Could President Bush get away with Iraqi genocide?

Great Debates
101

Yeah, I feel scortched all right. Uh huh. Sure I do.
(paraphrasing)
RedFury - GomiBoy’s lying, we used almost no guided munitions in 1991.

Ravenman - actually, while we used only 9% guided munitions in 1991, we’re using almost 2/3 (66%) guided munitions now.

Sounds kind of like to me that Ravenman’s cite supports my argument(we’re not perfect, but we’re getting better and going the opposite direction from genocide) rather than yours (the military targets civilians intentionally). If we wanted to target civilians, we would use area strikes from B-52s, not surgical strikes using GPS guided weapons.

102

I read your source; I actually read as much as I can about both sides of an issue before making up my mind.

This report is about the Air Force only, only 1 of the 4 branches using air power in the first Gulf War. Your source leaves out the US Navy, which primarily used (guided) Tomahawk missiles in strikes but also aircraft strikes from carriers in the Gulf, as well as the US Marines, generally flying close air support in Cobra attack helicopters and F-18 Hornets flying a similar mix of weapons as the US Air Force (and likely the same precentage of guided vs unguided missiles). Finally, the US Army used Apache attack helicopters and Cobra attack helicopers both flying Hellfire anti-tank missiles which are precision guided. The Air Force did drop the lion’s share of ordinance during GW 1, however leaving out the surgical Tomahawk strikes and the close air support of Marine Hornets and Army Apaches and Cobras is very misleading. It also doesn’t even mentioned the other allied air forces, like the Royal Air Force of the UK, which primarily flew reconnaisance missions in Tornados but also flew close air support with Harriers and used extensive smart weapons.

It also ignores mission profiles, in that guided munitions (especially GBUs and Tomahawks) were primarily used in populated areas, whilst area strikes (like B52s and cluster bombs) were primarily used in rural / unpopulated areas in strikes against targets like distributed SAM sites and Republican Guard unit concentrations. We did not use area strikes or carpet bombing against any cities.

It’s further misleading in not identifying that the HARM missile, of which over 2000 were used, is a very specifically targeted anti-radiation missile. It’s primary mission is to attack and destroy SAM (surface to air missile) radar sites; it only has a 70lb warhead. Not much collateral or area damage possible there, but it does a handy job of disabling and destroying SAM sites, which funnily enough is what it’s designed to do.

Another misleading point is that the FAE was used only in 2 instances that I know of; the MOAB (BLU-82) was only used once. In both weapons, it was used as a Shock and Awe weapon to encourage large concentrations of Iraqi soldiers to surrender. And guess what, it worked. They didn’t get killed, they surrendered and were treated in accordance with the rules of War.

And here’s the final point - we used 6% guided munitions in the Air Force at the time. Here’s a little secret - that’s all we had available. If we had more, we would have used more. Just like we’re doing now, as Ravenman’s cite proves.

And you think Greenpeace might have a touch of an agenda here as well?

Cites:
US Navy in the first gulf war

Gulf War 1 timeline

Wikipedia article on the first Gulf War

103

To you, everyone else does, so no surprises there…

104

So do you have an argument for the meat of my post, or just another nitpick?

105

That wasn’t a nitpick, just a comment.

BTW, I thought you’d given up debating with me and Red.

106

So I got bored and figured I would give it one more go. I also think there is an emotional component to this that for some reason **RedFury ** (and you to a lesser degree) have taken my comments as personal insults (although I have no idea why; to my mind, I didn’t start with the petty snipes and have kept my arguments mostly on-point) which I flat out do not understand.

You will never convince me that the US Military is actively attempting to commit genocide, or even mass murder, against the Iraqi people en mass - the intent and the motivation is simply not there, and I refuse to believe that the majority of soldiers would go along with outright murder no matter what they were ordered to do. I doubt I will ever convince you of the converse.

Since we seem to agree on most other points (i.e. Iraq War bad, Bush is crap, military has done some bad things and may do more in the future, war is hard on the civilians and should be avoided, mass media will stop a US Military genocide if it ever does kick off, etc…) can we just agree to disagree on this point? I mean damn, the Neo-Cons must be laughing their asses off watching the Liberals (of which I assume you’re one and I’m another) eat our own young.

107

You were the one who started accusing me of dishonest debating by going the ad hominem route.

Fair enough.

Sure. We both agree on our response to the OP (“It won’t happen”) anyway, so no problem.

I’m not a Liberal in any big-L sense of the word. Ideologically, I’m an Anarchist.

108

Agree to disagree. Not how I recall the exchange, or what I see in the thread, but YMMV.

Then can you please explain to me why we’re arguing in the first place if we both agree ‘it won’t happen’ and we’ve both given similar reasons on why?

Me too - I prefer to define myself as a classic (not modern capital-L) liberal but a political independent with some strong anarchist tendencies thrown in.

So again - since we seem to agree, why are we arguing?

109

Ah. Ok. Well, carry on, everyone!

[hails a cab out of town]

110

Different backgrounds, I guess - you trust in the military, I grew up in a police state under military oppression.

I trust nobody’s military - not even the Danes or Swiss, never mind the US, which has a spotty record with its use. I consider voluntary military service a morally questionable thing, and heartily look forward to a time when the only military presence on Earth is in museums. Not in my lifetime, of course, but someday.

That about explain it?

111

Yes, it does, thank you. But I think you’re overstating my ‘trust’ in the military. The only reason I “trust” the military as you seem to be saying is because

  1. I served, so I know how tight the restrictions are in how a military member can behave first hand
  2. I live in one relatively transparent society and am a citizen of another (I am a US citizen living in England) and both countries have a fundamental belief in free speech. This means that to me, the types of abuses you see in military-run places are impossible. The first thing you see in a military-led junta anywhere in the world is capturing the media and applying censorship.
  3. The military in the US and in the UK is entirely controlled by citizens, and through their representatives, the people. If nothing else, Congress in the US and the Houses of Parliament here can choke off funding for military adventures that don’t have the support of the people.
  4. The military in the US, whose track record is better than most but still not good, has a strong code of laws which prevent most abuses. Every abuse in recent times, someone has gotten punished rather severly.
    So you could say the only reason I trust the US military is because they’ve got a very tight leash and taking that leash off is no small matter or easily done. And to a lesser degree (thinking of the Troubles) I feel the same way about the military in England.
112

I happen to think a military is only as good as the people giving it orders. The people holding “the leash” as it were - and I don’t think that’s the nebulous “The People”, in the case of the US. It’s a combination of the executive and their backers, the corporates.

In other words, I don’t think the US military would get out of hand against orders. In fact, exactly the opposite.