Could President Bush get away with Iraqi genocide?

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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)

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=RedFury]
Much more at source…doubt you’d be interested in reading any of it though.
[/QUOTE]
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 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?

[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]
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.

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.

[QUOTE=The Controvert]
I think it’s okay to broaden the question to:

Could President Bush get away with Iraq genocide?
[/quote]
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.

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.

As above.

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you – but if you’ll notice I was responding to this particular assertion:
[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
We used a ton of smart munitiions in the first Iraq war for just that reason.
[/quote]

  • bolding mine.

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.

[QUOTE=RedFury]
I agree with you – but if you’ll notice I was responding to this particular assertion
[/QUOTE]

Ooooh! Burn!

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
After all, one is already claiming there is no effective difference between the military in 1890 and today.
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
WAfter all, one is already claiming there is no effective difference between the military in 1890 and today.
[/QUOTE]

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.

Damn Board!

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Yes, actually, it is. Cite
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Ooooh! Burn!
[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
So yes, Bush could ‘get away with’ mass murder in Iraq and in fact by some reckoning already has.
[/QUOTE]
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?

[QUOTE=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?
[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]

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.