Ad hominem abuse, Genocide Denial & Holocaust Denial on Newsvine

Thus perhaps 3.5 million Ukrainians died in the man-made Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor) - a Ukrainian Genocide according the Ukrainian Parliament in 2006 - but this dreadful event is certainly not as well known as it should be (see: link ). If everyone knew about the man-made Ukrainian and Bengali Famines then the World would simply not tolerate man-made famines - period.

I've seen estimates as high as 30,000,000 for the Ukrainian Famine and as low as 3,000,000 so the numbers certainly depend on who you ask. Mao also inflicted horrific death upon his population -- killing by some estimations 60,000,000 in his various forced industrialization plans.

He's also talking about me. There's a few others of us around here. lots of us, if not most or all of us share a hatred of Bush and a hatred of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Most of us are blatantly (and in some cases, extremely) liberal. The sorts of people he is not talking about are the ones discussed here, an article on Holocaust denial which Gideon has, shockingly, yet to comment on.

It seems to me kind of selfish to declare yourself the sole target of the article. Do I think you are a Racist zionist? No. Do I think you are being very inpolite, yes. Do I think you are perverting things? Yes.

Where did Gideon call everyone who doesn't agree with him a racist zionist? Gideon is one of the most reasonable people I have found on newsvine, whereas the two of you, I am afraid, are not. Please don't take this as an insult.

First of all, if you read through the comments in the linked thread then you will see that this article is talking about me. The clincher is the "intent" part (which is my argument).

Second, if you read carefully then you will see that Gideon is saying that he has a moral obligation to not respond to "Racist Zionists" (etc., etc.) in response to my and ignoblus's requests that he respond to our arguments. He refuses to refer to us directly, which allows him to claim that he is not calling us anything, but to anyone following the thread it's clear who he's talking about and what he's saying about them.

Gideon likes to obfuscate things by writing indirectly, but he is clearly attacking us as if we're the same as Holocaust Deniers. It's wrong, and it's insulting.

Of course if Gideon wants to respond to this directly and clarify his comments he is free to do so. He hasn't so far, though, and I am guessing that he will continue to refuse to acknowledge our actual arguments and instead call us ridiculous names. That's not reasonable in any way.

Yet, searching on the tag Darfur, I don't see any seeds or articles from you Gideon. Why the previous inattention?

Unplugged: Darfur is ignored because it is still happening and if it wasn't there would be public pressure in western countries to get "peace troops" or some other @!$%#e over there, and that goes against western interests. Another thing is, it's not finished.

It's a bit naive in my opinion naming western politicians, journalists and academics for not speaking enough about Darfur for example, because they never did respond. They don't care, and never did. It's all a matter of economic interests (in a broad sense), and I'd say that economics is the smartest language for analyzing holocausts...

Ignoblus, now you really pushed too far... How about not being a hypocrite for a change?

Hypocrite. I've put up seeds on Darfur before, but I've never seen Gideon do it.

I don't write about Darfur either because I don't know where the solution is. Darfur is really humiliating for humanitarians because it's happening, has been happening and nothing seemingly can be done.

Oluseye, the primary reasons outside humanitarians are relatively incapable of doing anything is because the AU and the OIC are unconcerned with doing anything. Sudan quite nearly gained leadership of the AU this year!

There is a case where you really do have people saying that there is no genocide going on (for example). That is a place where pointing out that it really is genocide would be most helpful, as a way of pressuring the AU and OIC.

Oluseye, the primary reasons outside humanitarians are relatively incapable of doing anything is because the AU and the OIC are unconcerned with doing anything.

That's flat out wrong. The defence budget of the whole AU probably doesn't match that of Italy a minor power. They can't afford to do much. They just can't. The AU's peacekeeping is down to a few countries which are stressed. Nigeria alone has spent something like $10 Billion on peacekeeping from Sierra Leone, Cote D'Ivoure, Liberia, Congo and now Darfur. They can't do more. The countries that have the means can help maybe with money to recruit more soldiers and buy equipment. Look at rich NATO being able to muster just 35k troops in Afghanistan, at least the AU finds 7000 troops which is a much higher proportion of the AU's means.

It's the Arab League that deserves blame not the OIC. The OIC has no relevance in this matter. The Arab league's position has constrained even the AU because countries like Egypt and Libya which could help the AU are adhering to the Arab League's position.

I don't like this ridiculous western thing of dissing the AU for no reason at all. Africa is obviously a poor continent that has a lot of problems that task its meagre resources. The will however is there. If Britain, which has a colonial stake in Sudan, and a post-colonial stake in its oil was 1/10th as committed as the AU we will be much closer to a solution.

I don't like this nonsense of you mentioning that Bashir nearly got the leadership of the AU. What does "nearly" mean? It was Sudan's turn but the rest of the AU insisted otherwise. Also it is wrong to imply that it's the AU that is denying that there's a genocide. You link to a European denying it. You also talk about "pressurising" the AU. Pressurising them to do what?

The defence budget of the whole AU probably doesn't match that of Italy a minor power. They can't afford to do much. They just can't.

I'm not talking about military action. The AU does have political influence with Khartoum, and they could leverage it. Instead, they came quite close to making Sudan the next head of the AU.

You want to blame the Arab League? Go ahead. Definitely part of the problem, and Western pressure could lead them to put pressure on Sudan. But the OIC is a more influential bloc in the UN, blocking any significant action. In 2004, Sudan was given a seat on the UNHRC!

Even beyond simply making it clearer to people that this is genocide, they may well be other things that can be done. But too many people are saying it's too complicated. Just say out loud that it's genocide and that is helping! On the other hand, all of Gideon's obsessions are hardly more than distractions if he truly is concerned with genocide. But too many people just ignore Darfur.

Look Bush called it a genocide years ago. Britain agreed but has continued trading with Sudan.

What on earth does coming close mean? The guy was snobbed and the AU went against their convention and rule to do so. Instead of giving them credit you bash them.

It's ridiculous to say that the OIC has an extensive influence on the UN. Yes there was that incidence in which the OIC attempted to block the UN Rights commision from condemning Sudan, but that's certainly not the UN.

The problem is Darfur is that most of the deaths are not combat-related but from the fallouts of combat. Furthermore the Sudanese government is not directly involved in the killings. The UN does not have a working definition of genocide that has been accepted by all nations. The Arab League is supporting Sudan's government. China, France and Britain are interested in the oil that there is to be had in there. Britain is selling arms to the Sudanese government. The UN has no authority to deploy peacekeepers if the government does not accede. The AU does not have the resources or the mandate to solve the problem. Bush has bogged down US power in Iraq and can't do anything now.

It's a terrible problem and reversing anyone of these without addressing all others won't help. It's why I feel helpless.

ignoblus: Hypocrite. I've put up seeds on Darfur before, but I've never seen Gideon do it.

Oh-la-la... I thought the discussion about whether seeder always agrees with everything seeded sort of concluded we don't. Now viners are accountable for what they don't seed!?!?

I better seed some politically correct articles fast (not)...

I better seed some politically correct articles fast (not)...

Benno, every article or seed I've seen from Gideon has talked about genocide. Clearly, it's something he feels passionately about, except that he only feels passionately about some of them. It seems to have a lot more to do with who he can blame than with anything else.

It is hopeless to throw blaim around at AU or any other organisation for that matter, for not doing anything. The blaim should be cast at those who did do something, but to instigate the massacre. Where there is a smell of oil, there have allways been (mostly western) vultures to start a war, a civil war or a government ovethrow to destabilize the local government and exploit more properly. "Divide et impera" is still true to this day...

The Nazi Holocaust was repugnant but that does not excuse the ongoing genocides.

Lots of people talk about other genocides. How many make comparisons between them, pitting oppressed groups against each other like this?

Thus a simple Google search for the phrases "Jewish Holocaust" and "Bengali Holocaust" yields 365,000 and 157 URLs, respectively.

Just because you're taking News Events and analyzing them does not make your commentary an Event. This should be News Type: Opinion.

racist, lying, genocide-denying mainstream media

It's verbiage like this, though, that makes me insist that articles like this one be labelled opinion. I have absolutely zero argument with you if you hold these views. Likewise, I don't have an objection to your publishing those views in this, or any other forum. This is your right...indeed, some would say, your responsibility in a free society.

Nevertheless, I am more than passingly familiar with journalistic standards of objectivity, fairness and balance, and I submit that none of the articles I've seen come from your pen meet those standards.

Again, I have no problem with your expressing these thoughts. But I must -- once again -- strongly insist that you must have sufficient respect for your readers to post them as opinion.

Who are these racist zionists and racist Bush-ites?

Reading in context along with the other thread, clearly he is referring to me (although I said nothing about "political correctness").

I think I figured it out. Gideon doesn't know what "ad hominem" means. I'll define it:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. (Source)

If we said "you smell, therefore you're wrong" then that would be an "ad hominem attack". If, on the other hand, we say "your argument is wrong because..." then that is not an ad hominem attack. Even if we were wrong, or lying, or directly contradicting your analysis (that's the point isn't it?) then it's not an ad hominem unless we attack you directly without addressing the actual argument you're making.

My argument since first encountering you (here) has always been that our actions do not fit the definition of "genocide" (even the one you cite). That's not ad hominem no matter how many times you repeat it.

Obfuscation of a serious argument about Genocide Denial and Holocaust Denial by falsehood is obnoxious and reassonably described as Genocide Obfuscation or Holocaust Obfuscatio

What obfuscation? Just because you've asserted that a genocide is taking place does not mean that anyone who questions that assertion is a "genocide denier".

The Germans at least take Obfuscation and Denial of racist Mass Murder acutely seriously.

Here's a surprise: so do I! The problem is that this isn't "racist Mass Murder". Murder, like genocide, requires intent. You have not even attempted to make a case for the argument that the US has an intent to destroy any group, ethnic, religious, or otherwise.

Instead, you have cited statistics showing that many people in Iraq are dying from poor health care. Your very own source, though, says that this has been going on for decades (which is longer than the US has been involved in any way). Your own source lays the blame on corruption and poor management by Saddam's government. If anyone is going to be blamed for "Mass Murder" how about blaming the dictator who controlled Iraq for decades?

Quick question for the you all. If it were true that the intelligence on which the war was based was fixed, would some of the Bush people not be war criminals since it would very much expose them to the charge of starting an aggressive war?

Also does anyone doubt that there were 1 million "excess deaths" in Iraq, and what are people's attitudes to that? I million deaths is a whole lot following an invasion by a foreign power.

If that were true, beyond the issues of international law, it does do a lot to weaken the credibility and moral leadership of the US doesn't it. Afterall in the matters of 1 million dying from war in the 21st century, perception is reality. Just like people in the West look at the evil being wrought by the Sudanese dictators, is the same way people on the other side see this.

I know that the Bush people and the people who support the Iraq war think it's goal is great, but there is half of the world who does not see it that way and that matters.

I don't believe the 1 million figure but I know that the number is not a small one.

If it were true that the intelligence on which the war was based was fixed, would some of the Bush people not be war criminals since it would very much expose them to the charge of starting an aggressive war?

Quite likely. It's possible for people to know and not know at the same time that they're lying. Probably impossible to prove that the Bush Administration really knew it was lying, but, in principle, yes, they've started an aggressive war. I don't know that that makes them war criminals (which I believe is usually reserved to describe how people conduct war), but that's a relatively unimportant distinction to me.

I don't believe the 1 million figure but I know that the number is not a small one.

I agree with your assessment.

The problem with this article is that it puts Gideon as the sole authority to decide what is and what isn't genocide. Anyone who disagrees with him is automatically a "genocide denier," morally reprehensible, a Racist Zionist Bu@!$%#e Neocon. In the past, he's gone further to compare those who disagree with Nazis and claim that everyone who doesn't agree with him is complicit in murdering children. (That last one was particularly troublesome because it echoed the Blood Libel.) In addition to making many issues very hard to address (especially when, unlike Darfur, they are a bit complicated) it's just obscene.

High technology war conducted by the US and its allies involves huge civilians deaths to minimize politically sensitive US or allied military deaths

Making war by invading a distant foreign country will necessarily involve huge civilian deaths, intent to invade and foreknowledge of the consequences - excess deaths associated with US Asian Wars totalled 18 million in 2005 and are now about 19 million.

Ergo, the 3.2 million excess deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories are prima facie evidence of intent to destroy a people in whole or in part i.e. Genocide.

First, again (as I've explained to you in the past), your reasoning makes all wars genocide. There were huge numbers of civilian casualties on both sides of WW2, so by your logic the Allied powers are guilty of genocide.

Second, it's still not intent to kill a group. The "intent" has never been to kill civilians. When you invade a country it's always a given that some civilians will end up getting killed, but it's a long stretch from that to arguing that the intent of this war was to kill a huge number of civilians. There's no evidence for that whatsoever.

Here's an analogy. Say a doctor needs to do a very risky operation on someone and that operation has a possibility of leading to paralysis. He knows the risks in advance, but he performs the surgery anyway. Afterward, the patient does become paralyzed. By your argument, since the doctor knew in advance that this could happen, he must have intended it to happen. You can see how ridiculous that argument is, so why do you insist that any deaths in Iraq were intentional just because the US knew that some civilians could die?

Third, your very own sources contradict your argument that the "excess deaths" in Iraq are America's fault.

I'll point out again for the sake of the other readers (whom you're trying to convince that I am a "genocide denier") that you have no evidence of any intent on the part of America to kill Iraqi civilians.

The problem with this article is that it puts Gideon as the sole authority to decide what is and what isn't genocide. Anyone who disagrees with him is automatically a "genocide denier,"

Exactly! That same problem applies to the supposed proposed law that would make denying any genocide illegal. Who decides what counts? If Gideon was in charge, then we'd all be in jail (well, I wouldn't, since I live in America where free speech is still a right). Even though no case has been made for genocide, it would become a "fact" according to the state simply because someone decided it's a fact. That's not how reality works. Something doesn't become true simply because you've declared it to be true and jailed anyone who disagrees with you. That's a technique used by evil dictators throughout history.

Let the facts speak for themselves, and if they don't hold up to reality then that's your problem. Don't use the law to win an argument. If you're right, then there's no need. If you're wrong, then it only shows how weak your argument is.

High technology war conducted by the US and its allies involves huge civilians deaths to minimize politically sensitive US or allied military deaths

I don't believe I buy this. It's one of the few areas where I actually accept the suggestion by then-Def Sec Rumsfeld and other senior military leaders that high technology war as conducted by the U.S. and its allies has been able, using precision targeting, to minimize civilian deaths far more than in previous conflicts.

Making war by invading a distant foreign country will necessarily involve huge civilian deaths, intent to invade and foreknowledge of the consequences - excess deaths associated with US Asian Wars totalled 18 million in 2005 and are now about 19 million.

Agreed. War is bloody awful, but...

Ergo, the 3.2 million excess deaths in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories are prima facie evidence of intent to destroy a people in whole or in part i.e. Genocide.

Ding ding. Here's where the chain of logic falls apart for me once again. I just don't think you've met the burden of proof re: intent. Especially not the high burden of proof required by a claim as inflammatory as accusing a country of genocide.

I guess I'm troubled by the moral equivalency involved in equating the unavoidable consequences of warfare (and by your definition, it would seem all warfare is genocide), and the deaths that occur because of disruption of basic services, food and healthcare with the systematic and intentional assembly line murder of shipping people via mass transit to a destination where they are killed in large numbers, then disposed of through cremation.

Not the same at all. Repellant, regrettable, awful, something we should censure and strive to prevent. But genocide? I think this ends up being an unhelpfully inflammatory statement, which relegates those who make it to the fringe, where more time is spent (and this has been enough of mine, by the way) arguing the semantics of the inflammatory statement than discussing anything constructive.

My original point is that your articles need to be categorized as opinion, since that's what they are. You've arrived at an opinion that the U.S. actions in the world constitute genocide. I stand by that contention. If you want to write an article that reports the opionions of others, then offers countering viewpoints, that's acceptable. But that's not what you've done.

It's one of the few areas where I actually accept the suggestion by then-Def Sec Rumsfeld and other senior military leaders that high technology war as conducted by the U.S. and its allies has been able, using precision targeting, to minimize civilian deaths far more than in previous conflicts.

Exactly. Modern wars using better technology have far fewer civilian deaths than, say, WW2 when we would literally carpet bomb entire cities hoping to destroy a few factories. Huge numbers of civilians died as a result, a fact which we knew would happen, and yet Gideon doesn't accuse the Allied powers of "genocide" for those actions.

Most civilian deaths in Iraq now are caused by terrorists and sectarian violence. Gideon claims that more happen as a result of a lack of medical treatment, but even if that's true then it's not America's fault since (according to his own source) the medical industry in Iraq has been suffering for "decades".

I think I am getting the Gideon logic. It makes sense now. It also means that Africa is waging a genocide against the rest of the world. Africa is where a lot of diseases like AIDS and Ebola come from. AIDS has killed millions of people around the world, and quite a few million in the U.S. alone. Ebola has the potential to kill millions more. Obviously Africa has an "intent" to kill all these people, otherwise why would they all be dead? Thus Africa is waging a genocide on all other peoples and anyone who contradicts me is a genocide denier! Oh and anyone who contradicts me is also using ad hominem attacks. So there!

/sarcasm

Adam and Synthesis: Your interpretations of Gideon's claims seem to be right on the mark. His loose interpretation of the definition of "intent" does seem to indicate that all wars are genocides. But as Adam's example of the surgeon exhibits, Gideon's definition of intent also negates the possibility of chance or accident being involved in events. To add another analogy, any automobile accident involving a death of a passenger or a driver or a pedestrian must be a homicide -- an intentional murder -- since the driver of the automobile as a condition of his licensing was informed of the risks of lethality to himself and others before he put the key in the ignition.

It would be nice if equating all war with genocide would result in the cessation of war by all nations, but, while that is a nice goal to strive for, I don't believe it is going to happen anytime soon. But, what will happen is this: if all war is genocide, then what is the value of the term "genocide"? It loses its importance as an outrage independent of war and sinks back into the general stew of "the horrors of war" or some other generality or cliche. War exists, therefore -- devalued into inevitability by Gideon's description -- genocide happens, therefore, it's just another fact of existence.

Look at it this way: roughly 2,000,000 Americans die every year of all causes. Over the nearly 4 years of the Iraq War, we've lost roughly 750 soldiers per year. If we were to simply lump these deaths into the general American death rate, they would amount to a statistically insignificant four-hundredths of a percent increase in the death rate. Who would care? 55 million people die worldwide each year. If over the last 20 years 1 million extra people died in Iraq, those 50,000 people per year amount to less than one-tenth of a percent increase in world-wide deaths. Why should the world care? Darfur -- statistically insignificant. East Timor -- no big deal. WTC bombing -- a virtually invisible blip.

That is the danger of over-using a term like "genocide" or "Holocaust" or "ethnic cleansing." When every civilian death in a war is a genocide, when every civil war is a Holocaust, when every mass murder is an ethnic cleansing we become desensitized to horrors and simply change the channel.

That is the danger of over-using a term like "genocide" or "Holocaust" or "ethnic cleansing." When every civilian death in a war is a genocide, when every civil war is a Holocaust, when every mass murder is an ethnic cleansing we become desensitized to horrors and simply change the channel.

evano, I completely agree. Genocide and the like need to be reserved for when there is both clear intent and actions to literally exterminate an entire genetic group or race. If Iraq was a genocide then there would be far more than a million "excess deaths" (does anyone ever try to calculate "excess lives"?) over a decade or so of a nation of over 26 million. We wouldn't have ground troops in Iraq at all, but instead the tactics would involve just bombing entire cities to rubble with napalm or nukes.

I'm also wondering with this claim of genocide, which specific ethnic group in Iraq are we aiming to eliminate? Iraq is not a homogeneous population, but is a rather diverse, which is the whole point of our current problem with the sectarian violence going on in Iraq.

Genocide and the like need to be reserved for when there is both clear intent and actions to literally exterminate an entire genetic group or race.

why, so when it is less easy to see you can sleep better?

If Iraq was a genocide then there would be far more than a million "excess deaths" (does anyone ever try to calculate "excess lives"?) over a decade or so of a nation of over 26 million. We wouldn't have ground troops in Iraq at all, but instead the tactics would involve just bombing entire cities to rubble with napalm or nukes.

why,

does genocie or mass killing only include the most effective means. Sorry that a million excess deaths is dissappointingly low. My goodness

I'm also wondering with this claim of genocide, which specific ethnic group in Iraq are we aiming to eliminate?

LOL - how about dark skinned non-americans. Genocide only counts if one specif NDNA linked group is involved

Genocide is clearly defined. There must be intent to wipe out a group, in part or in whole. No such intent exists. It's terrible that Iraqis are dying, but there's absolutely no evidence that America wants Iraqis to die, or that the goal of our invasion was to wipe out (or try to wipe out) in part or in whole any group of people.

why, so when it is less easy to see you can sleep better?

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. So for the why, because that is the definition.

why,

does genocie or mass killing only include the most effective means. Sorry that a million excess deaths is dissappointingly low. My goodness

It doesn't have to include only the most effective means, but by us deploying the troops as we currently are it does help to show that our intentions are not to slaughter each and every Iraqi that we see, thus no genocide.

I'm also wondering where this one million number is coming from. I love how a number can be introduced and everyone just accepts it as fact, above all debate.

LOL - how about dark skinned non-americans. Genocide only counts if one specif NDNA linked group is involved

Then why are we only limiting ourself to just Iraq? Why not attack all the Kuwaitis and Saudi Arabians and Turks and Pakistans and Indians and Chinese and Japanese and Africans and Indonesians?

Chill, just because something is not genocide does not mean that it isn't wrong or tragic, but when you misuse the word you lessen your ability to communicate clearly and effectively. Among the consequences of that, it becomes harder to describe what needs to be done and subsequently harder to act meaningfully. Here, you might notice that most of the people arguing with Gideon are openly opposed to the Iraq War. It isn't like we're all Bush supporters.

Perhaps if you come to an agreement that it is actually not a genocide in Iraq, we could send a message to those people saying that it's ok, they have nothing to worry about, because we thing it's not a genocide that is done to them... Urgh.

People, please forget about proper classification of events as this or that category, they are all atrocities and they are all murders.

I love all of the subtle insults you leave in that comment.

That German mustache guy didn't kill Sri Lankans - but he would have been indifferent to their deaths

But no one is claiming that the German mustache guy was trying to kill all dark-skinned non-Germans. You did claim that America is trying to kill all dark skinned non-Americans. If you are going to make such a strong accusation, you should be willing to back it up.

This whole debate is about "genocide" specifically. If you want to find another word to describe America's policies in Iraq (which, for the record once again, I am and have always been against) then feel free, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Read your own statement and please explain how it is a logical defense to killing innocents in Iraq.

We're not defending killing civilians. We're only saying that America has not intentionally killed civilians in Iraq (at least not as a policy; a few soldiers have done so, and I hope they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of our laws).

It's true that many civilians are dying at least indirectly as a result of our policies in Iraq. That sucks. I hate it. I was strongly opposed to going there, and I'm strongly opposed to staying there. That doesn't make it "genocide", though, and that's what this whole debate is about.

Gideon: Words have definitions for a reason. There is an internationally-recognized definition of the word "genocide". I'm glad that you're now acknowledging that it doesn't fit this situation (welcome to reality), but redefining it is not the right thing to do. That's propaganda. Redefining words to fit your argument is a fallacy.

If you want to argue against "mass avoidable death" then argue against "mass avoidable death" (or find a suitable word that means that). The only reason to throw around the word "genocide" is because it has such an emotional connotation. People hear that word and are reminded of pure evil acts like those of Hitler.

The actions and policies of America are certainly controversial, and there is much room for debate about whether they're good or evil. I'm sure I would even agree with you on some of it. Still, there is no evidence for any intent on the part of America to kill civilians.

Also, again, your own sources don't support the conclusion that the huge number of dying civilians in Iraq are directly America's fault. You still have a long way to go in convincing people that America is guilty of any kind of war crime.

When you talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine, then genocide doesn't apply by any internally-accepted definition of the word.

At least you have admitted that this is News Type: Opinion and not News Type: Event.

Evano the argument you guys are having are basically about semantics. I know that there are real issues stemming from such but the divergence stems from how you both attribute causes to the deaths in Iraq.

Gideon's argument is that the consequence could have been and were predicted. So his argument is analoguous to hitting my neighbour's car with an axe to kill a bird that's perched on it. I can't then claim lack of intent.

On the other hand, you know for sure that the goal of the US was not genocide or even mass murder.

This is one of those cases where it depends on which side you take. In every conflict there is aways the possibility of taking one side and considering that side virtuous.

The argument is not helped by the fact that Gideon's numbers seem on their face doubtful. Like above he calculates death rate from terrorism as 7000/7000000. The source or validity of either figure is unknown and unsure even though the 7000 figure is most probably correct.

He places a lot of value in those estimates of avoidable and excess deaths but sometimes they seem on their own face dubious.

Still I think so many of us have become jaded by the mass deaths going on all around and are finding it hard to reconcile the virtuousness attributed to our side with the evil consequences of its actions.

Now we talk about Iran where the consequences will be even worse. If the war happens, in 5 years time someone will be arguing that there was no intent, when it seems like some people are deadset on a war that most people consider crazy.

Where I stand with Gideon is that we're willing to excuse those deaths when they are happening far away. When 3000 people die at the WTC, we call it a tragedy and atrocity but when anything from 100,000 to 600k Iraqis die (deaths we can't even see on our televisions), we call them the consequence of freedom.

That's not humanitarian, and we need to be more humanitarian all of us.

Hi Evano I think Personally that when the History is written about this opening chapter to the 21st Century, The United States and the United Kingdom, will be held responsible for genocide in Iraq. We are not just talking about GW Bush here. Thatcher should get a Large Slice of the Blame, and Reagan, but in the end its still killing Arabs. Its been going on nowv since 1622, on our part at least. H.W. Bush is almost a dead certain to go down for war crimes in Iraq Evano, Do you disagree with that ?

On the other hand, you know for sure that the goal of the US was not genocide or even mass murder.

Then it wasn't genocide. It's as simple as that. You cannot "accidentally" commit genocide. The very definition requires intent.

As evano said, negligence and intent are opposites. I would agree that America was "negligent" and that their negligence led (indirectly) to a huge number of unnecessary deaths, but that is not genocide by definition.

Ok Adam, what word would you propose instead of genocide to make you feel better?

Travesty? I don't know. That's not my job. I remain unconvinced that most of these deaths can be blamed directly on America, and I'm still amazed that none of you have had anything bad to say about Saddam or the terrorists who have even more to do with these deaths than the US. (And that's coming from someone who thought we shouldn't have invaded anyway).

Saddam found money all during the years of sanctions and no-fly zones to build his palaces, outfit his army and Republican Guards and Saddam Fedayeen, and pay thousands of dollars to the families of every suicide bomber who blew himself up killing Israelis. Yet, somehow, he's absolved of blame in this discussion for not finding money to fund the nationalized healthcare and hospitals which might have helped avoid those excess child deaths. Instead, the blame for all those deaths are assigned to the US.

Sorry, but if that's your argument -- that is only the US whose hands are soiled with the blood of infants -- then you must be so rigidly anti-US in outlook that the validity of the rest of your statements on this subject are totally suspect.

I've been against this war since before it began, and while I don't believe that the US should have invaded Iraq, I am under no illusions that Saddam is blameless and innocent of crimes against his people. In Middle Eastern politics, no one is blameless, yet I am only hearing accusations of genocide being directed at one party.

Yeah But ! Evano When you get people like this saying things like this;;

BARONESS SARAH LUDFORD, MEP: Why has the Bush Administration - not Americans as a whole - tossed away the moral high ground and dragged America's reputation into the mud by a program of kidnapping, forced disappearance, dark prisons, indefinite detention, cruel and inhuman treatment and outsourcing of torture?

You have to be careful. I think the Case against H.W. Bush in Iraq is solid and it would be an open and shut case.

Criminal Charges Filed Against George H.W. Bush (Sr.) in Iceland

For Immediate Release, July 4th 2006, 16:25 local time Please disseminate

Reykjavik, Iceland (3 July 2006) – A group of ten Icelandic citizens filed yesterday at the Office of the State's Police Chief criminal charges against George H.W. Bush, former U.S. President, who is expected in Iceland this evening at the invitation of Icelands's President Olafur R. Grimsson.

The group accuses former President Bush for participation in war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the peace, and crimes against internationally protected persons. It demands that former President Bush be detained by the Icelandic authorities and investigation on these charges. Should the investigation conclude that legal proceedings against him are warranted, the group requests that he be tried before an Icelandic court or extradited to an international criminal tribunal which possesses the requisite jurisdiction to deal with his case. Icelandic courts are, under international law, qualified to try individuals suspected of having committed international crimes.

George H.W. Bush is charged of initiating a war of aggression against Panama in 1989, in breach of international law and the UN Charter, constituting a crime against the peace, and of ordering the kidnapping of Panama's President Noriega in violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons. George H.W. Bush is furthermore charged for his command responsibility for the multiple war crimes committed by US forces in the Gulf War in 1991, including the policy of deliberately bombing civilian targets and the massacre of soldiers hors combat. His command responsibility for these crimes is equivalent to those of other heads of states who have been charged, indicted and convicted for international crimes, including torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. George H.W. Bush is also charged for inducing an uprising of Kurds and Shi'ites in Iraq during the Gulf War and then ordering US forces to withhold aid from those who risked the uprising, thus leaving unarmed uprising masses unprotected against Saddam Hussein's brutal forces. By such policies, he knowingly facilitated the commission of crimes against humanity by Saddam Hussein. He is finally accused for conspiring in imposing deadly economic sanctions against the people of Iraq, with the intent to harm the well-being, health and lives of the Iraqi civilian population, with foreknowledge of the likely consequences and with the subsequent knowledge of the sanctions' devastating consequences. Such conduct is considered to be a crime against humanity under international customary law. About one million persons are believed dead as a result of the economic sanctions, thereof half a million children below five years of age.

The group holds that Icelandic courts can assert subject-matter, territorial and personal jurisdiction over former President Bush, on the base of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons. In addition, the group argues that Icelandic courts can assert their jurisdiction to any person who is suspected of having planned, directed or committed crimes against humanity under international customary law, as well as for planning and carrying out crimes against the peace.

The bias in those charges is obvious here:

By such policies, he knowingly facilitated the commission of crimes against humanity by Saddam Hussein.

Refusing to help people he urged to fight is a bastard thing to do, but saying that he was complicit in the crimes Saddam perpetrated is bull@!$%#. Once again, blame anyone but the people who actually commit atrocities.

I remember when Reagan was President, in the early 80's, talking to an Iraqi mother whose son
was tortured to death by Saddam Hussein, at that same time, Reagan had
sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq, to lavish praise on Saddam Hussein, shake
hands with him, and then thank him for his human rights abuses.

During his short visit, partly to reward President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo's support for the U.S. war on terror, Bush told his Filipino
hosts that the United States "liberated the Philippines from colonial
rule."

Bush was referring to the defeat of Japanese imperial forces in World
War II at the hands of Filipino guerrillas and the U.S. military. But
he skipped over a crucial fact: The United States was the colonial ruler
in the Philippines for half a century before the Japanese came.

"America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino
people," Bush also said.

Ye Olde Bush was a big fan of this Poem by Rudyard Kipling, who supported the U.S. colonization of thePhilippines and other former Spanish colonies in his poem,

"The White Man's Burden."

Take up the White Man's burden

Send forth the best ye breed

Go, bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need;

To wait, in heavy harness,

On fluttered folk and wild

Your new-caught sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child...

Evano, you ask why I don't blame Saddam? Because he was trained and manufactured by the US secret service.

Why do I not blame the Shia and Sunii people for the violence? Because I'm convinced that the US and Brittish secret services are the ones that started it and the ones that are fueling it to this day by supplying weapons and blowing up civilian targets here and there.

The US has a custom of dividing countries in a specific way:

1. They install a minority as the ruling party, with a puppet as the head (often times this puppet is trained by the CIA in terrorist skills, manipulating masses using fear and violence, torturing techniques and so on.. examples? Suharto and Hussein will do just fine.)
2. They provide weapons for the other ethnic group, and continuously give them support and inspire them to become angry and fight for their rights
3. They blow up a civilian target, or assassinate a political or religious leader and then blame it on one side.
4. After the fight starts, they end support to the oppressed group ensuring a massacre will happen.
5. After the massacre, they call the evil ruler - a part of the "Axis of evil".
6. They invade and commit an even greater massacre.
7. They blame it all on the evil regime, and call themselves liberators....

The question is, why do you blame the gun for a murder, if the person holding it is rather obviously the guilty one?

What is the motive? You're claiming that this is a long-standing policy of the US, so it can't just be Bush's megalomania. What does the US have to gain from systematically destroying countries and then... then what?

What is the US doing with these countries you claim it has "liberated"? Which countries are they? Vietnam? Yeah, that was successful all right: 56,000 dead American soldiers, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, all so we could sneak out after ten years with our tails between our legs. The Philippines? Their Spanish masters sold them to us after we beat them in a war, we gave them independence in stages over 50 years, meddled in their affairs afterwards, got kicked out and have left them to screw up on their own since. Central and South America? Yeah, we've stuck our nose in where it doesn't belong, funded bad guys, assassinated and tried to assassinate leaders we didn't like, and broke many international laws. But what country has been subjected to the 7-Step Program you outline above? Europe? You'd really have to twist your facts to apply this to Germany and WWII, but you might be talking about the former Yugoslavia. That's your part of the world, and I'm not going to claim to have a better understanding of the whole complex mess than you do. But I do know that there were plenty of bad men to go around in that conflict -- still going on actually -- and there were also many players besides the US, including more than a few home-grown rats. Indonesia? Doesn't follow, both because the main part of the overthrow of Sukarno was not an ethnic conflict, but a political one between Communists and "Democracy," and we were kind of busy invading and decimating Vietnam in '65 so we sure as heck didn't have any armies to spare invading Indonesia and "liberating" the country. I'm sure I've left out a bunch of situations -- Korea, Somalia, and Haiti come to mind -- but I don't see 7 steps in any of those either. In fact, the only war that seems to sort of come close is Iraq, and only then if you ignore that Saddam barged his path into power all by himself, and didn't get any aid from us until he took on one of our enemies after being in power for nearly a decade. You also have to ignore that the First Gulf War was a UN operation and that it followed on Saddam acting very un-neighborly to Kuwait. If you can ignore all that stuff, then maybe you can somehow juggle the events to put it into your plan, but it'll take some very masterful juggling.

Meanwhile, there's still no motive. We have no empire. We have bases all over the world leased from foreign governments which occasionally decide not to renew. We have an arsenal of nuclear weapons large enough to blow ourselves and every other nation in the world into a new Ice Age. What do we have to gain by this insatiable program of devastation and domination you propose? Is it oil? If so, then we're pretty lousy at targets since Iraq -- one of our latest wars -- is the first "victim" that even has oil, and we sure aren't doing a good job keeping it flowing and profitable. Maybe it's power? Power over what? Power to destroy? We've got that: missiles which can reach every spot on earth except for a small cave on the southern tip of New Zealand's South Island. How does having control over a blighted, destitute, angry, divided nation add to our power? Sorry. You've presented no argument that makes sense.

Ok. Could be that I didn't provide arguments, I apologize. I was aiming for the methods here to find a pattern.

The seven step is a specific example applicable mainly to Iraq, but partially to Bosnia and Kosovo, and a part of those countries you mentioned. I suppose I went too specific. Still there are examples of it.

Iran is a nice example of the divide and conquer technique used by the CIA. I'm sure you know the story. Motive? Keeping the oil companies private and in western property. (Mossadegh nationalized the "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" ).

Venezuela and Chavez in recent years have the same smell. He was to nationalize the oil industry, so they tried to take him down.

Indonesia - the cia trained suharto and his democratic murderers, suplied them with ammo, and gave them a list of communists to neutralize. They didn't supply both sides (obviously :), but they did create a conflict and install a puppet government. (a horribly violent one)

Vietnam? If my logic doesn't fail me, there are certain private companies that made an awful lot of money on all those wars, including the Vietnam one. You can bet your ass someone was leaving Vietnam with a big smile on his face. The same is true for Iraq.

Somalia has oil too, if I'm not mistaken. Since there was the obedient Ethiopia to fight the battle, there was no need for a high scale military intervention (a small scale was enough obviously). The motive? A stable government, especially an islamic, one will definitely jeopardize american corporate interests by trying to control it's natural resources.

Remember the Paqistan - India conflict? You know who benefits from the Kashmir region being no mans land? Private companies that have many mines there and pay no taxes or anything currently and have no control over them. Basically, they are stealing that from the local people, wich btw. lives in a hell of poverty, sickness and despair.

Gulf war one? If I remember correctly, it was the CIA that started the whole mess. First they fed Saddam with guns and money then after the Iraq-Iran war, they had to put down the strongest army in the region and a dictator with no adequate foe around, so they used Kuwait to tempt him into a war. Just for an example.

Afganistan? Strong and untameable Talibans that severed the drug production, the cia's most profitable business. Again, a strong and un-bribable government was the threat, aside from being extremest or not.

Reasons for the Iraq war? Not the money, but the currency. The US economy is bound to break very soon. It used to cover for its enormous debt with the whole world asking for dollars to trade oil with. When this stops, the US is in big trouble. With this kind of expenditures, it's economy is doomed.

Saddam knew this, and he started selling oil for euros. This was several months before the war, if I remember correctly. If the US didn't invade, it would soon be unable to, because it would be broke. They also did it to show the others what would happen to them if they tried to do the same.

Venezuela and Iran announced a while ago that they plan to start a new oil market. One that will use euros as for currency. Since then, they are the axis of evil. This is also why Israel or the US will start a war with Iran soon enough.

China, Russia and the Opec countries all announced they will switch to Euro as the petrol trading currency. The only question is who will do it first. If China does it, dollar falls substantially, and the rest of the group loose a lot of money. Likewise for the others. So it's a game of cat and mouse really.

It's always economy, even when it doesn't seem so obvious.

Again, sory for the 7 steps above, they aren't the infallible recipe, but the details of the procedure don't change the goal or the effects. There are many more examples. I must note that I don't see the CIA and the US as the sole player in all these crimes, I'm sure that the MI6 is always behind the corner (Brittain is the second largest weapons exporter, if my info is correct) and that other european countries often contribute (France, Germany...).

Did you find any satisfactory explanation of a motive?

Sounds like a theory in search of facts to me, tomoo.

Tomoo, the problem with your approach is that it won't convince someone already convinced of basic US desire to do right and not wrong. You've taken a conspiracist approach instead of a factual approach. It's an argument of two versions.

bmvaughn: which part is in search of facts? You mean all of those?
I don't have a problem with it all being a theory, I found enough facts to be convinced, I hope people who see there are other possible explanations of certain events will keep their eyes open and see the facts for themselves, for there are facts, one just needs to see them.

I could be wrong of course, about each and every single of those theories, but logic says that then it would have to be an unquestionable fact that those wars were started to "protect civilians" and "protect the united states (not their interests) from danger" .

Again, I welcome any other theory that explains the motives behind all these things that the US (among others) has done, until then, these are the ones that make most sense to me...

Oluseye:
You're absolutely right. I don't know exactly how to change my approach for the better... I'd appreciate an advice. :)

The chaos in Basra is not on the grand scale of Baghdad, but is deadly, nonetheless. Army commanders want to stop providing a convenient target for the militias. That's one reason for leaving Basra. et al Basra "Child victims of bomb attack's are buried in Basra. Militia violence and intimidation are the daily reality here, despite a big push by the British Army to clean up the city." So is Basra better for the British Army's recent efforts? The MOD says 55% of Iraqi police stations are now satisfactory, up from 20%, although that does mean almost half are below standard. Recorded kidnappings have halved and the murder rate is falling - 139 killings last June, 29 last December. Some feel, though, this success is a temporary blip against the trend.

tomoo: I think the problem here is that most of the people arguing about these issues are already on the left side of the spectrum.

I apologize in advance to Oluseye, I Spy, Adam Kemp, and Synthesis for any misrepresentation of their views when I seem to speak for them, based on some knowledge of their opinions seen around the Vine, and say that they and I would likely all agree that this war was ill-advised at least and likely illegal.

I think we would agree that the US presence in Iraq along with the power vacuum we introduced has led to the rise of an insurgency and sectarian hatred that was dormant under the strong arm of Saddam Hussein.

I think we would agree that the initial US attacks on infrastructure coupled with the effects of a decade of neglect while both sides maintained inflexible attitudes regarding sanctions have led to living conditions and economic performance that is a fraction of the pre-war economy.

I think we would agree that the Iraqi citizenry has borne the brunt of the death and destruction, with their conditions exacerbated by the absence of reliable electricity, clean water, fuel oil and gas, and health care, with the result that the body count due to the war is very high.

I think we would also agree that some US troops have been involved in and responsible for a number of atrocities and crimes in the country.

I think we would agree that there are a number of large American companies profiting greatly from the war, some of which have close ties to the Administration.

I think we are aware of the vulnerability of the dollar as a petro-currency and the danger the reckless spending of this Administration has put our economy in with massive trade imbalances and huge deficit spending.

It may be misplaced national pride, or a particularly large blind spot in my perception, but where I (and Adam K. and possibly Oluseye and Synthesis) differ from you and Gideon is in the belief that the mission of US armed forces is intentionally malicious and explicitly extra-legal in its conduct.

I do not see evidence of a conspiracy to rape, loot and murder Iraqi citizens, even though individuals have committed all these crimes.

I do not believe that bombing targets were chosen in order to maximize civilian casualties, or even chosen without concern for civilian casualties, even though civilians have perished in large numbers because of bombings.

I do not believe that US and British forces are purposely creating and instigating incidents and conflicts with the express purpose of stoking sectarian strife and hatred.

I do not believe that the war was started against the Taliban in Afghanistan because the CIA found the Taliban to be un-bribeable, when Ockham's razor favors the simpler explanation that we attacked Afghanistan because its rogue government was harboring the terrorist group which had launched an attack on American civilians.

I don't believe that the US military is purposely targeting Western journalists for death because of their opposition to the war, when the rise of the Internet, Al-Jazeera, cellphones and digital cameras are all capable of spreading the truth to the world without the intervention of the traditional press.

The problem with all conspiracies is that the bigger they get, the more likely they are to leak, and if this conspiracy is as big as you suggest it is, then it ought to be leaking like a sieve. There should be stolen documents and eyewitnesses to planning sessions where this criminal activity has been hatched and managed, or some physical evidence of malicious, genocidal intent. If there is not, then we are led to two possibilities:

1. This mission of pure evil and amoral intent is being runs so efficiently and stealthily that no light can penetrate into its deepest recesses, or

2. There is no conspiracy.

Because I think that the current cadre of clowns inhabiting the highest positions of the US government are the biggest group of idiotic, ideologic, incompetent morons ever to pull themselves out of the cesspool of unprincipled right-wing extremism, I do not believe they possess the intellectual ability or the attention span necessary for planning instigating, managing and concealing a conspiracy this large. I may be terribly naive, but especially in the world with the widespread knowledge of the German people's unquestioning complicity in the horrors of the Holocaust of WWII, I also do not believe that there are the huge numbers of my fellow citizens, despite their ignorance and vehemence in verbal attacks, who would have the stomach to actually perpetrate such a massive series of crimes without compunction, remorse, or confession.

Gideon's arguments seem to imply that there are no such things as mistakes or luck or accidents or lack of foresight or inability to perceive potential consequences or dearth of imagination or human fallibility, and so the world is as simple as ACTION = INTENT. Those of us who still keep our feet on the ground most of the time don't subscribe to such an immature, simplistic, magical view of the way the world works and try not to ascribe to malice which can be easily explained by incompetence.

Exactly.

There is no need to apologise to me Evano I actually agree with you although my position on this matter is that they are war crimes. The Fact is the only Iron Clad case for a war crime at present for any US Politician etc is, Cheney's Crimes in Chile. If someone in Chile did decide to bring Charges against Cheney and Kissinger over this, they would be convicted, no Doubt. As for Papy Bush, I give a very High probability of Conviction for 3 of His crimes in Iraq. They have done well to Skate along that thin line of technicalities which allows them to deny that they are war criminals.

Off topic: Why in the world do you keep capitalizing random words? Is it some of kind Teret's symptom? Is it even intentional? What purpose could that possibly serve?

OH OK you want On Topic On 20 April 2004, Abdul-Bassat Turki, the first Iraqi minister of human rights, gave an interview to The Guardian on the condition of female prisoners in Iraq. Turki had recently resigned from his post in protest against the human rights violations committed by American forces and Paul Bremer's determination to ignore his reports and to refuse him permission to visit Abu Ghraib.

Turki told the Guardian that he had warned Bremer repeatedly of the abuses of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but that Bremer had consistently ignored all warnings. In December 2003, a month before the US military mounted its own secret investigation into Abu Ghraib, Turki phoned Bremer to complain of the treatment of female detainees. "They had been denied medical treatment. They had no proper toilet. They had only been given one blanket, even though it was winter," the former minister said.

[…]One of the rare occasions in which Anne Clwyd, the British human rights envoy to Iraq, was moved to speak out about human rights violations after the invasion was when she learned of the arrest and subsequent torture of a 70-year-old woman, whose torturers forced her into a makeshift bridle and then mounted her like a donkey.

[…]Hoda Al-Ezawi relates that she was kept in solitary confinement for 156 days. Then her sister was arrested and thrown into the cell with her, along with the corpse of their dead brother. Among the other types of torture inflicted upon her was to be kept standing for more than 12 hours straight while subject to continual threat and intimidation. US forces and the Iraqi National Guard arrested Al-Ezawi along with her two daughters, Nora, 15, and Sara, 20, on 17 February 2005 on the charge of supporting the resistance.

Ali Al-Qeisi, the man whose torturers thrust a bag over his head, forced to stand on a crate as they coiled wires around him and then photographed producing the picture that has become a worldwide symbol of the occupation and the horror of Abu Ghraib, recalls his anguish at hearing the screams and cries of female detainees. "Their food was brought into their cells by naked men," he relates, adding, "we felt helpless as we listened to their screams, unable to do anything but pray to God Almighty."

[…]Suheib Baz, a cameraman for Al-Jazeera, told The Independent that he had personally seen a 12-year-old girl being tortured: "She was naked, and crying out to me for help while being beaten." He also relates that prison wardens would photograph these horrors.

[…]This is the tip of the iceberg. A report published by the Iraqi National Association for Human Rights on 29 October 2005 found that women held in Interior Ministry detention centres are subject to numerous human rights violations, including "systematic rape by the investigators and to other forms of bodily harm in order to coerce them into making confessions". The report added that prisons fail to meet even the most basic standards of hygiene and that the women were deprived of facilities as fundamental as toilets. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed the accuracy of the report.

In such circumstances, it is insult to injury that female detainees are often forced to sign a paper prior to their release in which they testify to being properly treated. The purpose of this affidavit is to silence them and deprive them of recourse to litigation in the future.

It should be noted, here, that the first question that is put to female detainees is: "Are you Sunni or Shia?" The second is, "Are you a virgin?"

Of course, this is all the work of a "few bad apples". Basically, the U.S. has turned a blind eye towards everything that is going on in Iraq. It is not only causing these atrocities, it is fomenting, paying for them, and then ignoring them. Does the Bush administration think people are stupid, that we can't fact-check what the say, and especially, what they don't say?

It's no surprise that we're hearing allegations of rape against the Iraqi National Police, considering who trained them. DynCorp, the private contractor that the Bush Administration hired to prepare Iraq's new police force for duty, has an ugly record of violence against women. The company was contracted by the federal government in the 1990s to train police in the Balkans. DynCorp employees were found to have systematically committed sex crimes against women, including "owning" young women as slaves. One DynCorp site supervisor videotaped himself raping two women. Despite strong evidence against them, the contractors never faced criminal charges and are back on the federal payroll.

These Two Vids Require Real Player;

Abu Ghraib.

Abu Ghraib - A Torturer's Tale I have Other Vids From there when you are finnished with that one.

Now Tell Me this is not a war crime Adam Kemp

Did you somehow get the impression that I was in favor of Abu Ghraib, or that I would defend what happened there? This article is about genocide and mass murder, not torture and degradation.

If you want my position on torture then read this article, which I wrote when I was in college.

I have read your Article. It is flimsy and Highly sanitised. The Idea that you have assumed that the USA is Above the Law and then gone on to say we need a ban is offensive to me. It already is illegal, unless you think the Nuremberg trials never happened.

The Notion that there is no intent on the part of the Bush Administration to commit war crimes on your part, makes you and all like minded Americans look very foolish. It is common knowledge to us that the opening gambit of GW Bush was Pre-Invasion Iraq -- October, 2002 -- for that is where this story starts.

"US demands total impunity on war crimes: Ultimatum to Europe in advance of Iraq war",

"With the Bush administration gearing up for a 'preemptive' war against Iraq, Washington this week dispatched a senior US diplomat, Marisa Lino, to Europe to demand that the governments of the European Union (EU) agree to a blanket exemption of all US citizens from the jurisdiction of the newly formed International Criminal Court ... it is insisting that governments around the world sign bilateral treaties agreeing not to turn over any American citizens in the event that they are indicted by prosecutors at the court. With the more impoverished and former colonial countries, Washington has threatened to cut off aid unless agreements are signed."

In early 2003, Bush got his total exemption from War Crimes for himself, for his military commanders, and his soldiers, just in time for him to launch his war on March 20, 2003. Now that the truth of Depleted Uranium Munitions is beginning to unfold in the public eye, we can see why President Bush was so anxious about his potential criminal liability before the International Criminal Court!

So it is safe to say that Washington has become a Rouge State that Harbours international criminals, funds genocidal Mercenaries and Dictatorships, They are also responsible for the greatest robbery of all time, They ripped off the American Taxpayer for 2 Trillion Dollars. A criminal gang by any definition.

You're still Doing that weird Capitalization thing. Do You think It's impressive? Does it Serve some Purpose? Or are your just Twitchy?

My article was limited to 500 words. There's only so much you can say in that much space. I had a point to make and I made it. It wasn't a treatise on international law or the morality of torture. It was a short opinion piece complaining about the hypocrisy of Bush refusing to actually sign his name to something which would officially ban him from doing something he claimed he wouldn't do anyway.

It still has absolutely nothing to do with this article. I only linked to it to show, once again, how wrong your assumptions about me are. I'm tired of having to correct your assumptions, and your off topic rants are getting old as well. This will be my last post in this thread.

Ok, this will be my last post:

Unless you're the author of this, then please stop plagiarizing. I can tell when it's not your writing when you stop Capitalizing random Words.

Evano:

I appreciate that you have taken the time to express your attitudes in such an organised way and I could say I agree with most of what you said. I respect the fact that most of us debating these issues are already "left", because those who are "right" will rarely do that, because it is incompatible with their firm beliefs and "dogma's" they built.

I can't however leave one thing unaswered. People like you seem to constantly turn to using the word conspiracy and explaining all the theories I might mention as one big conspiracy theory which you could easily "debunk" using a very public but wrong logic. For example:

1. This mission of pure evil and amoral intent is being runs so efficiently and stealthily that no light can penetrate into its deepest recesses, or 2. There is no conspiracy.

1. You used irony for the "pure evil and amoral intent" part. If you are aware of the history of the middle east, you have to admit that the same american forces we are talking about have repeteadly taken part in actions of "evil and amoral intent", some of wich have precicely the same pattern as the one I atributed to current Iraq.

2. There is no one big consiracy theory to accuse them all. I believe that the US has invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam from trading oil for euros. This is only my attempt at finding the real reason for the war, beacuse nobody has given me it so far, just like you haven't got a better explanation (if we exclude the wmd's :).

3. I never said all of the murders, rapes, or bombings are done by american evil forces. That kind of stigmatisation isn't benefitial to the conversation, but I'm already getting used to it. The only claim I proposed was that the british and american secret services started the whole blody mess with a few bombings at the begining and intentional negligence for human rights (wich I SPY thoroughly documented above) wich in the end couldn't result in anything but chaos and death all over.

4. We both agree that there are companies that make enormous proffits of this and other wars america is fighting and that some of them have very close ties to the american government. We differ only in the part where wouldn't go on to conclude as many like myself have, that those companies are probably manufacturing consent to start wars because it pays them veery much.

Those of us who still keep our feet on the ground most of the time don't subscribe to such an immature, simplistic, magical view of the way the world works and try not to ascribe to malice which can be easily explained by incompetence.

In the end, I hope you don't get me wrong, but in from my point of view, you actually do have a magical view of the world in wich many pieces don't fit together, but you just won't admit it, and instead of seeing economic reasons and explanations for things, you explain them with personal characteristics such as incompetence. You can't explain hitlers war with simple malice, nor can you explain the bush wars with simple incompetence, at least not in a way that answers any of my questions, and that is where we differ. Perhaps calling yourself the one who is not naive and has his feet on the ground might just as well be very wrong.

That is, at least, my opinion. Feel free to correct me if you need to.

2. There is no one big consiracy theory to accuse them all. I believe that the US has invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam from trading oil for euros. This is only my attempt at finding the real reason for the war, beacuse nobody has given me it so far, just like you haven't got a better explanation (if we exclude the wmd's :).

This was one of the reason initially for the Invasion, the Hope that by keeping all Oil transactions under OPEC USD.$ they could just buy the Oil. This has failed and the Euro has outstripped the US dollar and the Euro Bourse is Born.

Now the Fight is for the last remaining drops of "Sweet Light Crude" Note Tomoo I did not Say Oil but The very special kind of Oil that is good for producing Gasoline / Petrol. The Last of this is in the Persian gulf and its already peaked. So what America is now fighting for is Suburbia, Urban Sprawl, the Strip, and Vega's, and its a useless fight. Even if they did win, (and they have not) it would still run out just as fast, if not faster with America's more efficient production methods.

This is where the Blame Game gets scary, First they will blame those Bloodthirsty Iraqi's for 8$ a gallon Gasoline, Then when it becomes rationed and no amount of money can buy it or turn on the Heat or the AC, they will blame the Oil Companies, and this is where you get Loonies elected who make outrageous promises they cant keep.

The Other thing that is of concern is that many Americans could just endup saying that its worth Killing all those people so we can drive Hummers with Gas at 1$ a Gallon. This is reminiscent of Reaganomics.

The Other thing that is of concern is that many Americans could just endup saying that its worth Killing all those people so we can drive Hummers with Gas at 1$ a Gallon

At the time of the invasion of Iraq, I remember seeing on tv people on gas stations in america raging and raving about how the oil was expensive, how this is america and oil has to be cheap (as if america had an abundance of it), and many of them saying they don't really care what wars must be fought. Funny.

How much does a liter of gasoline cost in the US?

Sorry for coming in late, but I kind of vowed to stay away from this thread. Had to pop back in again to say, Evano, thank you for speaking so eloquently on all the things I have wanted to say but been too offended, hurt, dismayed or insulted at being branded a supporter of war crime to be able to say dispassionately.

Dammit, there goes my blood pressure, already spiking. Gotta go. Just wanted to say good job, Evano, and thanks.

EU laws don't apply in America.

This isn't about being a "decent human being." This is about deciding who is guilty in advance and then torturing the evidence and the language to make it fit a pre-conceived judgment. There is no difference between the making of this "case" of genocide against the US, and that of the Bush administration making sure the "facts were fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq. When one's actions are indistinguishable from one's enemies, there is no moral compass guiding those actions anymore.

If this were about being a "decent human being," Saddam would take the lion's share of the blame for abusing his people and his position of leadership. He initiated the invasion of Kuwait, was beaten back and told to comply with the weapons investigators. When he did not, sanctions were imposed. Saddam could have ended the sanctions at any time by fully complying with the UN mandate, but he chose not to. He could have negotiated concessions to allow importation of medicine, but he chose not to. He could have used his contra-sanction dealings with neighboring countries to import medicines instead of weapons and luxuries, but he chose not to. Yet the criminal is absolved and the jailers are condemned.

If this were about being a "decent human being," criticism of the militias, terrorists, suicide bombers and other jihadists perpetrating the sectarian violence would meet with equal condemnation to that pinned on the US and coalition troops, but there is silence when that comes up.

If this were about being a "decent human being," then that ridiculously expansive definition of "genocide" would be applied everywhere it fits: not just against the US, but also against the Sunni and the Shi'a and the Kurds; not just against the Israelis, but also against the Palestinians; not just against NATO in Afghanistan, but also against the Taliban.

There is plenty the US has done wrong; I know that and so I have never supported this war. But just as I don't want to see the US Constitution and the justice system destroyed for expediency's sake in keeping prisoner's in extra-territorial prisons and legitimizing torture, I also don't want to see morality so twisted and warped and stretched so it is unrecognizable just so it can fit into a prejudice against the US. When morality has become so flexible that prejudice is a characteristic of a "decent human being," that's when morality and justice no longer have any meaning.

A Nazi in the Pocket is Worth Four in the Bush 4min vid .wmv