Bush calls killing of 200,000 in Sudan genocide - What about the 600,000+ killed in Iraq?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060101725.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060101725.html

In Break With U.N., Bush Calls Sudan Killings Genocide

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 2, 2005; Page A19

President Bush said yesterday that the killings in Sudan's Darfur region constitute genocide, breaking with the United Nations and some administration officials who in recent months have carefully avoided using the term to describe the violence and death in Darfur.

Bush, under pressure from some lawmakers and human rights groups to speak out more forcefully against the rising death toll in Darfur, told reporters that he concurs with former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, who had previously "declared the situation a genocide." The United Nations, which conducted a legal analysis of the killings, has said the situation is tantamount to crimes against humanity but technically not genocide.

Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, recently dispatched by Bush to survey the situation in Darfur, has said he was trying to avoid the debate over what to call the killing of tens of thousands of Africans over the past two years. The United States, under the 1948 U.N. convention on genocide, is committed to preventing such killings and punishing the killers if it deems a genocide is taking place.

Bush discussed the two-year conflict in Darfur with South African President Thabo Mbeki and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the White House, and he later told reporters that the United States will continue to provide financial and logistical assistance, but not U.S. troops, to help stop the genocide. "Our government has put a lot of money to help deal with the human suffering there," he said.

[endarkenment]

1. He'd call that a good start.

See it is different when we do the killing, we are exceptional.

USA USA USA USA USA USA

Cindy: please reconsider.

Will Pitt: your angry is looking for you.

[bryant69]

2. Nobody is interested in the real answer to this question

So let's just pretend Bush wants Genocide, but doesn't want to admit it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NNN0LHI]

4. I am interested in the "real" answer

If you have it I would very much like to hear it.

Don

[bryant69]

5. The real answer is in intention and percent of people killed.

While the United States and the Bushes are bastards they aren't trying to eliminate the Iraqi people (kind of a misnomer itself as, due to the legacy of imperialism, Iraq is a nation made up of a number of nationalities). Rather they are killing a lot of Iraqi people to get to their other goals (exploiting Iraq's oil, say, or creating a "democracy").

Also flat numbers are not helpful in determining genocide; rather percent of population is a more important measurement. The goal of genocide isn't to kill, it's to eliminate a population.

Bryant

[NNN0LHI]

6. What percentage of a population has to be killed before it would qualify as genocide?

I have no idea.

Don

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Yeah, we killed 600,000 Iraqis on accident.

Plus, there's lots more of them. They'll get over it.

:eyes:

[bryant69]

10. Hey a typically well thought out response by Bornagainhooligan

It's nice to know that in times of turmoil and tumult somethings remain consistent. Thank you.

Bryant

[endarkenment]

13. So what percentage constitutes genocide?

And for how long does the carnage have to continue before other intentions are irrelevant?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Hey, it's your goofy argument.

[endarkenment]

11. So if your primary focus is on X and you happen to kill or maim or turn

into refugees a huge proportion of the population, but that wasn't your explicit intention, it isn't genocide?

That is a genocide enabling loophole that is massively wide.

[bryant69]

17. Well that's my goal of course, to enable Genocide

Yay Genocide!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[endarkenment]

18. So far in defense of your position

you have offered up snarks. Good show!

[bryant69]

21. I see no reason to fight in a rigged fight

What's the point?

Why argue with people who mischaracterize my statement as being pro Genocide?

Bryant

[endarkenment]

28. I said your definition had a genocide enabling loophole.

That doesn't make you pro-genocide, it makes your definition a really bad one.

[leftchick]

3. "collateral damage"

nothing to see here, move along

[whistle]

7. It isn't genocide when a reDumblican president orders it!

[gravity]

9. We aren't committing genocide

We aren't systematically killing Iraqis in the country. It was not our intentions, but our failed military strategy lead to many unneeded deaths in Iraq.

Also the US isn't responsible for all the deaths that occurred in Iraq, since many of the attacks occur between the Iraqis themselves. The situation is too complex to be labeled as genocide.

[NNN0LHI]

15. If Iraq had invaded the US...

...and allowed one group of Americans to kill 6 million other Americans would you be so generous in your opinion?

Because that is what an equal number of Americans who would have died in percentage terms would be. About 2.5 percent of our population.

Would all those deaths be the blame of the Iraqis who invaded us and started it all or would those deaths be our own responsibility?

Would you consider someone killing 6 million Americans in four years time genocide?

Don

[endarkenment]

20. Plus 30,000,000 refugees. Plus N,000,000 maimed. nt.

[gravity]

22. We are trying to prevent deaths

Our strategy is failing obviously, but it doesn't mean that it is our intention to exterminate a portion of the population.

This isn't a blank and white, good vs evil situation we have here in Iraq, and there are many complex forces responsible for the destruction. Labeling our actions as genocide is ignoring all the realities that occur in Iraq at the moment.

[endarkenment]

27. "We are trying to prevent deaths"

No we are trying to impose our authority and we will kill anyone who gets in our way. We are not trying to prevent deaths.

[endarkenment]

19. Keep that comfort thought close to your chest.

We are war criminals of the worst sort. Get used to it.

[gravity]

23. A preemptive attack is illegal

but genocide is a completely different crime

[endarkenment]

26. How many years into our illegal occupation

and what percentage of Iraqis do we have to kill maim or make refugees before it becomes genocide?

[bamacrat]

12. Thats freedom from an oppressive dicatator.

[sakabatou]

16. "Needed deaths?"

[dave_p]

24. I found sanctions more genocidal

I don't think anyone foresaw the scale of the destruction unleashed by Bremer & Co, whereas they knew just what the sanctions were doing but "we think the price is worth it". The longer this goes on, though, the more fragile the case for isolating destructive effect from intent.

[BlooInBloo]

25. It's called "liberation" when white folks do it.