Except for the fact that Rumsfled approved each and everyone of those missions:
US killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians in “precision” strikes
Why the lying scumbags that led the US into committing genocide in Iraq are beyond justice is beyond me.
Not to undervalue the lives lost, but since when does “100s killed” = “genocide”?
Emotional ranting does not bolster your argument.
And neither do your rationalizations.
Fact: at the very minimum, the US is directly responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths. No getting aorund that fact as much as some of you may not like to hear it.
Whether you go by the newfound study and make it 100,000 or use a more ‘conservative’ source of individually documented deaths such as Iraq Body Count, which has a minimum death toll of 14,181 as of today, genocide is genocide.
Unless of course, there’s a particular cut-off figure you had in mind. If so, let’s hear the particulars.
Saddam was one of a line of dictators and monarchs in Iraq. While the transitions between them have been bloody, they were usually limited to military coups, not full out civil war. Saddam’s death may have led to chaos, but I would have given better then even odds to a military coup followed by the installation of one of Saddam’s sons or a military general.
PS-Two additional points.
1-Just noticed I mislinked the article. Correct link as follows:
**US killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians in “precision” strikes**
2-I also wanted to add that I think you’re being rather disingenuous, John Mace. For it is obvious that I pasted the referenced article in reply to someone asking for just such a cite. So clearly, I am not just using the header of same to make my accusation. However, propaganda aside, the article does highlight the rather blatant disregard for Iraqi civillian life under the prevalent US engagement policy at the time – and we have no reason to believe it has changed since. Quite the contrary, Fajullah is under daily air-raids as we speak with omminous sings that the new American offensive will only intensify after your elections. Beyond that, someone would have to be living under a rock to believe that there were only “100s killed.”
And even if they were, they’d only need to read the very OP of this thread to get back to speed. Lots and lots of killing since. Which continues unabated to this day.
Yes, but “Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics.” (From an encyclopedia entry.)
To be genocide, I think the deaths would need to be a much greater percentage of the populations in question, no? Otherwise you have far too many activities which could be called genocide. Motor traffic in America is genocide. The failure to forcibly inoculate every person in the world for flu is genocide. Heck, poverty is genocide. The term begins to lose its meaning when you mean merely that lots of people have died. Try something like mass murder or even perhaps, Warriors of Mass Deaths for something a little cuter. Just a thought.
Redfury: It’s not genocide.
But if you want to continue insiting that it is, knock yourself out. It only weakens your argument.
Not to be snippy here, but you must be using a different definition of ‘genocide’ than I am.
You’d have to explain how the US has A) Been Systematic, B) PLANNED EXTERMINATION, and C) An ENTIRE nation, racial, political or ethnic group.
Otherwise your statement was complete hyperbole no?
As to the OP, I read this article as well yesterday and agree with the broader numbers of deaths (attributed to heat stroke, disease, lack of medical care, etc) in Iraq but I don’t attribute any addition ire at the US for them. Of COURSE additional deaths will occur in a war zone…its inevitable. I realized this BEFORE the invasion…I’m surprised all of you didn’t. Very minor changes in society can have an impact on ‘additional deaths’ in a population, let alone a major tramatic event like an invasion. I’m no fan of the Iraq war mind you, but this is just not shocking news. Whats funny though is to hear the moans of outrage here, yet I don’t remember the thread (or the article either…maybe I missed it) talking about all the ‘additional deaths’ in Bosnia both during and after the NATO/US attacks there. Or anyone commenting on all the ‘additional deaths’ CURRENTLY happening in the Sudan.
I’m sure they had a pretty accurate estimate on total deaths from everything from combat to your ‘additional deaths’ before the war. The military is pretty good about such estimates, and they have whole staffs who’s sole job it is to make such estimates with both best and worst case scenerios. Obviously the number factors in. Whats the upper range that the US would be willing to go as far as casualties goes both to our troops and to the civilan population? Gods know. One indication of what we AREN’T willing to do sits in North Korea though…obviously we aren’t willing to tangle with someone who is nuts enough to use nukes on his own country (or neighbors) if he’s invaded. Other than that its pure speculation.
-XT
John Mace AND pervert beat me to it…sigh
-XT
Fair enough. Not going to get tangled-up in semantic wrangling and I do admit to a bit of hyperbole on my part.
But mass murder will do just fine. And they* are most certainly still lying scumbags.
*Bush and his cronies.
I just want to address this faulty assumption in the OP. The “planners” and the “orderers” are not the same people. Maybe a better question might be:
If Congress had been presented with invasion plans that predicted civilian deaths on the order of 100,000, would a majority have voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq?
Just as a note, I strongly suspect the unwillingness to attack NK to put an end to their nuclear program has at least as much to do with the fact that Seoul is within artillery range of NK positions along the demilitarized zone as it does with the possibility that NK has working warheads and a viable means of delivering them. Kim Jong Il has no need for nukes to massacre untold thousands of civilians.
I’ve no intent to defend the engagement rules followed by the US forces in Irak, that I find shameful. I just wanted to mention that apparently, most of the civilian population has left Fallujah (most, of course, doesn’t mean all. Poor people with no family able to shelter them had to stay).
Also, the word “genocide” wouldn’t apply to this situation, since there’s no intent to eliminate the Iraki people. But these could be (in my opinion actually are) war crimes.
No matter how you call it according to one or another dictionary:
Do you deny that the order to murder deliberately civilians in their own homes in their own country is something else then ordering mass murder?
How I love to see all these apologists play with words while there are no words enough to call the Bush Criminals for what they are.
And how I love to see these crimes finally discussed and brought up by other people then myself.
It takes longer then we thought but finally something of what is known outside the USA because we get the reports on the killings in our media and press daily now comes to the surface inside the USA.
I still think however that the USA shall re-elect a this mass murderer and thereby also give support and applaud to his bunch of murdering criminals.
(Post 34 was in reply to the post of XT.)
Moot point. For by now everyone should know that ’the Pentagon does not count civilian deaths. So how would they have known anyway?
Besides, I remember clearly back in the days before the invasion when some of us on the anti-war camp would bring up the possibility of massive civilian casualties, we were quickly dismissed as “hysterical lefties,” “pinko commies,” “Saddam-lovers,” “anti-Americans,” and any number of other pleasantries.
Again, whether some Americans like hearing it or not, this war was, and remains, a morally indefensible affair.
Even after retracting the genocide charge in favor of “mass murder,” I think it comes a point were we’re simply playing word games. For I could certainly make a case that the “intent” is indeed to “eliminate” the Iraqi people in so far as anyone of them who opposes the American occupation can – and obviously has – been targeted. And since the killing is ongoing as we speak, we have no idea what the final number will be before the Americans have their way – or not.
Allow me to put it this way, what would you call the 2-3 million natives killed in the Vietnam war? I mean, is it only “genocide” when the “other guys” do it?
BTW, here’s a great example of a thread where I was labeled many of those thing I wrote before for saying exactly many of the things I am simply repeating now. In fact, I even received a death threat during the exchange. Goes to show just how rabid some of people were in defense of this insanity.
Where are they now, one wonders?
Oh. Well, in that case I’ll respond.
I classify it as ‘war’. War’s are NEVER pretty, and certainly an unjustified war rankles even more, so I can understand the extreme’s you and RedFury are going to in your language. However, this was neither ‘mass murder’ nor was it ‘genocide’…it was simply war. Not all war’s are just and right things…but they are still war. When the Nazi’s invaded poland it was neither ‘mass murder’ nor was it ‘genocide’…when they deliberately killed the Jews there it WAS both ‘mass murder’ AND ‘genocide’. Doesn’t mean the Nazi’s were right or just for invading Poland…or does it excuse them. However, trying to make this into something its not lessens your case and makes you look like an extremist.
Bush et al didn’t deliberately order the mass murder of civilians in their own home…they ordered an invasion of Iraq. The US deliberately went out of its way to avoid unnecessary casualties to civilians. Had we not done so there could be literally MILLIONS dead now…and directly dead, not ‘additional deaths’ but direct casualties. This in no way makes the Iraq war either a just war or the right war for the US to have waged, but you are waving your hands and throwing out hyperbole left and right.
No word play at all…the word play has all been on YOUR side. ‘Mass murder’?? ‘Genocide’?? ‘Bush Criminals’?? And you are accusing ME of word play? I’m making no appologies for Bush et al…I think it was a stupid war and one the US didn’t need to fight. Doesn’t mean I think Bush was a ‘criminal’, nor does ‘war’ equate to ‘mass murder’ or ‘genocide’…least not in my book.
You’ve had your head in the sands then…this controversy has been raging in the US for quite a long time now. The data has been there for anyone who cared to look for it as far as casualties goes.
Well, your hyperbole aside, I think you are wrong. Certainly the country is deeply divided about both Bush and about the Iraqi war. Right now the two candidates are balanced on a knife edge and it could fall either way. My own guess is that Kerry will narrowly win on tuesday. I guess we’ll see in 4 days.
-XT
Indeed.
While I’m sympathetic to congresscritters’ hesitancy to take an unpopular stands I still find fault with those who even let the declaration-of-war-lite come to a vote.
If the electorate had known this during that mid-term election season, would as many congresscritters been for the invasion?