Could President Bush get away with Iraqi genocide?

[bannerrefugee]

@LonesomePolecat

But apparently your moral outrage is not sufficient to force you to give up the good life you enjoy here.

The good life part is a joke. You are a fool.

[tomndebb]

@Tristan

Again, calling my brother a liar. Do you ever wonder why you end up in the pit so much?

You already know the absolutist views that Der Trihs holds (and expresses at every opportunity). Waving your brother’s honor in front of posters who are predisposed to condemn him based on their preconceived beliefs is pretty much a guaranteed way to invite, (perhaps even encourage), them to hurl insults in his direction.

If you’d like to take Der Trihs to the Pit, (or Red Fury, now), feel free to do so. Great Debates is not really the place to set up a lose/lose exchange. You will never change their opinions by appealing to an image that they refuse to recognize. They will always respond in ways that will insult or anger you.

[tomndebb]

@bannerrefugee

You are a fool.

And you are out of line.
Do not do this again.

[ /Moderating ]

[GomiBoy]

Ignoring Der Trihs and his pathological and unthinking hatred of all things American and Military…

@RickJay

Canadian Forces, 1989-1995. I’ll take that apology whenever you’re ready, thanks.

Done. I apologise.

I was a soldier and I’m very proud I served, and I served with a lot of fine people. I met my very best friend in the Forces. I worked with U.S. soldiers and they were fine individuals, professionals and kind, decent people. But I’m also not stupid enough to believe our own press clippings. A smart soldier knows that the Army creates a lot of myths about itself.

Yup, agreed. And me too - the Canadians I served with briefly in Alaska were top-notch and kind enough to bring loads and loads of Kokes with them

First of all, “Genocide” is not a subject of the Geneva Conventions.

Yes, actually, it is. Cite.

@Wikipedia

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. It defines genocide in legal terms, and is the culmination of years of campaigning by lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term. All participating countries are advised to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and in peacetime. The number of states that have ratified the convention is currently 137.

Secondly, I’m not discussing genocide (admittedly, the OP is) but merely the killing of civilians by soldiers, which can happen on a large scale without rising to the level of “genocide.”

Then you’re off-topic. And you’ll find I agree with your point. The US military, like any military, has done some pretty horrible things to other people. We’ve bombed, we’ve killed, we’ve targeted civilians. And sometimes things went out of control and individuals or even small units did horrific things to civilians or commited horrible crimes.

What hasn’t happened, and I defy you to find a cite, is Genocide as defined by the UN.

[RedFury]

Try this cite: War crimes

You’ll find the US guilty of plenty of them in Iraq – and, arguably, genocide included.

[GomiBoy]

@RedFury

Try this cite: War crimes

You’ll find the US guilty of plenty of them in Iraq – and, arguably, genocide included.

Weak logic, and highly debatable anyways. Genocide is a war crime, but not all war crimes are genocide. Cite for where the US has commited genocide, please.

Has the US commited war crimes, both in Iraq and in other conflicts? Yes. Have we commited genocide? No.

[MrDibble]

@GomiBoy

I

First of all, “Genocide” is not a subject of the Geneva Conventions.

Yes, actually, it is. Cite.

Where do you get “Geneva Conventions” out of your cite?

@GomiBoy

Then you’re off-topic. And you’ll find I agree with your point. The US military, like any military, has done some pretty horrible things to other people. We’ve bombed, we’ve killed, we’ve targeted civilians. And sometimes things went out of control and individuals or even small units did horrific things to civilians or commited horrible crimes.

What hasn’t happened, and I defy you to find a cite, is Genocide as defined by the UN.

The topic isn’t “*Has *the US committed genocide” (and I’d argue anyway that it has, when it comes to native Americans), but whether it could. Evidence that American troops have shown a historic tendency to be more than willing to kill civilians is very pertinent to arguing that point.

[RedFury]

@GomiBoy

Has the US commited war crimes, both in Iraq and in other conflicts? Yes. Have we commited genocide? No.

A careful reader would have noticed (and clicked) on my prior link upthread when I first made the accusation and thus wouldn’t be asking me to repeat myself.

There were fewer deaths in Rwanda and yet no one denies it was genocide. What makes the US provoked mass murder in Iraq any different?

[GomiBoy]

@MrDibble

Where do you get “Geneva Conventions” out of your cite?

Apologies, I was confusing UN Conventions with Geneva Conventions. But the point still remains - genocide has a specific definition, and I challenge anyone to find evidence of the US committing it in the past as has been alluded (outside the Indian Wars which were genocidal).

@MrDibble

The topic isn’t “*Has *the US committed genocide” (and I’d argue anyway that it has, when it comes to native Americans), but whether it could. Evidence that American troops have shown a historic tendency to be more than willing to kill civilians is very pertinent to arguing that point.

Agreed on your take on the OP. Agreed regarding the Indian Wars. I disagree that the modern US Military would commit genocide no matter what Bushitler ordered, and I already answered this several times up thread. I won’t re-hash my arguments again here.

@RedFury

A careful reader would have noticed (and clicked) on my prior link upthread when I first made the accusation and thus wouldn’t be asking me to repeat myself.

A careful poster would check his cites before posting them to make sure they actually said what they think he said and actually support his argument. So let’s count up your sources supporting your cite -

1.) IraqiBodyCount says 90k max since 2003

2.) The Lancet, even though the process for the estimation was flawed, estimates 650k (link to a rebuttal to the Lancet survey), but even in your cite:

In the second survey, the researchers were 95 percent certain that there were between 426,000 and 794,000 excess violent deaths from March 2003 to July 2006.

Seems a pretty big margin for error, what with the reseachers on the ground not even being totally sure of the numbers and a margin of error of nearly 50%.

3.) A survey of 1499 Iraqis aged 18+ in Baghdad, then extrapolated for maximum bloodshed, says 1.2 million. Even someone like me, with little / no experience in statistics, can see that this study was badly flawed and the margin for error not correctly applied.

So which headline do your sources, and you, jump on to? Why the highest, of course, and you conveniently ignore that they are also the least scientifically or factually accurate.

@RedFury

There were fewer deaths in Rwanda and yet no one denies it was genocide. What makes the US provoked mass murder in Iraq any different?

Rwanda was the targeted elimination of one racial group by another, and meets the definition of genocide. Iraq is not. And the deaths in Rwanda were a conservative 500,000 directly. Seems pretty easy to draw the differences out which lie between the two.

90,000 dead civilians is horrific enough, a number that even the most conservative assessment agrees with. We don’t need anyone wildly inflating this number to push a partisan agenda.

[GomiBoy]

Oh, and nearly every survey referred to includes all violent deaths. If you’re accusing the US military of genocide in Iraq, then we would need to be directly responsible for most of the deaths of civilians which is clearly not the case.

[Tristan]

@tomndebb

You already know the absolutist views that Der Trihs holds (and expresses at every opportunity). Waving your brother’s honor in front of posters who are predisposed to condemn him based on their preconceived beliefs is pretty much a guaranteed way to invite, (perhaps even encourage), them to hurl insults in his direction.

If you’d like to take Der Trihs to the Pit, (or Red Fury, now), feel free to do so. Great Debates is not really the place to set up a lose/lose exchange. You will never change their opinions by appealing to an image that they refuse to recognize. They will always respond in ways that will insult or anger you.

You are, of course, correct. I get blinded by certain behaviors at times. I apologize to you, and to the majority of the other posters in this thread.

I will restrict myself to reading this one, from now on.

[Onomatopoeia]

@RedFury

There were fewer deaths in Rwanda and yet no one denies it was genocide. What makes the US provoked mass murder in Iraq any different?

Slight hijack - My recollection isn’t clear, but didn’t the US deny the Rwandan genocide even while it was occuring, waiting weeks to intervene while the definition of the word genocide was being debated? Talk about priorities.

[MrDibble]

@GomiBoy

Apologies, I was confusing UN Conventions with Geneva Conventions. But the point still remains - genocide has a specific definition, and I challenge anyone to find evidence of the US committing it in the past as has been alluded (outside the Indian Wars which were genocidal).

So what you’re saying is - they’ve never done it (except when they have)? That’s a convincing argument, I don’t think.

@GomiBoy

Agreed on your take on the OP. Agreed regarding the Indian Wars. I disagree that the modern US Military would commit genocide no matter what Bushitler ordered, and I already answered this several times up thread. I won’t re-hash my arguments again here.

That’s fine, but then you should be that the subject isn’t off-topic, just that you disagree with the conclusions reached.

You seem to be saying:
a) Yes, the US military does kill civilians
b) At some time in the past, it has also committed genocide
c) But it won’t do it again, because…
d)???

That’s the bit that’s missing. It can’t be that modern US soldiers are more moral or better controlled, because point (a) gives the lie to that.

The question in my mind would be - what distinguishes the US military of 2007 from that of 1890?

I have an answer, and it’s the reason I don’t think Bush would get away with outright genocide (which I agree the current Iraq situation is not) - media saturation. That’s, IMO, the only reason the streets of Iraq aren’t lined with ditches filled with bodies. Can’t get away with more than an Abu Ghraib or a wedding bombing when even your own troops are dumb enough to photograph their own excesses, never mind CNN or El Jazheera.

[GomiBoy]

@MrDibble

So what you’re saying is - they’ve never done it (except when they have)? That’s a convincing argument, I don’t think.

That’s not what I am saying and I’d ask you to not put words in my mouth. I said the modern US military has never committed the crime of genocide. I did admit that the policies, not just military, of the US Government during the Indian Wars amounted to genocide.

@MrDibble

That’s fine, but then you should be that the subject isn’t off-topic, just that you disagree with the conclusions reached.

I read this four times and it still doesn’t track. The OP asks ‘Could President Bush get away with Iraqi Genocide’. I say no, and gave my reasons why. I said that the topic of war crimes brought up by RedFury as a red herring was off-topic in that it did not answer the question that the OP asked because War Crimes != Genocide, no matter what the inflated body count.

You seem to be saying:
a) Yes, the US military does kill civilians
b) At some time in the past, it has also committed genocide
c) But it won’t do it again, because…
d)???

A - accidentally, the modern US military kills civilians. Sometimes, military units get out of control, and kill civilians. Sometimes military members commit war crimes. There, that better and make more sense?
B - One time in the distant past the US Government, as well as the US Military, performed genocide against the indigenous peoples of the United States (i.e. native Americans)
C - The reasons I already gave, several times. Read the thread, I won’t restate them for your benefit.

There is no D, you just added that for your own gratification.

That’s the bit that’s missing. It can’t be that modern US soldiers are more moral or better controlled, because point (a) gives the lie to that.

No, it doesn’t. Point A says accidents happen, sometimes more accidents in wars than peacetime. It doesn’t mean that the US military is inherently either moral or immoral.

The question in my mind would be - what distinguishes the US military of 2007 from that of 1890?

Education? Trained leadership? Rules of warfare codified not only within the military but from external treaties the US has been signatory to? An all-volunteer force? Need I go on?

I have an answer, and it’s the reason I don’t think Bush would get away with outright genocide (which I agree the current Iraq situation is not) - media saturation. That’s, IMO, the only reason the streets of Iraq aren’t lined with ditches filled with bodies. Can’t get away with more than an Abu Ghraib or a wedding bombing when even your own troops are dumb enough to photograph their own excesses, never mind CNN or El Jazheera.

All except the dumb part - that’s all you, mate - that was one of my own points as well, so thanks for finally agreeing with me.

[GomiBoy]

@Onomatopoeia

Slight hijack - My recollection isn’t clear, but didn’t the US deny the Rwandan genocide even while it was occuring, waiting weeks to intervene while the definition of the word genocide was being debated? Talk about priorities.

Sorta kinda - two problems, Rwanda was on the Security Council at the time and downplayed the massacres, and the US (amongst other nations - we weren’t alone) declined to identify the massacres as genocide for political reasons. The Wikipedia article seems to give a pretty good history…

[RedFury]

Helicopter Fire Kills Iraqis, Days After Sadr City Battle

Baghdad - Gunfire from an American helicopter killed 11 people, including women and children, after it came under fire north of Baghdad on Tuesday, according to a statement by the military. The episode was the second this week in which multiple Iraqi deaths resulted from a United States combat action.

The Iraqi police and witnesses put the toll higher, at 16 dead, and recounted a confusing scene in which local people were trying to help a wounded man who was apparently an insurgent as an American helicopter buzzed overhead. According to Mohanad Hamid Muhsin, a 14-year-old who was wounded in the leg, the insurgent fired a machine gun at a helicopter around sunrise in a rural area near the city of Tikrit. The helicopter unleashed a barrage of gunfire in return, hitting the man who had fired the machine gun, he said.

"The locals went to check if he was dead and gathered around him," Mohanad said of the insurgent, "but the helicopter opened fire again and killed some of the locals and wounded others." When another group tried to carry the wounded and dead to houses to provide first aid, Mohanad said, the helicopter shot at four houses, killing and wounding more people.

In its statement, the United States military said that “a known member of an I.E.D. cell was among the 11 killed during the multiple engagements,” using the abbreviation for improvised explosive device.

The statement said an additional four “military-age males” were among the dead and said that five women and one child were also killed. The statement said the helicopter had been fired at from a house.

"I lost two of my brothers and my sister, who was a college student," Mohanad said in a telephone interview from a hospital in Tikrit where the wounded were taken.

A local police official, meanwhile, said that 16 people, including six women and three children, were killed and that an additional 14 were wounded.

The shooting took place two days after American soldiers killed 49 people in a gun battle on Sunday in Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. The military said no civilians were killed, while a Shiite citizens' council and other Shiite groups said innocent bystanders died. On Monday, Iraqi government and American military officials agreed to form a joint committee to investigate.

Also Tuesday, Sunni tribal sheiks who have allied with the United States played host to an improbable military parade, with a band and soldiers in spit-shined boots, down a main street in the city of Ramadi in Anbar Province, though with an extensive American military presence in the area.

The parade, which was led by children waving flowers and Iraqi flags, would have been unthinkable amid the insurgent violence in Ramadi a year ago, American commanders who attended said.

The sheiks’ movement, the Anbar Awakening Council, has used tribal ties to draw former insurgents into the government police force, while helping United States soldiers identify remaining militants. In Ramadi, United States patrols have not been targeted in the city since May, American commanders said.

The parade was a response to one held last year in Ramadi by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an insurgent group linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence officials say has foreign leadership.

The parade on Tuesday formally commemorated the end of the 40-day period of mourning after the death of Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, the leader of the Anbar Awakening Council, who was killed shortly after meeting President Bush in Anbar in September. His brother, Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha, took over as leader of the group.

Sheik Abu Risha responded Tuesday to an audiotape of the Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, that was broadcast on Al Jazeera on Monday. The tape admonished Sunni Muslims in Iraq for allowing divisions within their ranks in the struggle against the United States, according to SITE, a group that monitors extremist Islamic groups.

“We invite bin Laden to tell us who his people are,” Mr. Abu Risha said. “Let them come out, and we will fight them. Here I am. I am willing to lead the fight.”

Ever since they came-up with apologies, no one is ever wrong. Just a daily happening.

No further comment needed.

[MrDibble]

@GomiBoy

That’s not what I am saying and I’d ask you to not put words in my mouth. I said the modern US military has never committed the crime of genocide. I did admit that the policies, not just military, of the US Government during the Indian Wars amounted to genocide.

Oh, now it’s the modern US military -that’s convenient - you said the US never comitted genocide. Then, it’s the modern US military that doesn’t. What next? “The US military has never committed genocide…today.” Look, it’s the Military of the Gaps!

@GomiBoy

I read this four times and it still doesn’t track. The OP asks ‘Could President Bush get away with Iraqi Genocide’. I say no, and gave my reasons why. I said that the topic of war crimes brought up by RedFury as a red herring was off-topic in that it did not answer the question that the OP asked because War Crimes != Genocide, no matter what the inflated body count.

Actually, I was calling you on saying RickJay was off-topic, not Red. And there, it was about civilian killings, like I said. Do keep up…

@GomiBoy

A - accidentally, the modern US military kills civilians. Sometimes, military units get out of control, and kill civilians. Sometimes military members commit war crimes. There, that better and make more sense?

Yeah, if only it was true -as has been shown, the military targets civilians quite deliberately at times, and at other times, while targetting combatants, writes off a certain amount of “collateral damage”, which amounts to the same thing IMO. Or where is the start of “modern”? 2006?

@GomiBoy

B - One time in the distant past the US Government, as well as the US Military, performed genocide against the indigenous peoples of the United States (i.e. native Americans)

Not “Once” - a whole stretch of time.

@GomiBoy

C - The reasons I already gave, several times. Read the thread, I won’t restate them for your benefit.

I’m saying you haven’t addressed the issue…but see below.

@GomiBoy

There is no D, you just added that for your own gratification.

No, the fact that there is no D is my point.

@GomiBoy

No, it doesn’t. Point A says accidents happen, sometimes more accidents in wars than peacetime. It doesn’t mean that the US military is inherently either moral or immoral.

Nope, not my point A. I said nothing about accidents. Now who is putting words in whose mouth?
I didn’t say the US military is inherently immoral, I said it is no more moral than it ever has been in the past, whether that be 1890, 1945 or 1969.

@GomiBoy

Education?

Yeah, all those PhDs on the front lines…

@GomiBoy

Trained leadership?

West Point was founded when?

@GomiBoy

Rules of warfare codified not only within the military but from external treaties the US has been signatory to?

Rules that date from WWII - tell me, how did that work out in Cambodia?

@GomiBoy

An all-volunteer force?

Like B-52 pilots?

@GomiBoy

Need I go on?

Well, when you actually come up with what’s different about the “modern” military, you can stop.

@GomiBoy

All except the dumb part - that’s all you, mate - that was one of my own points as well, so thanks for finally agreeing with me.

Wait, you don’t think photographing yourself committing crimes is dumb? There’s a thread about a Canadian paedo that needs your dissenting voice, then.

[GomiBoy]

@MrDibble

Oh, now it’s the modern US military -that’s convenient - you said the US never comitted genocide. Then, it’s the modern US military that doesn’t. What next? “The US military has never committed genocide…today.” Look, it’s the Military of the Gaps!

Oh, do be quiet. I’ve always said the modern military.

Actually, I was calling you on saying RickJay was off-topic, not Red. And there, it was about civilian killings, like I said. Do keep up…

You first. I said war crimes != genocide, and even civilians getting killed in collateral damage != genocide. WHoever said it was off topic, and a nit pick does not prove your argument.

Yeah, if only it was true -as has been shown, the military targets civilians quite deliberately at times, and at other times, while targetting combatants, writes off a certain amount of “collateral damage”, which amounts to the same thing IMO. Or where is the start of “modern”? 2006?

Sorry, but in GD I don’t think I’ll take your opinions to count for much with your plain agenda. The military ambition for quite some time has been to minimize collateral damage. We used a ton of smart munitiions in the first Iraq war for just that reason. Same in this one. Same in every war. But in Vietnam, or in WW2, we simply didn’t have the technology. And regardless, strategic bombing is NOT the same thing as genocide, no matter what your ‘opinion’ says. There is a legal definition of genocide which is more that just killing civilians in war - or did you neglect to read that definition as well?

Not “Once” - a whole stretch of time.

The Indian wars were one point in time. To quote yourself, ‘do keep up.’

I’m saying you haven’t addressed the issue…but see below.

Did you read my posts saying why I thought the modern US military was incapable of genocide? Or just glaze them over and ignore them as you seem wont to do?

No, the fact that there is no D is my point.

Good. I never said D. You never said D. Now we’re getting somewhere.

Care to tell my why you brought it up then? Or how writing a letter either bolsters your argument or undermines mine? Good, didn’t think so.

Nope, not my point A. I said nothing about accidents. Now who is putting words in whose mouth?

Your argument, you prove it - I think civilians get killed accidentally. You’re going to have to prove that the US Military intentionally and continually targets civilians. Then, when you can’t do that, you can come back here and apologise.

I didn’t say the US military is inherently immoral, I said it is no more moral than it ever has been in the past, whether that be 1890, 1945 or 1969.

The military of even 1945 was a whole different beast than the military of 1890, and it’s ignorant to dismiss arguments without actually reading them.

Yeah, all those PhDs on the front lines…

No, but a hell of a lot less illiteracy and a hell of a lot more high school diplomas.

West Point was founded when?

Are you really going to refuse to believe that the training of officers and soldiers hasn’t changed a bit since 1890? Are you really going to try to say that? So we still use skirmish lines, march into fire in rows, and use sustained musket fire to kill the enemy then?

Rules that date from WWII - tell me, how did that work out in Cambodia?

Was Cambodia genocide? Didn’t think so. Kinda proves my point, then, huh?

Like B-52 pilots?

Ah, so now any strategic weapon or any area-based attack is an automatic genocide? How convenient to your argument. Of course, it’s not true, but why let that stop you seeing as how even a glancing disagreement with the truth you simply disregard.

Well, when you actually come up with what’s different about the “modern” military, you can stop.

Read my posts upthread. I won’t re-post because you’re not willing to scroll up.

Wait, you don’t think photographing yourself committing crimes is dumb? There’s a thread about a Canadian paedo that needs your dissenting voice, then.

Not what I said. You inferred all troops are dumb, and thus would be caught doing their illegal acts. Me thinks you’re sounding an awful lot like Der Trihs and RedFury in unreasoning hatred of the military. Fine company you’re keeping there.

[MrDibble]

Oh, I hate the US military in Iraq alright, and DT and **RF **is 's company I’m proud to keep on this.

But that’s all irrelevant - I’ll say it again:
The argument is whether the US military is capable of genocide. You are saying (modern) they haven’t committed genocide yet. We are saying that they are perfectly capable of willfully killing civilians on orders (usually from a safe distance). This points to their capability to commit mass murder. You say it is off topic, we disagree.

Since your name is not The Controvert, your opinion on what’s off topic doesn’t carry any weight with me. I don’t even think the focus on genocide is the right tack, since even the OP admitted it might not be the right word - “mass murder” works for me. And I believe, absent media saturation, the US troops are perfectly capable of mass murder, education or no.

Good. I never said D. You never said D. Now we’re getting somewhere.

Care to tell my why you brought it up then? Or how writing a letter either bolsters your argument or undermines mine? Good, didn’t think so.

I love that you can argue my side too - in your head. Anyway, as I’ve already said - I brought it up to show that you were missing a great deal of explanation between “they just won’t, OK” and “because they’re, like, literate and stuff”.

You keep thinking the examples and arguments we’ve brought up are about previous genocides. They’re not, they are merely (!) attacks on civilians. So you are arguing with a stuffed man of straw you made yourself. I’ve said why bringing up the willingness to kill civilians is pertinent. You just say “off topic” like all that handwaving makes it so. Not going to fly, as hard as you flap…

The Indian wars were one point in time. To quote yourself, ‘do keep up.’

If you consider the hundreds of years from King Philip’s War to Wounded Knee to be one point in time, sure. You’d be twisting the notion of “one point” outside any reason, but whatever it takes, right?

Was Cambodia genocide? Didn’t think so. Kinda proves my point, then, huh?

Was it killing of civilians? Yes? Kind of proves my point, then, huh?

[GomiBoy]

@MrDibble

Oh, I hate the US military in Iraq alright, and DT and **RF **is 's company I’m proud to keep on this.

Good, then we’ve nothing more to talk about. You’ve the same pathological hatred, refusal to see facts, and refusal to admit error as those two, then there’s absolutely no point in discussing this further.

You want to talk about how much you hate and distrust the US military, and how they’re all a bunch of sloping-forehead baby killers and always have been, don’t expect anyone else, especially me, to dance with you.