Should the Bush administration be regarded as 'perpetrators of genocide' in Iraq?

Question

http://www.genocidewatch.org/eightstages.htm

Reviewing the aforementioned site indicates that the Bush Administration knowingly went into Iraq to find non-existent WMDs. This was proved by recent main stream articles which stated that none were going to be found. Therefore the approximate 800,000 people that have died in the 10 years of economic sanctions and two wars have died without JUST CAUSE ergo they were murdered.

The aforementioned link indicates a study undertaken to outline the stages of genocide. Now please read and think how this applys to current events and answer with your rational arguments.

Answer 1

I'm personally still reeling over the attempted genocide of the left-behind New Orleans blacks after Katrina.

Answer 2

Assallam - O - Alekum Jamal

The majority of people murdered in Iraq have been killed by Muslims, do not forget that Iraq was ruled by Sunni's who carried out genocide on the Kurds and Shi-ites. Even today Muslim are murdering Muslim this is a sin against Islam and those perpetrators will never enter into Paradise.

True there were many innocent people killed in the war in Iraq but this was not genocide, as for the war to boot out the Iraqis from Kuwait they were committing genocide in that small country and their occupation was Illegal and help was sought from the International community (including some 50 Mujaheddin).

Many sites will give an adverse view on any given subject, did the Nazis not commit genocide against the European Jews?, and did not Alexander the Great not commit genocide against the Persians? and did Yugoslavia not commit genocide against Muslims?. apart from the first there is little historical evidence to suggest otherwise.

Answer 3

Sorry, I do not give any respect or credence to jihadist-supporting sites that are packed with falsehoods and lies.

1. Isn't it time you idiots stopped lying about the WMDs? Every intelligence agency in the world was certain that Saddam hadn't dismantled his WMD labs, nor had he produced documentation to prove he'd destroyed all his WMD stockpiles, especially the nerve agent VX, etc, all pursuant to the ceasefire agreement that ended the 1st Gulf war.

2. 800,000 dead? Can you prove the UN (UN, not just US) sanctions caused those deaths? Can the fact that the UN (not US) program of Food-for-Oil which turned into a big scam and funneled money into Saddam's pocket, which was used to procure weapons and gold toilets instead of food for the people, bears some responsibility, rather than your simple-minded fact-free anti-US ranting?

3. Very few civilians were killed by US forces. The majority of the death in Iraq since 2003 have been at the hands of Sunni (Baathist, Saddamist, al Qaeda) terrorists, with the Shiite death squads now battling back.

I am puzzled why supposedly intelligent people would throw away objectivity and truth to believe these 'genocide' absurdities.

Answer 4

No, Bush has not committed genocide, but he IS guilty of commiting the greatest war crime of all, invading another sovereign state.

Iraq had NOTHING tod do with 911, Nor did Saddam have anything that could even remotely be described as WMD in the 5 years running up to the invasion. There where a few old shells found with inert residue of chemical weapons. These were completely harmless. teh average car exhaust beltches out more harful emmissions than where discovered in those shells, Should the US military invade the Ford factory or GM?

It remains a fact that Saddam was NOT a threat, in fact the whole middle east was a lot more stable with him in power and we were a lot safer with him in power than we are now.

As for Saddam having the opportunity to disarm and prevent the war? that is complete B.S.

Do a google search on the Downing St memo. Bush and Blair decided in 2002 that they were going to invade and illegally topple saddam from power regardless of the WMD. There was NOTHING that Saddam could have done to prevent the invasion, other than actually get some WMD. If he had have gotten hold of a nuke, there would NOT have been an invasion. Bush's wussy and cowardly action re North Korea shows he is a coward and a Bully and a Criminal.

But he has not committed genocide. He would have to be shown to have tried to eradicate all Shiites or Sunnis to be guilty of that.

Answer 5

A very loaded question. I take it that you don't like Bush.
You state that 800,000 people have died due to sanctions and the current hostilities, Bush has only been in office 7 years, therefore he can't take all the blame.
Saddam Hussein was given an opportunity to halt the war BEFORE the invasion and he never took it.
The problem is that Muslims believe[wrongly] that Bush/Blair are starting a CRUSADE against Muslim countries. If any country offers a safe haven to terrorists, then they are fair game to be targeted as in Afghanistan.
The war on terror is NOT a war on ISLAM, but against those who maim and murder innocent people[Muslims included]. Bush did not start the war, it was not Bush who ordered planes to be crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. So before we all fall out remember who started the turmoil.
I am not a Bush lover, in fact I don't really like him, hence I have no bias, and I don't hate Muslims, I treat everybody with respect.

Answer 6

Saddam was gassing the Kurds and not allowing UN inspectors in to inspect. Thus, the UN levied sanctions, not the US. UN get it United Nations.
Saddam could have ended the sanctions, and stopped the suffering by complying with the international community.

While Saddam's people starved and died, Saddam and his gangsters lived the good life. He continued to build his palaces and murder his people. We have uncovered many of the mass graves you conveniently choose to ignore.

Today, the killings that are taking place are Muslims killing Muslims. Islam, the religion of peace?

You're not reading the right stuff. But then, you already know that. If you want truth, read the article titled, "Tales of the Tyrant".

Answer 7

When the concept of a "Just War" is considered, there is no provisions for a preemptive strike. Most rational people would consider a preemptive strike more or less an act of aggression.

Like it or not, as a US citizen and tax-payer, I have become a party in an unjust war. I don't like it very much.

But as far as "perpetrator of genocide", that is as very strong term, I do not think the concept fits. Possibly we should have known it would or even might happen. We may have inadvertently contributed to a situation where genocide occurred. Bush did not "perpetrate genocide".

Answer 8

not at all . Most of the killings have been done by the shais and sunnis killing each other to settle old scores. These difference have existed for centuries. add to that the mindset of most Muslims is not democratic as they cant accept a non Muslim country invading them even though they may be living in ****. No country in the world is perfect and America has some flaws but had a Muslim country of similar power been there ,they would have exterminated half the worlds population.

Answer 9

No, I dont live in your country. Look at saddam, look what he is. You cant claim to be the most powerful country and let men like that rule. Genocide? buy a dictionary. The whole point of the war was to stop genocide. Ever heard of the Kurds? And if you dont like your leaders, DONT KEEP RE-ELECTING THEM.
Oh, and if you dont vote, because your country is one of the few where you dont have to, then you should NEVER critisice anything the ruling body do.

Answer 10

Jamal... No and quite frankly, you don't deserve an answer beyond that. For you to blame the US for the deaths of innocent Iraqi's during the years that THE WORLD placed economic sanctions on Iraq due to the actions of Saddam's regime is completely irresponsible. You are right, the people were murdered, not by the US and certainly not at the hands of President George W Bush or his Administration.

Answerman..
"655,000 dead from violence since we went into Iraq, while we cannot point the finger directly to Bush and his evil empire we can blame him as these deaths would probably never have happened under Saddam. He for as bad as he was kept order in Iraq. "

You are darn right you cannot point the finger directly at President Bush in regards to the death of 655,000 people in Iraq. It is ironic that you use the word evil when referring to Bush but all you can come ip with is bad when referring to Saddam. That in itself is a sign that the point you are trying to make is biased beyond belief. You aren't a stupid man. You know better than to float a coment like that out there and attempt to pass it off as fact. Noone, absolutely noone knows how many innocent lives were taken by Saddam and his thugs. Mass graves are unearthed on a regular basis. For every mass grave that is unearthed, how many single graves or graves with a few bodies in them exist that we don't know about? Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? Not every killing led to a mass grave. We know for a fact that Saddam was responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Kurds. We know for a fact of the torture and rape. We know for a fact that people would just dissapear never to be seen or heard from again. This is what you call keeping order under Saddam? Do these people not count? Was the starvation and death that was occuring under Saddam's regime acceptable to you? You classify it as just bad and not evil?

What the heck is wrong with you?

Answer 11

Of course, that the American way beggar a nation starve them to death and then slap them about a bit, they've been trying that with North Korea and Cuba for a long time, but America should have been on trial along time ago, what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, mass murders involving weapons of mass destruction, if Saddam had done this Bush wouldn't shut up about it.