Could President Bush get away with Iraqi genocide?

Great Debates
1

Supposing Bush gets it into his head that the easiest solution to his pesky Iraq problems is to get rid of all the Iraqis. Since his administration has been the Teflon Don of administrations, could Bushco trump something up to wipe all the Iraqis off the land of Iraq and get the American public to actually swallow it?

Maybe genocide is not the right word… so how about this scenario? The American government claims that Al Qaeda has hidden many nuclear bombs in Baghdad and other cities. For the safety of Iraqi citizens, an evacuation has been ordered. Since the Iraqis don’t seem to be taking the threat seriously and/or they’re not moving quickly enough, a nuke is detonated and blamed on Al Qaeda.

Now, you get a panicked stampede of Iraqis leaving Iraq en masse. Once they’re evicted, the borders are tightened up and nobody is permitted to return until the nukes are found and disarmed. And we all know how quickly WMDs are found in Iraq…

2

Well, it could be argued that he’s done something similair already. The way he’s doing it now he’s got with away it, I’m not sure he would under your scenario. Other countries wouldn’t stand for it, but it is pretty clear the U.S. will allow him to do whatever he wants.

3

I truly believe it depends on how it’s presented…much occurs now directed by this administration I would never have believed possible a scant 20 years ago. All Bush et al have to do is convince the public that the quelling (it obviously won’t be called genocide) is necessary to stave off another terrorist attack on the US…seems like a piece of cake to me, what with all the other crap we’ve willingly, sometimes eagerly, swallowed. Also, there’s a segment of ‘true believers’ in American society who will back anything this administration does, no matter how horrendous and reprehensible, so they don’t even have to be convinced. Then we have the bend-over democrats who don’t have the power of their convictions and ultimately acquiesce to anything Bush and his cadre of criminals wants, and then there’s the media, which has shirked its responsibility as watchdog for at least 10 years. In short, I don’t put anything past this administration, and as Wee Bairn alluded, what’s occuring there now is practically defacto genocide.

4

Sheesh! what’s with the constant lock-ups on the board lately?

Anyway, to finish my thoughts from my post above, yes, I think Americans would ultimately allow a full-blown genocide to occur without too much hullabaloo. Why not? The Iraqis are just another group of heathen brown people, and they’re not really human anyway, are they?

5

No. Stupid question. Maybe the stupidest I’ve ever seen on these boards.

On the other hand

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Anyway, to finish my thoughts from my post above, yes, I think Americans would ultimately allow a full-blown genocide to occur without too much hullabaloo.
[/quote]

This goes without saying. Given the right set of circumstances, Americans could be every bit as evil as German NAZIs were. It doesn’t have anything to do with the OP though.

6

Yeah, it is a pretty goofy question. No, I don’t think there’s a conceivable way that Bush could depopulate Iraq, or even a reason to want to.

7

I think we could get away with it. In all honesty, even though Wee Bairn says, “Other countries wouldn’t stand for it,” what does that mean? Nothing substantive has been done to stop the genocide in Darfur, and we’re not coming close to dealing with an adversary there as tough as the US military. Who’s gonna stop us? Are the Arab nations going to band together and try to wrest Iraq from our control? Is the UN going to sanction us, and all countries cut off trade with us? Highly unlikely. Until we start trying to commit genocide in a big-league country—in the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India—no one’s going to get riled up enough to actually stop us. They may make angry noises, but no one’s going to stop taking our money or fire a single shot in anger.

8

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Yeah, it is a pretty goofy question. No, I don’t think there’s a conceivable way that Bush could depopulate Iraq, or even a reason to want to.
[/QUOTE]
Uh huh, as goofy as invading a sovereign nation, toppling its government, destroying its infrastructure, displacing millions of its citizens, and being the impetus for the killing of countless thousands for reasons that turned out to be, at best, fabricated? That kind of goofy? The unilateral adjustment to the rules of habeas corpus? That kind of goofy? The illegal usurpation of powers into the executive branch, the invasion of American’s privacy, the complete politicization of the justice department and associated staffing with incompetents and loyal hacks, etc…? That kind of goofy?

9

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Uh huh, as goofy as invading a sovereign nation, toppling its government, destroying its infrastructure, displacing millions of its citizens, and being the impetus for the killing of countless thousands for reasons that turned out to be, at best, fabricated? That kind of goofy? The unilateral adjustment to the rules of habeas corpus? That kind of goofy? The illegal usurpation of powers into the executive branch, the invasion of American’s privacy, the complete politicization of the justice department and associated staffing with incompetents and loyal hacks, etc…? That kind of goofy?
[/QUOTE]

Yea, but this is a little goofier. Bush would need people in his staff to go along with the plan. I don’t think that even the most extreme neo-con delusions will allow this one.

Anyway, he doesn’t need a nuke. If the next president doesn’t do a good job of leaving Iraq I’m pretty sure that all the Sunnis are going to get slaughtered.
As long as we are not doing the actual killing, it’s OK. :rolleyes:

10

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Uh huh, as goofy as invading a sovereign nation, toppling its government, destroying its infrastructure, displacing millions of its citizens, and being the impetus for the killing of countless thousands for reasons that turned out to be, at best, fabricated? That kind of goofy? The unilateral adjustment to the rules of habeas corpus? That kind of goofy? The illegal usurpation of powers into the executive branch, the invasion of American’s privacy, the complete politicization of the justice department and associated staffing with incompetents and loyal hacks, etc…? That kind of goofy?
[/QUOTE]
Do you see no difference between “starting a dumb war in another country” goofy and Pol Pot style extermination of millions goofy?

I’m not easily offended, but I think applying the term “goofy” to genocide is appalling. Goofy as applied to a dumb question, OTOH, is apt.

11

I don’t see a problem. He got away with cancelling the 2004 elections all right, so why would this be any harder?

It’s not like anyone is paying any attention to what happens in Iraq. And the track record on conspiracies as large as this is pretty much probative of its ultimate success.

The only tricky part would be figuring out what Bush has to gain from all this.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it is even in the top ten.

Regards,
Shodan

12

[QUOTE=The Controvert]
Now, you get a panicked stampede of Iraqis leaving Iraq en masse. Once they’re evicted, the borders are tightened up and nobody is permitted to return until the nukes are found and disarmed. And we all know how quickly WMDs are found in Iraq…
[/QUOTE]

Leading to immense pressure from all the countries, including our ally SA, who suddenly find themselves swamped with Iraqi refugees. Ain’t gonna fly.

13

Sure. Just need another decent-sized attack on US civvies first.

14

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Do you see no difference between “starting a dumb war in another country” goofy and Pol Pot style extermination of millions goofy?

I’m not easily offended, but I think applying the term “goofy” to genocide is appalling. Goofy as applied to a dumb question, OTOH, is apt.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think any of this is goofy, Ravenman. In fact I think it’s all tragic. But for someone to say, and obviously believe, that the OP’s question is “pretty goofy” seems to intimate that there’s a line even the current administration won’t cross that I see no evidence of. In fact I contend the opposite is more likely.

Of course starting a, to use your term, “dumb war” doesn’t rise to the level of wonton, purposeful, mass extermination, and I made no such equivalence, contrary to your assertion. The, in my opinion, illegal acts perpetrated by this administration go much further than simply the starting of a war. It’s the continued justification of the rape of a country and a process to achieve ends the depths of which we are only now (I hope) beginning to open our eyes to.

I don’t believe it’s such a stretch that this administration could, with very little difficulty, take us from where we are now, with much more blood, death, and dishonor on our hands than when Bush started his “dumb war,” to where the justified elimination of an undesireable element is not only promoted but swathed in the rhetorical robes of patriotism. Of course this is extreme, and I don’t believe it’s inevitable, or even likely, but do you think Stalin, or Pol Pot, to use your reference, began their reigns of terror the way they ended them? Those maniacal figures, among others throughout history, reached a point of desperation, over time in their careers, to where their ultimate crimes against humanity seemed, to them, to be the right thing to do at the time to satisfy either whatever their warped interpretation of justice was, or their lust to maintain power and control.

I admit, The Controvert’s question, at first glance, seems way out there, but it definitely wasn’t dumb. Just how much damage does this administration have to cause before we realize that these people truly believe laws do not apply to them? We have fifteen months of this administration left to contend with. Are you willing to wager Bush won’t do something extremely stupid and harmful in that time? A few years ago it would have been “pretty goofy” to express the possibility of American mercenaries running roughshod over another country and picking off its citizens in broad daylight with impunity, but here we are. The Iraq experiment is not working. The neocons are becoming desperate. And as remote a possibility as Bush committing out-and-out genocide of the Iraqi people is, there’s nothing goofy about discussing it, not now, not after the unmitigated disaster this administration has been.

15

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

16

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Yeah, it is a pretty goofy question. No, I don’t think there’s a conceivable way that Bush could depopulate Iraq, or even a reason to want to.
[/QUOTE]
As for how, Bush has a military and nukes. Of course he could. As for why, there’s simple malice, there’s the desire to punish them for not falling into line with his fantasy and grovelling in gratitude, there’s the fact that most are not the same religion as him and therefore servants of Hell in the eyes of someone like him, and there’s the desire to terrify the rest of the world into submission. Although Iran is a more likely target for a nuclear strike for the latter plan.

Really, we are already killing plenty of Iraqis for no good reason. why is it “goofy” to think he’s kill more ?

[QUOTE=Mosier]
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
[/QUOTE]
The sky already fell. America is a nation of torturing, conquering mass murderers. The only question is how much more and what kind of evil and insanity we will commit, not whether we will do so.

17

Okay. Who are you and promise you won’t hurt the real Shodan?

18

I don’t think so, but if you would have told me before he was elected that he would get away with half of what he has gotten away with doing I wouldnt have thought that either.

So, I’d like to think not, but I honestly wouldnt be suprised.

19

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Are you willing to wager Bush won’t do something extremely stupid and harmful in that time?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, yes, I’m willing to wager that Bush will not start a campaign which has the express purpose of killing all Iraqis.

20

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Actually, yes, I’m willing to wager that Bush will not start a campaign which has the express purpose of killing all Iraqis.
[/QUOTE]
You answered a question I didn’t ask and didn’t answer mine, but okay, I agree Bush probably won’t commit genocide on the Iraqis, other than the incidental genocide by a thousand cuts already underway that is.

My problem with the negative reactions to the OP’s question is it seems folks STILL, inexplicably, after all this administration has gotten away with, believe it’s not just inappropriate, but somewhat idiotic to ask questions about this administration’s current actions and potential, possible future plans. We’re in this mess now partially because those who could have and should have didn’t ask enough damned questions, and still don’t.