Could President Bush get away with Iraqi genocide?

[MrDibble]

@GomiBoy

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.

Gosh, convenient for you - since I haven’t been debating, just ranting, and all.

Oh, wait, no, I haven’t. Ad hominem much? That’s no way to convince me of your points (never mind that I’ve already said it won’t go genocidal (sensu strictu) in Iraq)

@GomiBoy

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.

Yeah, not like I’ve been pointing out actual historical events and stuff - just ranting and spittle and bile. Man, you love playing with that straw, don’tcha?

[RedFury]

@GomiBoy

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.

So, other than spouting ad-hominens left and right, while swallowing Pentagon/US propaganda whole, you’ve got nothing. I can’t see why you’d want to retreat from this “debate.”

U.S. Bombing: The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War

The sheer amount of explosive tonnage dropped over Iraq and Kuwai also, I think, tends to undermine any assumption of surgical strikes. Air Force General McPeak, Air Force commanding general, proudly proclaiming, “Probably the first time in history that a field army has been defeated by air power,” estimated that some 88,500 tons of bombs have been dropped in over 109,000 sorties flown by a total of 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft. Of these flights somewhat over half were actual bombing raids while the remainder involved refueling, bomber escort, surveillance, and so forth. Of the actual bombing missions, about 20,000 sorties were flown against a select list of 300 strategic targets in Iraq and Kuwait; about 5,000 were flown against SCUD missile launchers, and some 30,000 to 50,000 against Iraqi forces in southern Iraq and Kuwait. In all, more than 3,000 bombs (including sea-launched cruise missiles) were dropped on metropolitan Baghdad. The total number of bombs dropped by allied forces in the war comes to about 250,000. Of these only 22,000 were the so-called “smart bombs” or guided bombs. About 10,000 of these guided bombs were laser-guided and about 10,000 were guided anti-tank bombs. The remaining 2,000 were radiation guided bombs directed at communication and radar installations.

The most complete survey of all the different bombs, missiles, shells, and weapons so far appears in Appendix A of On Impact: Modern Warfare and the Environment, a report prepared by William Arkin, Damian Durrant, and Marianne Cherni for Greenpeace. This report was prepared for the “Fifth Geneva Convention on the Protection of the Environment in the Time of Armed Conflict” (London, June 3, 1991). The authors infer the total weapons used from the 1991 fiscal year supplemental budget request to Congress which lists weapons required to replenish U.S. stockpiles. The numbers are revealing and staggering. In part, they include:

* 2,095 HARM missiles
* 217 Walleye missiles
* 5,276 guided anti-tank missiles
* 44,922 cluster bombs and rockets
* 136,755 conventional bombs
* 4,077 guided bombs[1] 

The conventional unguided bomb (so-called “dumb bomb”) was the most commonly used weapon in the massacre. These come in four types: the Mk 82 (500 lbs), Mk 83 (1,000 lbs), Mk 84 (2,000 lbs), and the M117 (750 lbs). In all some 150,000 to 170,000 of these bombs were dropped during the war.

The U.S. arsenal contains eight kinds of guided bombs:

* AGM-130, an electro-optically or infrared-guided 2,000 pound powered bomb,
* GBU-10 Paveway II, a 2,000 pound laser-guided bomb based on a Mk 84,
* GBU-101 Paveway II, a 2,000 pound laser-guided bomb with I-2000 hard target munition, employed exclusively on the F117A and used in small numbers,
* GBU-12 Paveway II, a 500 pound laser-guided bomb, used against tanks,
* GBU-24 Paveway III, a 2,000 pound laser-guided, low-level weapon (with BLU-109 bomb and mid-course auto pilot) used against chemical and industrial facilities, bridges, nuclear storage areas, and aircraft shelters,
* GBU-27 Paveway III, a 2,000 pound laser-guided bomb with I-2000 hard target munition on the BLU-109/B, a "black program" adapted version of the GBU-24, used exclusively by F- 117A fighters to attack aircraft shelters, bunkers, and other targets in Baghdad, and
* GBU-28, a 5,000 pound "bunker busting" laser-guided bomb, fabricated especially for the war against Iraq "in an effort to destroy extremely hardened, deeply buried Iraqi command and control bunkers, kill senior military officials and possible kill Saddam Hussein."[2] 

As if explosive bombs were not enough, the U.S. used massive amounts of fire bombs and napalm, although U.S. officials denied using napalm against Iraqi troops, only on oil filled trenches (this raises the question of who set all the oil wells on fire in Kuwait and southern Iraq). These trenches, of course, in many cases surrounded bunkers where Iraqi soldiers were hiding. Perhaps the most horrifying of all bombs was the Fuel Air Explosives (FAE) which were used to destroy minefields and bunkers in Iraq and Kuwait. These firebombs were directly used against Iraqi soldiers, although military spokesmen and press reports have consistently tried to downplay their role.[3] Perhaps this is only because press reports were too descriptive before the war when the Pentagon was leaking stories about possible Iraqi use of FAEs, along with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons - none of which ever appeared on the Iraqi side. The FAE is composed of an ethelene oxide fuel which forms an aerosol cloud or mist on impact. The cloud is then detonated, forming very high overpressures and a blast or shock wave that destroys anything within an area of about 50,000 square feet (for a 2,000 pound bomb). The U.S. also used “daisy cutters” or the BLU-82, a 15,000 pound bomb containing GSX Gelled slurry explosives. This, too, is a concussion type bomb which military spokesmen and the U.S. press said was used to detonate pressure sensitive mines. The mines, of course, surrounded Iraqi troop deployments and the concussive force of the bomb would surely also rupture internal organs or ear-drums of Iraqi soldiers pinned down in their bunkers. This is not even to mention incineration and asphyxiation, as the fire storm of the bomb sucks all of the oxygen out of the area. President Bush continually warned about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but it is clear that U.S. forces alone used weapons of mass destruction against Iraqi troops in both Iraq and Kuwait.

Among other controversial weapons are cluster bombs and anti-personnel bombs which contain a large number of small bomblets inside a large casing. Upon impact the little bombs are dispersed over a wide area and then explode. Using cluster bombs, a single B-52 can deliver more than 8,000 bomblets in a single mission. A total of about 60,000 to 80,000 cluster bombs were dropped.[4]

What all of this means to anyone who thinks about the numbers is simply that the bombing was not a series of surgical strikes but rather an old fashioned mass destruction. On March 15, 1991, the Air Force released information stating that 93.6% of the tonnage dropped were traditional unguided bombs. So we have something like 82,000 tons of bombs that were non-precision guided and only 7,000 tons of guided bombs. This is not surgical warfare in any accurate sense of the term and more importantly in the sense that was commonly understood by the American public. Bombs were, moreover, not the only source of explosives rained down upon Iraq. Artillery shells from battleships and rocket launchers amounted to an additional 20,000 to 30,000 tons of explosives.

While the F-117 Stealth fighter captured the fascination of the news media, massive B-52s carried out the bulk of the work. Flying out of bases in Diego Garcia, Spain, United Kingdom, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other places, B-52s dropped about thirty percent of the total tonnage of bombs. B-52s were used from the first night of the war to the last. Flying at 40,000 feet and releasing 40 - 60 bombs of 500 or 750 pounds each, their only function is to carpet bomb entire areas. General McPeak told Defense Week, "The targets we are going after are widespread. They are brigades, and divisions and battalions on the battlefield. It’s a rather low density target. So to spread the bombs - carpet bombing is not my favorite expression - is proportionate to the target. Now is it a terrible thing? Yes. Does it kill people? Yes."[5] B-52s were used against chemical and industrial storage areas, air fields, troop encampments, storage sites, and they were apparently used against large populated areas in Basra…

Much more at source…doubt you’d be interested in reading any of it though.

[Ravenman]

@RedFury

Much more at source…doubt you’d be interested in reading any of it though.

I really don’t see much point to debating the OP, since both sides are firmly entrenched in their respective opinions, but it must be said that the mix of guided and unguided bombs has changed dramatically since 1991. In the 2003, two-thirds of the bombs dropped were precision guided, compared to about 9 percent in 1991 as shown in the report you linked to. Cite, see entry for 4/8/03.

Make of that whatever you will.

[The_Controvert]

I think it’s okay to broaden the question to:

Could President Bush get away with Iraq genocide?

or

Could President Bush get away with Iraq mass-murder?

or even

Could President Bush get away with Iraq murder?

[Onomatopoeia]

@The Controvert

I think it’s okay to broaden the question to:

Could President Bush get away with Iraq genocide?

or

Could President Bush get away with Iraq mass-murder?

or even

Could President Bush get away with Iraq murder?

To the first I’d say probably yes, based on all I and others have said above. To the second I’d say he’s getting away with it now, and to the third I’d say an unambiguous yes.

[GomiBoy]

RedFury, Der Trihs, and MrDibble - if there was any point in pitting any of you, this would be the point at which I would do so. Since there is no point, and since your emotional stance to the question at hand is clearly impossible for you to rationally argue through or from, I choose not to continue trying to argue a rational point with irrational people. Have fun in your echo chamber.

@The Controvert

I think it’s okay to broaden the question to:

Could President Bush get away with Iraq genocide?

No. Genocide has a legal definition, and is illegal under the UCMJ as well as treaties to which the US is a signatory, so I don’t think it is possible for Bush to ‘get away with’ genocide in Iraq or anywhere else.

Could President Bush get away with Iraq mass-murder?

Mass murder is an emotive term, intended to push certain buttons (as is ‘get away with’ like Bush is some kind of master international criminal hatching evil plans), but whether you call it ‘mass murder’ or ‘collateral damage’ then it happens in war. So yes, Bush could ‘get away with’ mass murder in Iraq and in fact by some reckoning already has.

Could President Bush get away with Iraq murder?

As above.

[MrDibble]

@GomiBoy

RedFury, Der Trihs, and MrDibble - if there was any point in pitting any of you, this would be the point at which I would do so.

Feel free. In fact, I urge you to. There’s lots more I could say to you that I wouldn’t in this forum.

@GomiBoy

Since there is no point, and since your emotional stance to the question at hand is clearly impossible for you to rationally argue through or from, I choose not to continue trying to argue a rational point with irrational people. Have fun in your echo chamber.

I’m afraid it’s not our side of the debate that’s been resorting to personal attacks instead of debating. There’s a side that’s getting emotional, all right, but it’s not mine.

[GomiBoy]

@Ravenman

I really don’t see much point to debating the OP, since both sides are firmly entrenched in their respective opinions, but it must be said that the mix of guided and unguided bombs has changed dramatically since 1991. In the 2003, two-thirds of the bombs dropped were precision guided, compared to about 9 percent in 1991 as shown in the report you linked to. Cite, see entry for 4/8/03.

Make of that whatever you will.

Why on earth would they read anything that might not support their point? After all, one is already claiming there is no effective difference between the military in 1890 and today.

[RedFury]

@Ravenman

I really don’t see much point to debating the OP, since both sides are firmly entrenched in their respective opinions, but it must be said that the mix of guided and unguided bombs has changed dramatically since 1991. In the 2003, two-thirds of the bombs dropped were precision guided, compared to about 9 percent in 1991 as shown in the report you linked to. Cite, see entry for 4/8/03.

Make of that whatever you will.

I agree with you – but if you’ll notice I was responding to this particular assertion:

@GomiBoy

We used a ton of smart munitiions in the first Iraq war for just that reason.

• bolding mine.

[RedFury]

PS-And yes, Gomi-Boy, I too would welcome said pitting. As MrD well said, we are not the ones resorting to emotion or personal attacks*. That would, of course, change, should you proceed as advertised.

*In fact, I just showed you that what you said about GW-I is nothing but myth and propaganda swallowed whole.

[MrDibble]

@RedFury

I agree with you – but if you’ll notice I was responding to this particular assertion

Ooooh! Burn!

[MrDibble]

@GomiBoy

After all, one is already claiming there is no effective difference between the military in 1890 and today.

I think you meant to say I claimed there is no effective difference between the morality of the people in that military and today’s.

[MrDibble]

@GomiBoy

WAfter all, one is already claiming there is no effective difference between the military in 1890 and today.

I think you meant to say one is claiming no effective difference between the morality of the people in the military in 1890 and today.

[MrDibble]

Damn Board!

[RickJay]

@GomiBoy

Yes, actually, it is. Cite

I hate to be nitpicky, but that is, as you have so kindly shown, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is not the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions concern exactly one subject; the treatment of persons who are considered to be *hors de combat * when hostilities take place - specifically, the wounded, persons who are wounded or adrift at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians. There were four Conventions (hence the four categories described) and three follow-up “protocol” amendments.

The Convention on Genocide (to shorten its title) is a completely different treaty.

[Ravenman]

@MrDibble

Ooooh! Burn!

I suppose you’re just trying to be provocative, but I don’t feel slighted or embarrassed in the least by RedFury’s comment. He made a quality post about the weapons used in 1991, and given the discussion of whether there have been qualitative changes in how the US military conducts war, I followed up with a sourced statement that the use of precision-guided weapons has increased dramatically in 12 years.

I acknowledge the accuracy of RedFury’s post, he accepted mine, with no childish comments involved. I’m not sure what your issue is.

[The_Controvert]

@GomiBoy

So yes, Bush could ‘get away with’ mass murder in Iraq and in fact by some reckoning already has.

If he can get away with that, I wonder how come he hasn’t achieved everything he wants yet so we can pull out of there?

[GomiBoy]

@The Controvert

If he can get away with that, I wonder how come he hasn’t achieved everything he wants yet so we can pull out of there?

Winning the peace does not mean ‘kill everyone’ so just killing civilians is counter-productive to actually getting a peaceful Iraq, or even stealing their oil for our own uses.

[GomiBoy]

@RickJay

I hate to be nitpicky, but that is, as you have so kindly shown, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is not the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions concern exactly one subject; the treatment of persons who are considered to be *hors de combat * when hostilities take place - specifically, the wounded, persons who are wounded or adrift at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians. There were four Conventions (hence the four categories described) and three follow-up “protocol” amendments.

The Convention on Genocide (to shorten its title) is a completely different treaty.

Agreed and I already apologised - I confused the UN Conventions with the Geneva Conventions. My error.

[MrDibble]

@Ravenman

I acknowledge the accuracy of RedFury’s post, he accepted mine, with no childish comments involved. I’m not sure what your issue is.

He didn’t burn you, he burned GomiBoy, who thought that your post somehow refuted **Red’**s. I have no problem with the way you’re debating at all. I like what you’re doing, it’s the good kind of nitpicking/fact-correction. Keeps us all honest.