Can the Iraq War be classified as a Genocide?

[ck4829]

Stage 1 (Classification) - People are divided into "us and them".
"You're either with us or against us"

Stage 2 (Symbolization) - "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."
"Iraq is connected to 9/11"

Stage 3 (Dehumanization) - "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases."

Stage 4 (Organization) - "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."
Office of Special Plans, WHIG

State 5 (Polarization) - "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."
"They can kill us in 45 minutes", "Mushroom clouds", "9/11", "Weapons of Mass Destruction", the Media going along with Bush

Stage 6 (Identification) - "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."

Stage 7 (Extermination) - "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."
"Shock and awe!"

Stage 8 (Denial) - "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."
"There is no insurgency", "There is no civil war", "655,000 didn't die", "We did the right thing"

[Swamp Rat]

1. Yes, of course.

The people who deny it are just as bad as Bushler.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. No, of course not.

The primary purpose of the Iraq war is to capture wealth, territory, and resources with a reckless bloodthirsty disregard of the people who are killed as a result.

Genocide is "the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

Just because the Iraq invasion (almost certainly a war crime) isn't genocide doesn't make it any less horrific, you know.

The world comes in more shades than black and white.

And if that makes me "as bad as Bushler" then so be it.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

4. Good write-up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Yup. You Nailed It. Great Job.

:applause:

[BuyingThyme]

16. Your post is way off base.

I suspect few definitions of genocide will include the "entire" sentiment, but this definition can certainly be applied to Iraq in terms of the social structures which were destroyed to make way for the invaders.

But, more importantly, it doesn't matter why people are targeted; it's about whether or not they are targeted. What you're saying above is like saying that Hitler didn't target the Jews because he wanted to commit genocide; he just targeted the Jews because he hated Jews. Not a thoughtful argument.

[hfojvt]

29. the why does matter though

If your purpose is to steal, then that is not the same as an attempt to wipe out an entire group.

As a nation we clearly have the capability of wiping out all of Iraq, it would take perhaps 1,000 h-bombs. We have them, don't we? Or OTOH, we could be going door to door with conventional weapons and killing people. Shock and awe was similarly designed to intimidate rather than kill. Baghdad and many other Iraq cities could have been bombed the way Dresden, Tokyo, or Nagasaki were, with the full intention of killing civilians, but they were not.

Calling a massacre or a war a genocide is just hyperbole. Which is not to say that I support wars or massacres.

[BuyingThyme]

33. It matters if changing the political and cultural makeup (etc.)

is a means to your end.

[ProSense]

39. It wouldn't be the massacre of a war that would be genocide, unless

Bush carried out his policy to side with the Shiites. The Shiite systematically killing and torturing Sunnis would be genocide (or vice versa, just as Saddam was charge with http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/11/saddam-genocide-trial-resumes.php">genocide for against the Kurds).

[BuyingThyme]

42. Genocide, in short, is the extermination of an existing culture.

You don't have to kill anybody to do that. You only have to remove whatever pillars sustain their existence.

[hfojvt]

53. you have to kill people for genocide

killing a culture is not the same thing. The dictionary defines it as "deliberate extermination of a people or a nation". A culture is no more of a person than a corporation is.

[BuyingThyme]

55. Nope.

If you pull a small tribe of people off their land, you have committed genocide.

I'm glad you made this error because it's very important to understand.

[hfojvt]

63. might as well call and eviction a homicide then

cide means 'they die' not 'they suffer'.

[Bucky]

69. This dude cut in front of my car on the way to work this morning. He's a murderer!!

A blatent act of autocide.
.

[BuyingThyme]

121. The culture dies.

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Adopted by the United Nations in December of 1948 -

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I don't see forced relocation anywhere in there.


Link

[IChing]

75. See this academic article not a dictionary. It might be more enlightening.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.ENCY.HTM

Also mentioned twice in the thread.

[Swamp Rat]

119. Thanks for the link

:hi:

[BuyingThyme]

122. Then you didn't bother to read the article.

[nam78_two]

59. Kick

You certainly are pro-sense :bounce:!

[WritingIsMyReligion]

17. Exactly. Genocide is purposefully going after a group of people.

Bushie and his lot don't care who dies; they just want the spoils. The casualities are secondary to them, which is why this is so horrific.

[Karenina]

21. Genocide is

"the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

The use of DU ordnance is GENOCIDE.
The systematic destruction of infrastructure is GENOCIDE.
The destruction of a people's (indeed our common) history is GENOCIDE.
The tactic of fomenting rivalries, in order to stand back and claim innocence, is GENOCIDE.

The "MISSION" is nothing less than depopulation and destruction of people who happen to be sitting atop resources coveted by a venal elite.

YES. IT IS GENOCIDE.

[BuyingThyme]

26. Welcome Sanity.

You don't mind if I call you Sanity, do you?

[Swamp Rat]

45. Na DUUUU!!!! ... wie gehts liebling?

:hug:

Die Ablehnung hier ist schändlich und gemein. Es erinnert mich an die 'Guten Deutschen', die hinter Dachau zur Arbeit jeden Tag gingen.

[BuyingThyme]

52. I don't know German, or whatever that is,

so I'm going to have to disagree with whatever you're saying.

[hfojvt]

60. babelfish is your friend

Na, you dear. How are you, my dear.

Die Ablehnung hier ist schändlich und gemein. Es erinnert mich an die 'Guten Deutschen', die hinter Dachau zur Arbeit jeden Tag gingen.

The argument here is dishonorable and vulgar. It reminds me of the 'good Germans' who went to work at Dachau every day.

I think you actually would agree with that.

[Swamp Rat]

70. ... walked past, on their way to work.

Walking the perimeter of Dachau one can see the gallows from the road.

They knew.

As do we.

[hfojvt]

76. hinter, I should have caught that

I actually did not use babelfish, just my ancient high school Deutsch and my battered Langenscheidt's

[uppityperson]

103. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahhaa

I want to nominate that post for a DUzy.
"I don't know German, or whatever that is, so I'm going to have to disagree with whatever you're saying."

[Karenina]

68. Na, logo!

Sie wollen eigentlich nicht verstehen was los ist. :loveya:

[NoPasaran]

5. Horseshit

[BuyingThyme]

6. Absolutely. Even the vast majority of Americans admit it.

And they don't care whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11 because, after all, all Muslims are the same.

[uppityperson]

7. The vast majority of Americans admit the invasion/occupation of Iraq is a genocide?

[BuyingThyme]

11. Absolutely.

Most Americans are nationalistic cowards, and will never use the word genocide to describe what they've done, but they don't need to because they've told us exactly why they supported the slaughter.

[uppityperson]

12. They admit it, but won't use the word, but don't need to because they support the occupation?

Supporting the invasion/occupation means they admit it was genocide? And the vast majority of Americans do this? Which means it IS genocide?

whew. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gaspee]

8. Unintentionally

Yes. It's not a planned genocide, but it is looking more and more like the outcome.

But, since the US seems to make the rules in the world, it will never be called that.

No matter how idealistic I wish to be, I do understand the real world. The US has the power, therefore, the US is always right. No one from the US government will ever be held accountable for this war of aggression.

A clearly illegal war of aggression that if it were waged by any other country (with the exception of a couple of other world powerhouses) the leaders of the aggressor country would find themselves in the docks at the Hague.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. With All Due Respect, There Is No Such Thing As Unintentional Genocide. In Order For There To Be

genocide, there needs to be firm intent.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. No, Not With Any Intellectual Accuracy Anyway. And In Reponse To #1, To Say Otherwise Is Ignorant.

Real nice black and white narrow-minded mentality shown in that reply. Course, just like shrubby saying that if we're against the war then we're helping the terrorists doesn't make it so and is laughable, so too does saying that if you don't think it's genocide you're as bad as the bushies. Some are just too friggin funny here.

[Swamp Rat]

15. "Intellectual Accuracy"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ... ad infinitum.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. Yes Swampy, Intellectual Accuracy. If One Is Educated Enough To Understand The Term Of Genocide,

then one has the ability to be intellectually accurate in its association.

In this case, genocide is quite simply inaccurate in premise and a sign of ignorance in understanding of how the context of the term is to be applied. Speaking directly of your initial reply to the OP, there was even more ignorance by not only claiming it to be genocide, but by taking the unbelievably false and intellectually empty position of claiming otherwise = being as bad as the bushies. If anything deserves smilies ad infinitum, that premise did.

Now no one is arguing how much death there has been or how wrong and brutal this war has been. Calling it things other than genocide does not weaken that. But words have meanings and no matter how much you want to call it genocide just cause you think it makes the cause sound better, that would be intellectually inaccurate to claim based on the reality of the term itself. Sorry you choose to feel otherwise. :hi:

[Marrah_G]

13. No n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. No, To Deny This Is To Have An Understanding Of What The Term Actually Means.

Genocide is not something that is a byproduct of unrelated intent. In order to be genocide, the intent has to be direct and deliberate. There is and was no deliberate plan to wipe out entire races in Iraq. The high numbers of deaths is a byproduct of their real intent, which is oil and a greater foothold in the middle east. But that is not genocide.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. You Still Don't Get It.

In order to be genocide their PRIMARY PURPOSE would have to be for that to occur. I challenge you to show me ANYTHING that provides any evidence of that being the case.

Having an ALTOGETHER different plan and intentions, while even garnering an understanding of the losses to be incurred by such a plan, whilst not having those losses be the primary objective of the plan, does not constitute genocide. That's a fact jack. Say your 'pure and simples' all ya want but that still doesn't redefine what genocide actually is, in reality, in real life, outside of the confines of warped perceptions that can be oft found on message boards.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. No, We're Talking About Real Life And Real Definitions That You Seem Unwilling To Grasp.

Therefore, I see no real point in continuing the discussion.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Can't Prove A Negative Bub. Ya Want To Call It Genocide? Provide The Supporting Evidence Of Intent

If you don't have any, then you have no leg to stand on in calling it such. The onus is on you, not me. Unless you can provide supporting evidence to your argument that this administration set out INTENTIONALLY and with foremost purpose to wipe out the Iraqi people or a sect of Iraqi people, then your argument holds no water whatsoever. Got it?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

61. Bushler's puppeteers wrote the manifesto - PNAC

"The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no
point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in
history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them,
been more absolutely required.

William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03"

(snip)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
___

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1535

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. So You Have Zero Evidence Then. That's What I Thought. Ya Can't Claim Genocide With No Shred Of

evidence. Just don't work that way. You seem emotionally invested in calling it that anyway even outside of any supporting evidence and lord knows I can't stop ya. But the premise is still false.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Sorry, but everything you just said is total nonsense.

The Bushes invaded Iraq with the intention of destroying their political, economical, and social structures (for starters). That is genocide.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. No, That Isn't Genocide. You Can Repeat It As Much As You Want But That's Wrong.

Unless you can provide any supporting evidence that our primary objective for going there was to wipe out an entire race systematically, you have no leg to stand on. Hitler, for example, wanted to exterminate the Jews. That was his desire. Can you show supporting evidence somewhere that shrubby's prime intent was to exterminate Iraqis, as opposed to a different objective? Thanks. :hi:

[BuyingThyme]

37. You are asking me to support a definition you made up.

How 'bout you take a moment to actually look up the word genocide.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Here's A Widely Accepted Definition Of It For Ya From Steven Katz:

"actualization of the intent, however successfully carried out, to murder in its totality any national, ethnic, racial, religious, political, social, gender or economic group, as these groups are defined by the perpetrator, by whatever means."

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spacelady]

113. It may have started with different intent; that does not mean it

cannot degenerate into a different category of killing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

115. Are You Saying Right Now Their Firm Intention Is To Wipe Out The Iraqi Race? Got Any Evidence?

Your statement, if isolated outside of context, can be true of course. But put back into the context of this discussion it appears you are attempting to put forth a premise that it now IS genocide. If so, then you need to provide some level of supporting evidence to show that as of now they have planned intent to wipe out the Iraqi race or a specific sect within that race. Can you do so?

[Karenina]

72. Thank you!

:hi:

[nam78_two]

20. Its definitely "divide and rule" at work again imo

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2439530.ece

Not a new tactic either for imperialists:
www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/centenary/india(1947).pdf

[ProSense]

23. Is Iraq Headed for Genocide?

Is Iraq Headed for Genocide?

Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006 By MASSIMO CALABRESI/WASHINGTON

President George W. Bush has continued to reject assertions that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. But in the wake of his meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, to discuss the country's continuing sectarian violence, some human rights experts are worrying about a different, worse fate for Iraq: genocide.

Juan Mendez, Kofi Annan's special advisor on the prevention of genocide, told TIME that the targeting of minorities based solely on religion in Iraq, the extent of the violence there, the lack of central control, and the fact that Iraq has already experienced genocide, "constitute warning signs that we take very seriously." He stressed that those warning signs can be present in conflicts and never rise to the level of genocide, but that his office is watching the situation closely. If the situation in Iraq did deteriorate, Mendez said, "I would not hesitate to request armed troops to protect people" but, he added, it would have to be in a "different configuration" than what is there now.

Gregory Stanton, a professor of human rights at Virginia's University of Mary Washington, sees in Iraq the same troubling signs of preparation and execution of genocidal aims that he saw in the 1990s in Rwanda when he worked at the State Department. Sunni and Shiite militias are "trying to polarize the country, they're systematically trying to assassinate moderates, and they're trying to divide the population into homogenous religious sectors," Stanton says. All of those undertakings, he says, are "characteristics of genocide," and his organization, Genocide Watch, is preparing to declare the country in a "genocide emergency."

Though the term conjures up thoughts of enormous numbers of civilian dead, the quantity of victims is not the warning sign experts look for when considering the danger of genocide. Samantha Power, a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, says with Shi'ite and Sunni sub-groups already identifying and killing victims solely on the basis of their religious identity, "genocidal intent" is already present in Iraq. "When you drive up to a checkpoint and you're stopped and somebody pulls out your ID and determines whether you're a Sunni or a Shiite and takes you away and kills you because of that, there is a genocidal mentality afoot." The question, Power says, is how broadly that mentality will spread. Iraq has already seen one genocide in recent decades: Saddam Hussein stands accused of attempting to exterminate Kurds, the third largest group in the country.

While Power and Stanton both see a mounting danger of widespread genocide in Iraq, there is certainly not consensus on the threat. Other human rights organizations, like the Committee on Conscience at the U.S. Holocaust Museum and the International Crisis Group, do not see the conditions for genocide developing. Human Rights Watch, which is particularly restrictive in what it calls genocide, says it believes Iraq is not headed in that direction. Joost Hiltermann, who covers Iraq for the International Crisis Group, says that the biggest impediment to full-blown genocide is the fact that there are divisions between Shi'ite factions, which prevent them from uniting in a nationwide persecution of Sunnis.

Much of the debate over the possibility of widespread genocide in Iraq stems from differing interpretations of the 1948 United Nations convention on genocide. There, genocide is defined rather broadly as killing, seriously harming, restricting birth or attempting to destroy in whole or in part, "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Says University of Mary Washington's Stanton, "Anyone who says that's not happening in Iraq is burying their head in the sand." But others say the number of people in Iraq operating with the intention of eradicating people solely on the basis of their membership in a ethnic or religious group is too small to constitute genocidal intent.

more

Iraq: A New Age Of Genocide?

Bill Weinberg
May 15, 2007

Bill Weinberg, editor of the online journal WW4Report.com . This piece originally appeared in New America Media.

Amid daily media body counts and analyses of whether the “surge” is “working,” there is an even more horrific reality in Iraq, almost universally overlooked. The latest annual report by the London-based Minority Rights Group International, released earlier this year, places Iraq second as the country where minorities are most under threat—after Somalia. Sudan is third. More people may be dying in Darfur than Iraq, but Iraq's multiple micro-ethnicities—Turcomans, Assyrians, Mandeans, Yazidis—place it at the top of the list.

While the mutual slaughter of Shi’ite and Sunni makes world headlines, Iraq is home to numerous smaller faiths and peoples—now faced with actual extinction. Turcomans are the Turkic people of northern Iraq, caught in the middle of the Arab-Kurdish struggle over Kirkuk and its critical oilfields. Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, now targeted for attack, trace their origins in Mesopotamia to before the arrival of the Arabs in the seventh century. So do the Mandeans, followers of the world’s last surviving indigenous Gnostic faith—now also facing a campaign of threats, violence and kidnapping. The situation has recently escalated to outright massacre.

In late April, a grim story appeared on the wire services about another such small ethnic group in northern Iraq. Twenty-three textile factory workers from the Yazidi community were taken from a mini-bus in Mosul by unknown gunmen, placed against a wall and shot down execution-style. Three who survived were critically injured.

Yazidis, although linguistic Kurds, are followers of a pre-Islamic faith which holds that earth is ruled by a fallen angel. For this, they have been assailed by their Muslim neighbors as "devil-worshippers" and are often subject to persecution.

more

Genocide Watch

History Repeating Itself: Kerry-Brokered Cambodia Tribunal Set To Begin

[nam78_two]

27. kick.nt

[hfojvt]

31. see but if there are genocides taking place in Iraq

they are being done by Shi'ites against Sunnis or smaller groups, not by the USA.

[Swamp Rat]

36. kick

[IChing]

71. Democide

The problem with the generalized meaning of genocide is that to fill one void it creates another. For if genocide refers to all government murder, there is then no name for the murder of people because of their group membership, or the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part? It is precisely because of this conceptual problem that the new term democide (from the Greek demos for "people") is useful. It means murder by government or ruling authorities, and replaces the generalized definition of genocide, thus leaving the sociological concept of genocide to specifically refer to the murder of people because of their group membership.

One of the great advances in international and humanitarian law of the ICC Statute is that it now explicitly defines murder and extermination as international crimes, whether in time of war or peace. Article 7.1 of the Statute includes the intentional "murder" and "extermination" of one or more persons as "'crime against humanity' when part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack." Of special importance, "extermination includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population." (Article 7.2.b)

Murder and extermination by governments are within the general definition of genocide-democide. Therefore, the ICC Statute meets the extensive criticism of the UNCG that it was too narrow and should have included the murder or extermination of people for reasons other than the attempt to destroy indelible groups, although not under the crime of genocide. In effect, the ICC now covers almost all cases of democide, with the exception of the murder of political opponents or others (such as that of a pesky reporter) that is not part of the widespread or systematic attack on the population

.
This academic article is one of the best I have found on genocide : http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.ENCY.HTM

I would have to conclude that Iraq has some of the symptoms.

[Reterr]

32. Great OP-1 quibble though

I don't think all of them use the "there is no civil war" line. In fact they like to push the idea of the civil war, specialy as something completely unrelated to the US invasion.
Makes it easy to sell it as-"Wouldn't ya know-those crazy Muslims would start killing each other given the chance"...
:puke:

[stray cat]

40. Only among Iraqis killing Iraqis

If we leave and one group of people are massively killed off then our leaving paved the way for genocide. Either way Iraqis kill Iraqis and the responsibility for the situation can be layed on the fact that Saddam isn't there to kill people and keep order.

[Bucky]

46. I'm going to think of an extremely negative term and then let's apply it to Bush

Bush is Hitler. Bush is Stalin.

Bush is a fundy Christian true believer. Bush is a cynical oportunist manipulating the Christian true believers.

Bush is incompentant and fucks up everything he runs. Bush planned and implemented the massive 9/11 conspiracy and it all went according to plan.

Bush is a secretly gay man. Bush is having an affair with Condoleezza Rice. Bush is a racist.

Bush is sexually impotent.


.... and now we have this logical equation:

1. Bush is evil.
2. Therefor, Bush's war is evil.
3. Genocide is evil.
4. Therefor, Bush's war is genocide.

Statements one thru three are correct. Statement four is the result of sloppy thinking. The war is a bad thing and has killed far far too many people and contributed to the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands more. Iraq's population is certainly getting smaller--but this is more a function of migration than death. There is no plan to replace the population in Iraq with non-Iraqis.

This is a disgusting, appalling, and entirely unnecessary war. That's doesn't make it a direct or indirect scheme to de-populate the country. It's simply an evil that doesn't care what consequences it unleashes.

[BuyingThyme]

50. Okay! We get it! You people don't know what genocide is.

You think it's about killing all people of a particular genome or something. That explains it.

Carry on...

[Bucky]

66. Just what do you mean by "you people"?

Hater

[Swamp Rat]

64. PNAC n/t

[Wetzelbill]

56. possibly Democide which is a broader definition

You could make a case for this either way. I think the OP makes a good case. But then again are the perpatrators purposely annihilating a group of people? You know, it's tougher to make that case, it's not as evident as say, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda or Darfur.

I think what is clear is the attempted destruction of a society. Opening up to free-markets, imposing Western style ideals. I think the killing is and has been indiscriminate, and done for politics and political purposes. You cover interesting ground in the 8 stages, and that all is relevant too. It's just that Iraq isn't something that is easy to define in that manner.

Democide
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

[IChing]

74. We read the same article and I think there is a substance of Democide.

I agree it is hard to define and that people should read the article you and I have submitted.

[Wetzelbill]

81. yeah right on

I first heard of Democide a few weeks ago while writing a paper on Modern Colonialism with regards to American Indians and contemporary American foreign policy. I didn't use it in the paper for anything, but it's an interesting concept. Fits well with the idea of unrestrained warfare too, meaning not just a military victory, but the imposing of ideology and political systems on another group of people.

[philly_bob]

57. I don't think so. Please respect the meaning of words.

For that matter, I don't think the Bush administration is Fascist.

The worst president ever, just begging for impeachment, sociopathic and unpatriotic ... but not Fascist.

[Radical Activist]

58. It already was years ago.

The sanctions kept in place by both Bush 1 and Clinton killed hundreds of thousands and has been called genocide by several international organizations.

[Gregorian]

67. Darfur and Iraq have uncanny similarities.

Darfur has been classified as a genocide. So I don't see why Iraq would be any different.

[lostinacause]

78. The similarities are not functionally relevant.

[lostinacause]

77. It amazes me how many people here don't understand the definition of

genocide. Killing does not equal genocide. To label the Iraq war as genocide you would have to loosen the definition so much that the connotations behind it are meaningless.

[tammywammy]

80. Agreed

Iraq is not a genocide.

[uppityperson]

79. No. It is a HORRIBLE thing, but not genocide.

This does not in any way excuse it or lessen what is going on, it just does not fit the definition of genocide.

[Redstone]

82. No. As bad as it is, it's NOT "genocide." Give me a fucking break, here.

Redstone

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tiptoe]

83. "More than 2000 doctors have been kidnapped or murdered since 2003 and 12000 doctors have fled...

the country, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index..."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iraq/jan-june07/infrastructure_02-02.html

Does non-replaced medical personnel qualify as a parameter of genocide?

[The Magistrate]

85. Not Even Close To Genocide, Sir

U.S. actions meet none of the legal standards in the relevant international statutes, nor in the existing case law. The I.C.C. recenmtly ruled, in relation to massacres in Bosnia, that even a pattern of atrocious mass killings was not sufficient to establish that the crime of genocide had been committed by a state, absent explicit proof the intent was to exterminate, and direct control by the state over all those committing murders against the group attacked. So even if one were inclined to stipulate for purposes of argument that atrocious mass killings have been committed by U.S. forces, it would fall short of the legal standard for genocide.

The actions of Shia militia bodies, under some degree of control by elements of the Iraqi government, are verging towarda a genocidal character, though not nearly there yet. These are, of course, Iraqi bodies, in most cases extremely hostile to the United States, and far from its agents in any sense.

"Once you have gilded it, it no longer is a lily."

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

89. A horrific tragedy caused by the "leaders" of our country, greed and power egoists

Genocide, unfortunately, does have a "neat little definition".

[The Magistrate]

90. A Poor-Grade Propaganda Wheeze, Sir: That Is What It Is, After All

The stuff makes extraordinarily effective armor-piercing rounds, and is used for that purpose, and will be until something better comes up. It is certainly poisonous, like lead and cadmium and many other heavy metals in routine use for various purposes. It also has a very low factor of radioactivity, that can potentially cause some further harm if ingested.

The rest of this is bilge of a similar order. Let us take the 'sanctions' wheeze for an example. You are alleging one and a half millions killed by them over a period of about eleven years, or something on the order of about one hundred forty thousand deaths a year. The Lancet study indicates that in close to four years of war, something on the order of seven hundred thousands have been killed, or about one hundred seventy thousands per year. You are maintaining, in other words, that the present situation in Iraq is more lethal than the previous sanctions regime only by a ratio of about six to five, which is barely a signifigant change at all. The people of Iraq would probably express a great deal of surprise at this....

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

100. If You Insist On the Demonstration, Sir

The persons who conducted the Lancet study estimated the death rate in pre-invasion Iraq as five per thousand per year, which in a population of roughly twenty-five millions works out to about one hundred twenty-five thousands per year. This is less than the number you claimed died from sanctions alone, in addition to normally expected deaths in the population. Whatever number actually died from the effects of sanctions must be found within the product of pre-war death rate, and cannot total larger than the product of that rate, which necessarily includes all causes of death. If you do not accept the pre-war base line of the study, then you cannot cite its conclusions as authoritative, since they are based on the difference between this and what their samples reveal, and if it is wrong, so are those results. The answer is, of course, that the claims of tremendous casualties from sanctions are nonesensical exaggerations floated for various propagandist purposes.

"There is no substitute for simple arithmetic."

[Usrename]

117. So if a "dirty bomber" were to spread it all over New York?

In your opinion this would not be a crime?

How do you think this stuff up?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. Thanks For A Well Put Post.

:yourock:

[The Magistrate]

91. Thank You, Sir

It eludes me why people insist on hyperbole. It si a very dangerous form of argument, because people who employ it habitually come to forget they are employing a rhetorical device, and begin to treat their exaggerations as statements of fact, which makes them easily overthrown in debate, once outside the choir they preach to normally. tell an ordinary, politically un-involved person in our country the U.S. is committing 'genocide' in Iraq, and the result will be derisive scorn, and a resolve to avoid the person who said it, and discount anything thta person says on any political subject, and probably any other subject as well. The line is absolutely useless for political work.

A thing can be very bad indeed, on numerous levels, without being the worst thing there is....

[uppityperson]

93. Indeed.

have you been gone, haven't seen you around, or maybe just not on topics I've been on.

[The Magistrate]

97. That Last, Ma'am, Is Probably The Reason

And things have been busy here lately....

[uppityperson]

98. I've been utilizing hide thread.

thanks for chiming in here. Hyperbole does not help. Terrible horrible acts, most likely war crimes, but not genocide. Yes, words have definitions and can be used improperly. By not using that word, we do not decrease the badness of what is going on at all. It is bad.
Thanks.

[Usrename]

118. Too bad that the Iraqi groups are not legally responsible.

As an occupying force in Iraq, the Geneva Conventions are in play, and that makes Bush the responsible party. Look for a lot more military brass to start claiming PTSD in the next few months.

[Initech]

86. Abso-fucking-lutely!

Yeah, it can definitely be classified as genocide. It's clearly become an "Us v. Them" situation, and Bush is such a stubborn jackass that he refuses to accept reality.

[Downtown Hound]

92. This is a touchy subject because to deny that it is genocide

seems, on its surface, to lessen the horror of it. I don't believe it is genocide, but it is definitely a war crime, and a horrific one at that.

In every definition of the term genocide I've ever read, it implies a systematic attempt to wipe out a certain population. That's not what is going on in Iraq. What's going on is a power grab, and Bush and his cronies don't care who dies as a result. A horrific crime, and hopefully they will still be brought to justice for it, but I don't think it qualifies as genocide.

[The Magistrate]

101. Well Said, Mr. Hound!

[lostinacause]

112. To say that it is not genocide is to rightfully characterise it.

It does not change the nature of what was done. If anything calling it genocide hurts your cause because it seems that it is necessary to lie about the situation for it to have any meaning.

[Junkdrawer]

95. Pacification

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1503947

[lonestarnot]

96. You got it baby.

The steps on genocide. There has been no mass killing all at once or within a short period of time, like Rwanda. So I don't think it qualifies.

[NNN0LHI]

99. There has been no mass killing all at once or within a short period of time, like Rwanda?

How do you know there has been no mass killing all at once or within a short period of time in Iraq?

Remember this?

We Don't Do Body Counts" Says Gen. Tommy Franks: To Counter the Pentagon's Refusal to Track Civilian Casualties We Talk with the Founders of Iraqbodycount.Net - Friday, April 4th, 2003

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/16/2157203


Do you think our military would allow our media to report genocide was happening in Iraq if it was?

Don

[lonestarnot]

102. It would have come out yes. Not necessarily by our media first.

[dailykoff]

104. Yes of course.

There's nothing remotely "accidental" about it. It's as cold-blooded as any other colonial occupation scheme, only more so, since Iraq was never a nation of "savages" like colonial America. Decapitation and depopulation were part of the program that has been in place since the 1991 invasion, and yes, it's all about their oil.

[dailykoff]

105. p.s. and you can bet that historians will call it that,

theirs and eventually I imagine ours.

[lostinacause]

107. I think you should review war history. Particularly the fire bombings in WW2.

The specific targeting of civilian cities by both sides is generally not considered genocide. There were a number of other atrocities that were not considered genocide to be intellectually honest in classifying what is currently happening in Iraq as genocide those actions would also have to be classified as genocide.

[uppityperson]

108. They are called war crimes

[lostinacause]

111. I never said anything to the contrary and certainly by today’s standards

they are.

[uppityperson]

114. I'm agreeing with you.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bdamomma]

109. yes, it is

[Nimrod2005]

110. I say NO

[leveymg]

120. An aggressive, illegal war, violation of Geneva Accords,

violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, violation of the U.S. Torture Act.

That's enough to get them to the Hague.