Do you really believe that they started that ‘shock and awe’ bombing, or started the recent assault on Fallujah by destroying the hospital, with no intent to kill innocent civilians?
Or were the deaths all the civilians own fault, in your mind, for not moving fast enough to avoid the tons of shells that were rained down on their homes?
In an ideal world, Bush, Blair, Cheney and co. would all be awaiting trial for war crimes.
It WAS systematic and planned.
What was?
What, exactly is your claim?
What are the plans, and who made them?
What are the orders, and who issued them?
Who knew what, when?
These are serious charges, as I’m sure you know. You have proof of these assertions?
Are you saying that the USA invaded Iraq without planning to kill anyone?
And the slaughter of civilians seems pretty systematic to me. YMMV.
I don’t understand the “no reason” part. How can that be?
As I understand it, civilian casualties have come about while the troops are carrying out fairly defined missions relating to our “reasons” for being there, or while troops were acting to defend themselves against real or perceived threats (i.e. destroy Saddam’s palaces, eliminate an insurgent group, take out a sniper firing on soldiers). Now you can argue all day about whether it was a good idea to go over there in the first place, and whether these kinds of collateral losses are acceptable, or how tragic it is that in this day and age with our weaponry we’d still have this many innocent lives lost. We’d probably agree on a lot of that.
But I think it’s being deliberately naive and simplistic to pretend that they all happened for “no reason.” I’ll bet the number of civilian deaths that happened for “no reason” (weapon misfiring, for example) are not a large proportion of that troubling total.
The invasion. Duh.
These are serious charges, as I’m sure you know. You have proof of these assertions?
[/QUOTE]
“Serious charges?”
Is this the first you’ve heard that we invaded another country? I don’t understand your questions. Are yoiu saying that the invasion was in no way premeditated or planned?
No, I’m saying that we invaded without planning to kill everyone.
So it’s not genocide.
I’m also saying that we invaded without planning on gratitouitously killing civilians. No matter how stupid, pointless, illegal, etc… this war is, the goal was never to kill civilians.
No, no milage, that statement is just dumb.
If it is systematic, that implies a system.
What is this system, exactly, who authorized it, who implements it, and how? I want names and actions in space/time please.
Even if you’re talking about the extent of the damage and calling it systematic, that’s still dumb.
I mean, you’ve read about Dresden, right? You know we have meaner weaponry now than we had then. If we wanted to wipe them out, we could have done it a few times over already.
Surely it’s not about that, but about intent. Do you really believe that Bush’s goal is the extermination of the Iraqi people? If you can’t say with a straight face that you believe it is, then you can’t say it’s genocide.
Without planning to kill everyone, that being the definition of genocide. If you believe that they are trying to kill everyone in Iraq, could you explain why they’re going to all the trouble of setting up elections? Are they trying to lull them into a sense of false security or something?
Since we had no reason to be there to begin with, then every single civilian death happened for no reason.
Well, you’re either lying, or backtracking. While it isn’t mass murder, in my opinion, it most definitely isn’t genocide. Your ass is getting pretty muddy from all the times you’ve had to cover it.
Are you agreeing with me on that, or did you just not read my post?
We PLANNED to SYSTEMATICALLY engage in a large scale, illegal and completely non-defensive military invasion of another sovereign state which we KNEW would result in a large number of civillian deaths.
You’re engaging in a bumch of chickenshit quibbling about whether killing civilians was the sole INTENT of the invasion. I don’t give a shit about the ostensible intent. We knew that dead civilians would be a RESULT, we knew (at least your scumbag president knew) that that the invasion was not necessary and we chose to do it anyway. We had a choice between killing thousands of innocent people for nothing ir NOT killing thousands of innocent people for nothing and we chose the former. I call that mass murder and I call your president a war criminal.
Yes, and they should have fucking-well known that when you put anyone in a situation like the one US soldiers are in right now, their gonna start getting twitchy trigger fingers, and prepared the troops accordingly. Simple instructions like “If you hear a gunshot, don’t fire wildly into a crowded market, killing dozens of people.” might have been good.
Sounds good. I’ll get behind that. I’m guessing that the guilty party is not the guy on the ground, holding the gun?
No, systematicl genocide is what the Turks did with the Armenians, what he Nazis did to Jews, Gypsies, etc… There are no orders to kill Iraqis for the sake of them being Iraqis, Sunnis, Shiiites, Kurds, Arabs or whatever. There are no death camps, no shooting people up a wall, no mass graves, and no death squads.
As ill thought, futile, stupid and counterproductive this war is, it´s not, by any stretch of the imagination a genocide. And I´m debating wheter the label of mass murder fits, it certainly has led to massive deaths, but that was not the intent as far as I can see. However it was an inevitable outcome of a poorly thought action. There´s the same difference between a serial killer and someone who drives drunk and hits a bus stop full of people. Pragmatically speaking, the outcomes are the same, but the moral implications are not.
Read my first post in this thread, dude. I acknowledged the semantic nitpick and declared that I would henceforth call it “mass murder” (well except for the admittedly provocative and unnecessary jab at the OP for which I was warned)
I misread your post. Sorry.
No. I think those guys are victims as well, They were lied to and manipulated into be where they are. Once they’re there they have no choice but to defend themselves and accomplish their missions in the most ethical manner that they can.
Duh?
You were responding (I take it) to a discussion on how there was not a systematic and planned pattern of killing Iraqi civilians.
You responded that it was planned.
So, I queried what was planned, and you respond the invasion was.
And I agree, it was mis-planned, it was mis-managed, it would a pipe dream and a lie and an international travesty. But unfortuately I can’t get anywhere near your position when your start slinging around this insane rhetoric.
Well, to be fair, I’m no longer sure what the hell you’re saying.
Are you saying that the US military planned to kill lots (or all?) civilians in Iraq? [Serious Charge]
Are you saying that the US soldiers in Iraq are conducting a planned and organized attack upon innocent Iraqi civlians? [Serious Charge]
Are you saying that there is a general trend amongst US servicemen and women to wilfully murder Iraqi civilians, not in (perceived or real) self defense, but by design and intent? [Serious Charge]
Dude, I haven’t drawn my Risk card this turn. Nobody could’ve invaded nothin’, it’s out of turn. Duh.
Fair enough, I don’t understand what you’re saying.
No, I’m saying that wholesale civilian slaughter, the murder of civilians, the annihilation of the civilian populace, etc… is not planned.
So are you retracting your accusation of genocide then?
I believe that killing innocent civilians was not their prime mission, but I’ve seen no evidence that they give a rats ass if some innocent Iraqis die. I’ve seen no real effort on the part of the invading force’s commanders to minimize the body count, and if there has been an effort, it has failed miserably
And no, I place no blame whatsoever on those civilians. How did you read that into my post?
Actually, in an ideal world, they never would have had the chance to drop those bombs.
I’m saying that the civilian leadership made a decision to use the military in a manner which they knew would result in a large number of civilian deaths.
Not the US soldiers, but the ones who sent them there.
No.
I am saying that the civilians who sent them there knew that high civilian casulaties would be an inescapable result of the the invasion. They also knew that many of those they sent would be killed or maimed or taken hostage.
The fact that there was no defensive justification for the invasion makes the price of both the lives of the soldiers and the collateral damage to civilans so innecessary as to amount (IMO) to mass murder.
If largescale civilian casualties were known to have been a likely result of a military invasion, and those casualties could not be justified by a greater humanitarian or defnsive purpose, then it’s the same as cold-blooded murder in my mind. Not by the soldiers but by their leaders.
So then the genocide comment is retracted?