always oppose sanctions. Do you really think there were _any_ sanctions that we could have levied that would have effected only Hussein and his government, but not the Iraqi populace? > [@laigle](#): > > If the specific set of banned items wasn’t a good idea, it was within the power of the UN to alter the list. And if it was killing people without sufficient offsetting cause, it was morally required to do so. And we’re back to my original point: if it was killing _more_ people for us to not invade Iraq and we had no sufficient offsetting cause, then were we morally obligated to invade? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/47 "2004-02-08T06:49:34Z")
Crap. I just realized that by appending the word “Cruella” to the end of one of my (exhorbinantly long) messages, I may have violated the board’s policy on personal insults in GD. I meant it only in jest. If I caused offense to you, **laigle** , I apologize. I am also reporting my post to the Mods so they can take whatever action is appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/48 "2004-02-08T07:03:09Z")
Because the Iraqi people were suffering so terribly due to sanctions, sanctions for which the USA is largely responsible, it became necessary for the USA to invade and occupy Iraq in order to relieve the suffering created by sanctions. Perhaps we have failed to get the message out. We listen closely for the glad hymns of praise and adoration. Or it may be just another example of churlish ingratitude for America’s noble sacrifice. Why, even to this day, the citizens of Nicaragua and Guatemala have been very subdued in their expressions of gratitude for our long campaign to protect them from the dread evil of socialism. And when have we gotten a nice Christmas card from Grenada? I guess some people are just like that, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/49 "2004-02-08T08:58:28Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > You’ve cited to a preliminary judgment (on jurisdiction and other minor issues) issued by the International Court of Justice, You asked for a cite, remember? > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I didn’t know the convention had been invoked on Bosnia. And after looking at the link you provided for **xstime** , and doing some research on my own, I still couldn’t find anywhere that the UN invoked any articles on genocide with regard to Bosnia. I’d appreciate a cite. The cite I provided establishes the factual matter, that the UN _Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide_ had been invoked with regard to Bosnia. Any subsequent piffle you posted, even if it was true, would not negate that fact. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > _an organization that the US does not recognize as legitimate_. You just made that up. The US does not recognize that the ICJ has compulsory jurisdiction _over the US_, which is an entirely different matter. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Are you suggesting that the US couldn’t have cared about genocide because they didn’t bring Hussein up on charges before an organization that they refuse to participate in? There’s two things wrong with that: a) The ICJ is not the only forum available. The Security Council is also available to the US, if for some reason (e.g. to avoid accusations of hypocrisy) it didn’t want to use the ICJ. b) Your claim that the US refuses to participate in the ICJ is simply untrue, i.e., you made it up. The US participates in the election of judges and provides judges to the court, e.g. [Thomas Buergenthal](http://homepages.uc.edu/thro/gvus/ICJDecision.htm). The US participates in cases, such as _Germany v US_ which is mentioned in the Buergenthal link. The US provides evidence to the court, e.g. [General Wesley Clark’s testimony](http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2003/p802-e.htm): > [@](#): > > The US Government has agreed to allow General Clark to testify in the Milosevic trial pursuant to Rule 70 of the RPE and as such, it is entitled to seek certain protective measures with respect to his testimony. These protective measures were requested through the Office of the Prosecutor. > > The Trial Chamber is bound by an Appeals Chamber Decision (Prosecutor v. Milosevic, “Decision on the Interpretation and Application of Rule 70” of 23 October, 2002) which grants the information provider (US Government) a right to impose certain conditions upon the testimony of a witness provided by it under Rule 70 of the RPE. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I take your point. Because I had forgotten that Milosevic [straightened up right after he heard that the ICJ had issued a ruling on jurisdiction](http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm) I fail to see the significance of your bringing up the ICTY. Yes, the ICTY is distinct from the ICJ. It was established by Security Council Resuloution 827 on 25 May 1993. It was set up specifically to prosecute instances in Yugoslavia of: - Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. - Violations of the laws or customs of war. - Genocide. - Crimes against humanity. What was your initial point again? Oh yes, this: > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > So why hasn’t this magical convention been invoked in other parts of the world to avoid war? Say, Bosnia, for example? No amount of weasling or flat-out lying on your part is going to change the simple fact that the convention _was_ invoked, on multiple occassions and in multiple fora. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > and that the reason he’s no longer running Serbia is because the ICJ issued a ruling, and not because he was [booted out of power](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/960747.stm). Oh, wait a minute . . . . He’s _on trial for Genocide_. That’s the practical upshot of the Genocide Convention being invoked. Do you deny that he’s currently on trial? Do you deny that he’s currently in UN custody? Or are you trying to claim that he _hasn’t_ been charged with genocide, on the basis of the indictment you cited? That indictment is only one of many, including this one: > [@](#): > > [THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA > Case No. IT-01-51-I](http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii011122e.htm) > > The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, pursuant to her authority under Article 18 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“the Statute of the Tribunal”), charges: > > SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC > > with GENOCIDE, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, GRAVE BREACHES OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS and VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR as set forth below: On the “still running Serbia” thing, you must be unaware that Milosevic is still head of the Socialist Party, which currently holds the balance of power, and which is likely to soon form a coalition government. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/50 "2004-02-08T14:19:45Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > You asked for a cite, remember? And thank you for that cite. You’ve helped dispel at least one portion of my ignorance. I wasn’t aware of the extent of US involvement in the civil portion of the ICJ. Again, thank you for dispelling my ignorance on those points. And you make a fair point about the US disputing the ICJ’s jurisdiction over its own citizens, but not over citizens of other countries. But I appear to have been unclear on a few points: 1. Even if the US accepts ICJ jurisdiction on civil matters (I have a sneaking suspicion the US will accept jurisdiction only on matters that it doesn’t find too offensive to its interests, as will every other State), they still won’t submit to its jurisdiction on criminal matters. Merely allowing individuals to participate in criminal trials before the ICJ does not make US policy any more than allowing individuals to be participate in the Flat Earth Society. And it would be hypocritical (and arguably illegitimate) if they refused to recognize the ICJ’s legitimacy over themselves, but at the same time used it when it benefitted them. 2. I know there are numerous forums that could try Hussein for war crimes. One of those forums are the Courts of Iraq. Current plans are to try Hussein in those Courts. So why isn’t Hussein’s eventual trial sufficient to show that the US was concerned about genocide in Iraq? 3. The US’s failure to invoke the UN charter on genocide does not mean that the US does not care about genocide. Did every other country invoke the charter? Does your standard apply to other countries? > [@Demostylus](#): > > No amount of weasling or flat-out lying on your part is going to change the simple fact that the convention _was_ invoked, on multiple occassions and in multiple fora.He’s _on trial for Genocide_. That’s the practical upshot of the Genocide Convention being invoked. Do you deny that he’s currently on trial? Do you deny that he’s currently in UN custody? Or are you trying to claim that he _hasn’t_ been charged with genocide, on the basis of the indictment you cited? That indictment is only one of many I was wrong about whether the UN convention had been invoked. But I was right that the indictment was not the reason he stopped committing genocide. His indictment for genocide was merely a procedural prerequisite to trying him for genocide. It could have been done at any time, and it had no effect on his actions or on his eventual trial for genocide. What stopped him from continuing to commit genocide were the actions of the UN and NATO peacekeepers keeping his troops at bay, the peace agreement brokered by US and (presumably) UN representatives, and the continued presence of NATO and UN troops that threatened the use of force if he didn’t shape up. Same thing with Saddam Hussein. Merely invoking the UN charter would not have done anything until he was deposed and arrested. > [@Demostylus](#): > > On the “still running Serbia” thing, you must be unaware that Milosevic is still head of the Socialist Party, which currently holds the balance of power, and which is likely to soon form a coalition government. I’m certainly not informed enough to handicap the future of government in the Balkans, but who’s this Vojislav Kostunica guy? Is he not currently the head of state? And what makes you think that Milosevic is still running the Serbian government? ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/51 "2004-02-08T19:20:34Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Check these links: > [Iraq Body Count](http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) > > Iraq Body Count seems the best and most balanced… Well, it counts Qusay Hussein’s son among the innocent civilian dead, despite the fact that all accounts have him firing an AK-47 from under a bed. Furthermore, it counts Iraqi civilians killed by the loyalists, which doesn’t help when one is counting those killed by the US or occupation forces. ---
**Author:** ![Uncivil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ccd318/32.png) [@Uncivil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncivil)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/52 "2004-02-08T19:54:49Z")
> [@Daoloth](#): > > Well, it counts Qusay Hussein’s son among the innocent civilian dead, despite the fact that all accounts have him firing an AK-47 from under a bed. Furthermore, it counts Iraqi civilians killed by the loyalists, which doesn’t help when one is counting those killed by the US or occupation forces. To be fair, the site does say “deaths resulting from the military action in Iraq”, not “civilian casualties”. The trouble with sites like that is they have a clear political bias, so its difficult to trust them completely. Scrolling through their database, I can see several places where they could easily be counting the same deaths more than once. Even allowing for that, its still a substantial body count. And it says nothing about the Iraqi military casualties (largely conscripts), and doesn’t make any attempt to estimate casulties for unreported areas. Their [methodology](http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods) does appear to be fairly sound. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/53 "2004-02-09T12:34:23Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > And thank you for that cite. You’ve helped dispel at least one portion of my ignorance. I wasn’t aware of the extent of US involvement in the civil portion of the ICJ. Again, thank you for dispelling my ignorance on those points. And you make a fair point about the US disputing the ICJ’s jurisdiction over its own citizens, but not over citizens of other countries. > > \ > > I was wrong about whether the UN convention had been invoked. Hopefully, having dealt with the purely factual matters regarding Bosnia, we can return to Iraq, which is the topic of this thread and which is covered in the rest of your post: > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 1. I know there are numerous forums that could try Hussein for war crimes. One of those forums are the Courts of Iraq. Current plans are to try Hussein in those Courts. So why isn’t Hussein’s eventual trial sufficient to show that the US was concerned about genocide in Iraq? > > 2. The US’s failure to invoke the UN charter on genocide does not mean that the US does not care about genocide. Did every other country invoke the charter? Does your standard apply to other countries?I was wrong about whether the UN convention had been invoked. > > But I was right that the indictment was not the reason he stopped committing genocide. His indictment for genocide was merely a procedural prerequisite to trying him for genocide. It could have been done at any time, and it had no effect on his actions or on his eventual trial for genocide. > > What stopped him from continuing to commit genocide were the actions of the UN and NATO peacekeepers keeping his troops at bay, the peace agreement brokered by US and (presumably) UN representatives, and the continued presence of NATO and UN troops that threatened the use of force if he didn’t shape up. > > Same thing with Saddam Hussein. Merely invoking the UN charter would not have done anything until he was deposed and arrested. You make a couple of points above. Firstly, the technically correct and quite obvious point that an indictment or a resolution is only a step in a process, and not the entire process. You’d have won the argument with that point alone, if anyone apart from you had ever claimed that “all we had to do was invoke the UN convention on genocide, and the genocide would magically go away”. Secondly, the point that US is concerned with genocide _now_, so it’s irrelevant that the US didn’t show concern with genocide _before_. That’s the bit that I have trouble with. The US couldn’t get support for a resolution on WMDs, and went ahead anyway. Turns out there were no WMDs. So the justification becomes genocide. Which the US hadn’t raised previously with respect to Iraq. Why wasn’t it raised previously? Surely, if the US had some evidence of genocide, it could easily have raised it in the Security Council, and bolstered its case for UN intervention. You may think that such things are easily dismissed as matters of procedural nicety. Others do not, and suspect that the sudden US concern over genocide is as fabricated as its earlier concern over Iraq’s WMDs. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/54 "2004-02-09T23:24:18Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > Secondly, the point that US is concerned with genocide now, so it’s irrelevant that the US didn’t show concern with genocide before. > . . . > So the justification becomes genocide. Which the US hadn’t raised previously with respect to Iraq. Why wasn’t it raised previously? Surely, if the US had some evidence of genocide, it could easily have raised it in the Security Council, and bolstered its case for UN intervention. I thought the subject _was_ raised. From [Bush’s speech to the UN General Assembly](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html): > [@George Dubya Bush](#): > > In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities – which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. > > Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime’s repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents – and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. [Resolution 688](http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm) uses the word “repression,” which is likely something less than genocide. But it certainly shows that “the US really gave a rat’s ass about preventing the deaths of Iraqis under Saddam.” > [@Demostylus](#): > > Firstly, the technically correct and quite obvious point that an indictment or a resolution is only a step in a process, and not the entire process. You’d have won the argument with that point alone, if anyone apart from you had ever claimed that “all we had to do was invoke the UN convention on genocide, and the genocide would magically go away”. My point wasn’t that invoking the UN conventions on genocide was only a step in the process. My point was that invoking the UN conventions on genocide _has little or no effect on actually stopping the genocide_. Invoking the charter doesn’t remove the genocidal maniac from power, and it doesn’t make it impossible (or even unlikely) that he will continue to commit genocide. It just makes it possible to prosecute him for that genocide after he’s been removed from power by other means. And you disputed that notion here: > [@Demostylus](#): > > > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > > > Invoking the charter would have had no more effect than writing the word “genocide” on a peice of paper and then crossing it out with a big, red “X.” Which is to say that it would have had no effect at all, except as a waste of time, effort, and ink. > > I take your point. I guess that’d explain why Milosovic is still running Serbia, instead of being on trial for Genocide. Oh, wait a minute… The fact that the charter was invoked doesn’t explain why Milosevic is no longer running Serbia. The fact that the charter was invoked doesn’t explain why Milosevic stopped committing genocide. The fact that the charter was invoked only explains the charges against Milosevic now that he’s been removed from power. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/55 "2004-02-10T08:39:39Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > My point wasn’t that invoking the UN conventions on genocide was only a step in the process. My point was that invoking the UN conventions on genocide has little or no effect on actually stopping the genocide. Invoking the charter doesn’t remove the genocidal maniac from power, and it doesn’t make it impossible (or even unlikely) that he will continue to commit genocide. It just makes it possible to prosecute him for that genocide after he’s been removed from power by other means. I’m beginning to get the impression that you haven’t even the _vaguest_ idea of what you’re talking about. It’s been obvious from the start that you didn’t know much about the convention, but now it’s become clear that you can’t even read or understand what its title plainly says: “[Convention on the **Prevention** and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm)”. Allow me to quote some of it. > [@](#): > > **Article 1** > > The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. > > **Article 8** > > Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III. Comprende? If you want the UN to act to stop genocide, or if you want to stop the genocide yourself (yourself being a party to the convention), _this is the instrument that you use_. That’s not to suggest that there aren’t other ways of doing it, of course. You could, for example, make a diplomatic approach, and it might work. Probably wouldn’t, but the existence of the convention doesn’t prevent you from trying. Or you could, say, make up a bunch of bullshit about weapons of mass destruction, invade, have everyone learn that you lied about the weapons of mass destruction, then point to some vague unproven statements about totalitarianism, and claim that your _real_ intention was to prevent genocide. There could be some credibility problems with that. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/56 "2004-02-10T18:30:17Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > It’s been obvious from the start that you didn’t know much about the convention, but now it’s become clear that you can’t even read or understand what its title plainly says: “[Convention on the **Prevention** and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide](http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm)”. Oh, well, if the _title_ says its on the prevention of genocide, then invoking it _must_ prevent genocide, right? And I suppose invoking the Patriot Act makes you a patriot. Except _it doesn’t_. You can invoke the UN charter on the prevention of genocide 'til the cows come home, but until you take some action to prevent genocide – through diplomacy or the military or humanitarian aid – then you’re not going to stop genocide. > [@Demostylus](#): > > Comprende? If you want the UN to act to stop genocide, or if you want to stop the genocide yourself (yourself being a party to the convention), _this is the instrument that you use_. Ahhh, now I see. So if we had invoked the UN charter on the prevention of genocide, would Saddam Hussein have stopped committing genocide? Would invoking the UN charter have unified the world behind an arsenal against Hussein? Would France and Germany’s opposition to military action folded before the mighty power of the UN convention on the prevention of genocide? Would _you_ have supported military action in Iraq if Bush had invoked the UN convention on genocide? For some reason, I suspect the answer to those questions is “No.” And I’m still waiting for you to explain why the US couldn’t have cared about genocide unless they invoked the UN charter on genocide. I just pointed out that Bush spoke to the UN about repression and human rights abuses before the war. So clearly your argument that it was made up after the fact has been proven false. Are you planning to sprout another leg to stand on? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/57 "2004-02-11T06:58:54Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Ahhh, now I see. So if we had invoked the UN charter on the prevention of genocide, would Saddam Hussein have stopped committing genocide? Would invoking the UN charter have unified the world behind an arsenal against Hussein? Would France and Germany’s opposition to military action folded before the mighty power of the UN convention on the prevention of genocide? Would _you_ have supported military action in Iraq if Bush had invoked the UN convention on genocide? This is just about the most stupid argument I’ve ever come across. You see, invoking the spectre of weapons of mass destruction didn’t achieve any of those things either, now did it? People wanted proof before jumping on the Bush machine. If Bush _had_ invoked the convention on genocide, people still would’ve wanted proof, and if Bush had any, he could’ve shown it. If the proof was convincing, and the extent of the problem serious enough, it’s entirely conceivable that UN backed military action could have resulted. But Bush would’ve had to prove the claim beforehand. If he’d at least formally made the claim, argued his case and had it rejected, he might be on morally firmer ground now. Note that all the crap Bush said about “gassing the Kurds” and “mass graves” does _not_ prove an on-going progam of genocide which requires urgent intervention. It indicates things that happened over a decade ago which the US did nothing to prevent at the time. You haven’t proved an on-going program of genocide either, you simply made the claim that any deaths caused by the sanctions, which the US wouldn’t allow to be lifted, were entirely Saddam’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/58 "2004-02-11T07:05:18Z")
BTW, it probably wouldn’t have taken the UN very long to reach a decision. Bush: There’s a program of genocide in Iraq. We must take action to save the Iraqi people from Saddam. UN: Very well, what do you propose as a solution? Bush: Cluster bomb them, and start a civil war. Who’s with me? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/59 "2004-02-11T18:04:38Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > Bush: Cluster bomb them, and start a civil war. Who’s with me? Wow! That made me laugh! I"m envisioning Bush _a la_ Bluto in “Animal House:” “Who’s with me?!?” [Bounds off assembly floor and out of UN meeting hall. No one follows.] There may not have been ongoing genocide when the coalition troops invaded Iraq, but there were ongoing human rights abuses. Maybe that’s why Bush talked about the human rights abuses in his UN address, his state of the union, and in his speech to the nation on the eve of war. Maybe that’s why he didn’t invoke the UN convention on genocide. But either way, you’ve clearly demonstrated that you would have criticized him no matter what he did with the UN convention on genocide. Thanks again for the info on the US’s role in the ICJ. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794/60 "2004-02-11T18:15:49Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > you simply made the claim that any deaths caused by the sanctions, which the US wouldn’t allow to be lifted, were entirely Saddam’s fault. I also want to point out that I never said this. In fact, I acknowledged that all sanctions have the effect of harming the common populace more than their governments, and that I almost always oppose sanctions for that reason. This type of clear misrepresentation is a bit surprising from someone that seemed to take so much offense to my mistake on the US’s role in the ICJ. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/almost-10-000-civilian-deaths-in-iraq/227794.md?page=2)