Diogenes the Cynic: US troops engaged in "genocide"

[FinnAgain]

@Diogenes the Cynic

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.

Agreed. Now admit that using the term ‘genocide’ is beyond bombastic and becomes inflamatory and stupid.

@Diogenes the Cynic

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.

Your desire to not care about reality is not my fault I’m afraid.
That our nation has engaged in an organized and directly organized campaign of genocide would be a massive (serious charge) allegation. Intent matters, and

@Diogenes the Cynic

campign of genocide

implies that there is a freaking campaign of genocide going on! It is irresponsible to use rhetoric which you do not agree with, stupid to use such overblown hyperbole, and needlessly inflamatory to boot!

@Diogenes the Cynic

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.

This is a different issue. If you mean that the commander in chief should be held accountable for his actions, I would agree. But this war is not a campaign of genocide, or even a campaign of mass murder. Whatever we feel about the beltway neocons, the US military had not outlined its mission goals as the destruction of the Iraqi civilian populace.

@Diogenes the Cynic

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.

Again, I think Bush could be tried before a court of law for war crimes. I’d probably support it too. And I assume that you’re an American, so he’s your president too.

@Diogenes the Cynic

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.

In what manner exactly? Who exactly ordered what, when?

@Diogenes the Cynic

Not the US soldiers, but the ones who sent them there.

Gah!
So you are saying that “The ones who sent them” are “conducting a planned and organized attack upon innocent Iraqi civlians”.
Or are you just being infuriating?

@Diogenes the Cynic

I am saying that the civilians who sent them there knew that high civilian casulaties would be an inescapable result of the the invasion.

Which civilians? The president? All of congress?
Will you admit that genocide is still a stupid and overly inflamatory phrase to be throwing around?

@Diogenes the Cynic

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.

I’d agree with that.
But, there is still a difference between a campaign which is designed to eliminate civilians, and a campaign which is designed to govern the civilians once you’ve gotten rid of the ‘bad guys’.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@FinnAgain

This is a different issue. If you mean that the commander in chief should be held accountable for his actions, I would agree. But this war is not a campaign of genocide, or even a campaign of mass murder. Whatever we feel about the beltway neocons, the US military had not outlined its mission goals as the destruction of the Iraqi civilian populace.

I simply disagree that ot’s not mass murder and I don’t think that civilian deaths have to be a primary mission goal in order for them to be murder. If it is known that civilian deaths will be a result then the justification has to be greater than the price. If a choice is made to sacrifice those lives for a false justification, then I consider it murder. I see no moral difference.

In what manner exactly? Who exactly ordered what, when?

The civilian Commander in Chief, his civilian Vice President, his civilian advisors his civilian Secretary of Defense, and the civilian Congress which voted to give the CIC the authority. All of them made the decision to misuse the military for a non-defensive purpose which they knew would kill both civilians and their own soldiers.

The CIC is ultimately responsible for giving the order, of course.

Gah!
So you are saying that “The ones who sent them” are “conducting a planned and organized attack upon innocent Iraqi civlians”

Yes, That’s what I’m saying. At least that they planned and organized an attack that they knew would RESULT in the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians and which they knew served no defensive purpose for the US.

Which civilians? The president? All of congress?

Yes and yes. Also the weasels like Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Will you admit that genocide is still a stupid and overly inflamatory phrase to be throwing around?

It was technically the wrong word. I should have said “mass murder” from the start.

I’d agree with that.
But, there is still a difference between a campaign which is designed to eliminate civilians, and a campaign which is designed to govern the civilians once you’ve gotten rid of the ‘bad guys’.

I disagree. We had no right to “design to govern” anybody.

[margin]

@MrFantsyPants

Simple instructions like “If you hear a gunshot, don’t fire wildly into a crowded market, killing dozens of people.” might have been good.

Actually, we get told exactly that. We were even told to be very careful about the fact that the ING and the IPs now have RPGs. We look a gun muzzles a lot.

My feeling is that this is somehow worse than genocide. We don’t have enough troops. We can’t protect them from the insurgents. And how did we come to be here, exactly?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@margin

Actually, we get told exactly that. We were even told to be very careful about the fact that the ING and the IPs now have RPGs. We look a gun muzzles a lot.

My feeling is that this is somehow worse than genocide. We don’t have enough troops. We can’t protect them from the insurgents. And how did we come to be here, exactly?

I just want to emphasize that I think you guys got screwed hard by this administration and that I don’t blame anything on those on the ground who just want finish their tours alive and go home.

[treis]

And you choose to express this feeling by accusing them of participating in genocide?

[treis]

Let me expound a bit:

Any order directing mass-murder or genocide would not be a lawful order. Soldiers are obligated to not follow unlawful orders. By saying that they are currently engaging in mass-murder and genocide you are accussing them of war crimes.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Not them The ones who sent them there.

[Metacom]

Murder is when someone illegally kills someone else. The key word is “illegally.” When a US soldier in Iraq accidently kills a civilian as part of the Iraqi war, that soldier is not breaking any laws that are backed by an entity capable of enforcing them, which, for all practical purposes, means they aren’t breaking any laws and what they’re doing isn’t murder. You can argue that the war is wrong, but calling what happens over their “murder” is incorrect.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Felony murder.

[treis]

So are you just going to completely ignore my post or are you planning on answering it?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@treis

Let me expound a bit:

Any order directing mass-murder or genocide would not be a lawful order. Soldiers are obligated to not follow unlawful orders. By saying that they are currently engaging in mass-murder and genocide you are accussing them of war crimes.

Ordering them to illegally invade Iraq was a war crime. I don’t hold them responsible because they were lied to. If you wish to hold them responsible, that is your prerogative.

[The_Raven_1]

@Miller

I’d like to think that Diogenes would hold himself to a higher standard.

Stop, you’re killing me!

[treis]

Bullshit. You fucking completely ignored your accusations of mass-murder and genocide. Have you no intelluctual honesty left? Should we just go ahead and write you off as not debating in good faith?

If you accuse this administration of mass-murder and genocide then every soldier that carriers out said mass-murder and genocide is guilty of war crimes. Don’t come in here and say you don’t blame the soldiers if genocide is taking place (which it isn’t) then every soldier over there is responsible. ‘Just following orders’ is no defense and never has been.

[Black_Train_Song]

No, I’m saying that wholesale civilian slaughter, the murder of civilians, the annihilation of the civilian populace, etc… is not planned.

And you choose to express this feeling by accusing them of participating in genocide?

Would assisting in genocide count, even if it was assisting by way of looking the other way? Would it count if it was another US administration and not the present one?

In October 1989, Pres Bush 1 issued a national security directive that “normal relations between the US and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stabilty in both the gulf and the middle east”. This- after saddam gassed the Kurds.

Is there a whole lot of difference between these two administrations? (beside the fact that Bush 1 was smart enough not to occupy Iraq)

[treis]

@Rooves

Would assisting in genocide count, even if it was assisting by way of looking the other way? Would it count if it was another US administration and not the present one?

No and Yes.

@Rooves

Is there a whole lot of difference between these two administrations? (beside the fact that Bush 1 was smart enough not to occupy Iraq)

Yes. The Gulf War and this invasion are pretty much polar opposite ways to go about war.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@treis

If you accuse this administration of mass-murder and genocide then every soldier that carriers out said mass-murder and genocide is guilty of war crimes. Don’t come in here and say you don’t blame the soldiers if genocide is taking place (which it isn’t) then every soldier over there is responsible. ‘Just following orders’ is no defense and never has been.

You may hold them responsible if you wish. I am willing to give them a pass. They were lied to and I believe they are victims as much as the Iraqis.

[Black_Train_Song]

I didn’t ask about the difference in the wars, but in the administrations.

While I’m here I’ll throw in this link

My point is that at least a few of Bush’s people are recycled from Pops administration and I’d go out on a limb and invoke the saying “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”.

[Black_Train_Song]

I’m not a historian but if you look at our government as a whole and the tacts it takes in a whole slew of world affairs (Kosovo, central america, Vietnam, etc) you can almost stand blindfolded and throw a “mass murder/ borderline genocide” dart and hit something and at least win a small prize.

[treis]

It doesn’t matter what my wish is. There is precident for soldiers to be tried and executed for genocide and mass-murder despite the just following orders defense.

I also find it odd that you give soldiers a pass for genocide when you were so adament and almost ready to string up the soldier yourself in this thread. A choice quote:

@Diogenes the Cynic

Fascinating. I find it revealling that Bush lovers immediately try to find any possible justification, no matter how asinine, to excuse absolutely anything a US soldier does.

To summarize: accusing this administration of genocide and mass murder means legally speaking with plenty of precidence to back it up that according to you American soldiers in Iraq are guilty of war crimes. This at odds with your statement that you don’t hold them responsible.

So I ask you again (1) do you truely believe that genocide and mass murder are occuring in Iraq? (2) If they are do you also believe that American soldiers are guilty of war crimes. and if (1) is true while you think (2) is false might I ask you (3) what color is the sky in your reality?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@treis

It doesn’t matter what my wish is. There is precident for soldiers to be tried and executed for genocide and mass-murder despite the just following orders defense.

You may agitate for such measures if you wish. I would oppose them.

I also find it odd that you give soldiers a pass for genocide when you were so adament and almost ready to string up the soldier yourself in this thread. A choice quote:

That was in reference to a specific war crime, not a generic statement about soldiers doing their jobs.

To summarize: accusing this administration of genocide and mass murder means legally speaking with plenty of precidence to back it up that according to you American soldiers in Iraq are guilty of war crimes. This at odds with your statement that you don’t hold them responsible.

Nope, According to YOU American soldiers are guilty of war crimes. I disagree with you on that. I think they’re just victims sent into danger under false pretenses.

So I ask you again (1) do you truely believe that genocide and mass murder are occuring in Iraq?

Mass murder, yes.

(2) If they are do you also believe that American soldiers are guilty of war crimes.

There are some American soldiers who have already been convicted of war crimes. Most are not guilty of anything.

and if (1) is true while you think (2) is false might I ask you (3) what color is the sky in your reality?

(2) is not universally false but in general I’ve already explained it. The troops were sent there under false pretenses. They were lied to. They are at the mercy of their own criminal leaders. I personally don’t hold them morally responsible. Apparantly you do. We can agree to disagree.