Could President Bush get away with Iraqi genocide?

Great Debates
21

So isn’t it appropriate to ask questions of you in return - like what you imagine Bush has to gain from all this?

Or perhaps you could clarify how it is essentially the same thing if Bush takes military action against Iraq, with the express consent of Congress, and if he decides to kill all the Iraqis in secret?

Actually, these kinds of questions are useful as well as entertaining. You can tell who the lunatics are.

In cases where it wasn’t already clear, that is.*

Regards,
Shodan

*Not aimed at any Doper in particular, of course.

22

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
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.
[/quote]
I find it hard to discern an non-rhetorical question in your post other than the one I responded to.

As far as your statements, including the one about Bush could become another Stalin or Pol Pot (though it is not likely), I’m afraid I cannot think of a worthwhile comment on that matter. I suppose your thought will have to stand on its own merits.

23

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]
But apparently your moral outrage is not sufficient to force you to give up the good life you enjoy here. A cynic might suggest that you get some kind of charge out of waving your arms and shouting about how disgusted you are over AmeriKKKa’s utter depravity.

24

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Ohh brother. As often as I read your writing for it’s sheer entertainment value, sometimes your hatred of all that is Bush and all that is America still boggles my mind.

So what is stopping Bush from nuking 27 million people then, if the blood thirsty military is just chomping at the bit to kill millions?

25

…

26

Kind of a silly premise, and I have to agree with Shodan: we could. The US Military could de-populate the world. Technically / technologically.

The question is why? What would BushCo possibly gain by doing so? He wants a legacy, not to be burned in infamy, and even if Bush’s as stupid as some seem to believe, he can’t be that stupid.

And finally, you don’t think there might be levels in the chain of command that might stop him from doing so? Anyone who thinks that your average Major General is nothing but a uniform-wearing yes-man is obviously not sharing the crack pipe. There is only 1 level of the chain of command that can say ‘go’. There are multiple levels of the chain of command which can say ‘no’, even down to the privates in the field. Whatever Der Trihs believes in his basement to the contrary, the US Military is made up of private citizens who have agreed to serve in the military, not brain-dead thugs who would never question orders.

27

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
And finally, you don’t think there might be levels in the chain of command that might stop him from doing so? Anyone who thinks that your average Major General is nothing but a uniform-wearing yes-man is obviously not sharing the crack pipe. There is only 1 level of the chain of command that can say ‘go’. There are multiple levels of the chain of command which can say ‘no’, even down to the privates in the field. Whatever Der Trihs believes in his basement to the contrary, the US Military is made up of private citizens who have agreed to serve in the military, not brain-dead thugs who would never question orders.
[/QUOTE]

While I am quite certain the likelihood of Iraqi genocide is probably less than the likelihood of me winning the lottery, I think you’re living in a bit of a fantasyworld if you think any military organization couldn’t be convinced to engage in a little civilian-massacring. It may comfort you to imagine U.S. soldiers are, uniquely in the entire history of military affairs, the one large army where its component members would all, or even mostly, refuse to carry out order to kill civilians. I hope that idea lets you sleep at night. It’s ridiculous, though.

American soldiers have been ordered on many occasions in the past to slaughter civilians. In virtually all cases they said “Yes, sir!” and got right on with the killing. This is true, as near as I can tell, of pretty much every nation’s armies, nut just the USA’s. What makes you think things are different now?

28

[QUOTE=RickJay]
While I am quite certain the likelihood of Iraqi genocide is probably less than the likelihood of me winning the lottery, I think you’re living in a bit of a fantasyworld if you think any military organization couldn’t be convinced to engage in a little civilian-massacring. It may comfort you to imagine U.S. soldiers are, uniquely in the entire history of military affairs, the one large army where its component members would all, or even mostly, refuse to carry out order to kill civilians. I hope that idea lets you sleep at night. It’s ridiculous, though.

American soldiers have been ordered on many occasions in the past to slaughter civilians. In virtually all cases they said “Yes, sir!” and got right on with the killing. This is true, as near as I can tell, of pretty much every nation’s armies, nut just the USA’s. What makes you think things are different now?
[/QUOTE]

First, define ‘many’. There’s a vast difference between a small unit going out of control, as in Haditha or My Lai, and genocide. Haditha, My Lai, and the few other incidents of that kind were the result of units going out of control outside of the chain of command; as soon as higher command learned of the incidents, bad things happened to the perpetrators.

Clearly you’re misinformed as to what genocide actually is. I’d suggest you read this:
Genocide

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and/or] Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
[/QUOTE]

People toss around Genocide like it’s simple murder or even a protracted battle (like Haditha); it’s way more than that. Using the above definition, I’d challenge you to provide evidence, from any reputable source, of the US Military embarking on anything close to genocide.

The difference between the current US Military and every other military in history, and why I believe the current US Military could not commit genocide, is quite simple.

  1. Every single member of it, from General to Private, volunteered to be there
  2. The ultimate command of the military rests in civilian hands (and I’m not just talking about Bush and Co; Guard Units are commanded by State Governors, not the President)
  3. The US Military members today have access to too much free information and free communications. Every incident in the recent past (Haditha, Abu Ghraib) were discovered as a result of free communication with the soldiers involved. You can’t cover it up long enough to get it done, in other words - all it took is one leak of the Abu Ghraib photos, and the US citizens were outraged. Do you honestly think it would be less so for mass genocide, rather than torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib?

For those reasons, and those reasons alone, I cannot ever see the US military commiting genocide on such a massive scale as proposed by the OP.

29

[QUOTE=spifflog]
So what is stopping Bush from nuking 27 million people then, if the blood thirsty military is just chomping at the bit to kill millions?
[/QUOTE]
Because he hasn’t decided to.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
And finally, you don’t think there might be levels in the chain of command that might stop him from doing so? Anyone who thinks that your average Major General is nothing but a uniform-wearing yes-man is obviously not sharing the crack pipe.
[/QUOTE]
They are now. Bush has been tossing out anyone who isn’t a yes man since he got into office.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
. You can’t cover it up long enough to get it done, in other words - all it took is one leak of the Abu Ghraib photos, and the US citizens were outraged. Do you honestly think it would be less so for mass genocide, rather than torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib?
[/quote]
What outrage ? I saw little outrage. The American people were more unhappy that it became public, not that it happened. And it hasn’t stopped our abuses at all; I doubt any minor “outrage” over a genocide would stop the killing.

30

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because he hasn’t decided to.

They are now. Bush has been tossing out anyone who isn’t a yes man since he got into office.
[/QUOTE]

… and he has a special whetstone he sharpens his horns with …

31

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
… and he has a special whetstone he sharpens his horns with …
[/QUOTE]
Bush, unlike the Devil, is real. And has an actual body count to his name.

32

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Bush, unlike the Devil, is real. And has an actual body count to his name.
[/QUOTE]
He is not, however, the living embodiment of pure evil and doesn’t belong in the same moral category as Hitler or Stalin, or even a relative pipsqueak like Castro. I don’t much like Bush. He’s a mediocrity with a job that’s much too big for him. But when you and others talk about him as though he were a comic book supervillain, you make fools of yourselves.

33

[QUOTE=Shodan]
So isn’t it appropriate to ask questions of you in return - like what you imagine Bush has to gain from all this?
[/quote]

Bush would not gain anything, but it’s tough to see why you think that’s relevant. Bush had nothing to gain by murdering the first million Iraqi civilians–he had a great deal to lose, in fact–and yet he still did so. Consequently the argument that Bush won’t kill millions more because he has nothing to gain is not very comforting.

I think the warmongers should be explaining that to us. They’re the ones who invariably approve whenever Bush takes action in secret, so they apparently see no difference between a president acting in secret vs. with the consent of Congress.

(Anyway, if you ask an Iraqi–one of the ones who’s still alive, that is–I doubt they’d care very much whether Congress approved of the mass murder of their countrymen or not.)

I’m afraid that I don’t agree with this argument, mainly because your memory of the reaction to Abu Ghraib is very different than mine. I remember some American citizens being outraged by the fact that their country had tortured many innocent people to death in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, but some others were indifferent and others were ecstatic, while others refused to believe that it had happened despite the extensive proof. If you don’t believe me, merely search for threads from around that time on this very board. In any case, while a small number of the perpetrators received mild punishments, the people who made the decision to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” obviously won’t ever be punished. (I refer, of course, to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield.) Lastly, the Bush administration continued torturing and murdering innocent people after the events at Abu Ghraib were exposed, so I don’t really see that as a success story for ending human rights abuse.

34

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
First, define ‘many’. There’s a vast difference between a small unit going out of control, as in Haditha or My Lai, and genocide. Haditha, My Lai, and the few other incidents of that kind were the result of units going out of control outside of the chain of command; as soon as higher command learned of the incidents, bad things happened to the perpetrators.
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m talking about deliberate, ordered killings of civilians. The Phillipines, the Indian Wars, area bombing in WWII, area bombing in Cambodia. It’s not quite as unusual as you’d like to believe.

I’m not saying all those are specifically instances of genocide - the campaigns against the Indians were, anyway - but it’s sure easy to get soldiers to kill civilians.

35

Hasn’t Bush done enough terrible things to try him for, without having to invent bullshit like this to pin on him? Why don’t we focus on crimes he actually HAS committed instead of getting all worked up and upset over things that have not and will not happen. Iraqi genocide by American forces is a stupid, supid fantasy that only the most intense, rabid liberals want to see, because it would make them feel vindicated in their opinion.

NOBODY wants all the Iraqis dead, guys! Not even mister evil himself! Even if he DID, what can he do about it? Not a goddamned thing! This “debate” is a giant circle jerk, and all you nutcases are just masturbating each oher over the thought of just how wicked you can imagine someone to be. Just stop already!

36

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Bush would not gain anything, but it’s tough to see why you think that’s relevant.
[/quote]
Well, most people in my experience don’t do things for no reason at all.

So you don’t believe that there is any explanation for the invasion of Iraq. It just happened completely at random. No one said, for instance, anything about the case for WMD in Iraq being a slam dunk, or anything like that. Nobody ever had the slightest notion that Iraq might be dangerous, or had violated any ceasefire agreements, or anything at all of that nature.

Bush just arbitrarily woke up one morning and decided to invade.

Maybe it was space alien rays from the planet Zork that made him do it. Hard to argue against that notion as well.

Regards,
Shodan

37

There are two sides on this argument. Either Bush invaded to gain control of the vast oil resources in Iraq, or Bush invaded because there is a legitimate threat to the United States from Iraq. In both cases, depopulating the country of Iraq and converting it to a Western style democracy overnight (by replacing the troublemaking native citizens with actual Westerners from an actual democracy) would allow Bush to hang a “Mission Accomplished” sign out for this adventure. I think Bush would consider that a “gain”.

38

[QUOTE=The Controvert]
In both cases, depopulating the country of Iraq and converting it to a Western style democracy overnight (by replacing the troublemaking native citizens with actual Westerners from an actual democracy) would allow Bush to hang a “Mission Accomplished” sign out for this adventure.
[/QUOTE]
It’s hard to imagine that anyone, no matter how deranged, seriously believes the POTUS could find millions of Westerners willing to resettle in Iraq. Hell, you’d probably find more enthusiasm for colonizing the moon. Or perhaps you thought he was going to herd them there at gunpoint?

39

[QUOTE=mosier]
This “debate” is a giant circle jerk, and all you nutcases are just masturbating each oher over the thought of just how wicked you can imagine someone to be.
[/QUOTE]
This is not the appropriate language to express this opinion in Great Debates. Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]

40

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
It’s hard to imagine that anyone, no matter how deranged, seriously believes the POTUS could find millions of Westerners willing to resettle in Iraq. Hell, you’d probably find more enthusiasm for colonizing the moon.
[/QUOTE]
“No matter how deranged” ? You grossly underestimate how deranged people can get then. Such people exist; I have heard people say that we should nuke the whole Middle East and resettle it, apparently seriously.