Why does Obama think stopping genocide is not a good reason to stay in Iraq?

Question

The United States has been CAUSING genocide in Iraq since 1991. What do you call 205,000 killed during the Gulf War? What do you call 1 million dead from sanctions that continued even after Iraq destroyed its WMD in 1991? What do you call the 655,000 victims of Bush's war since 2003?

Any rational person would call it a calculated campaign to kill as many Iraqis as possible. So no, Obama, stopping genocide is not a good reason to stay in Iraq.

Stopping genocide is a good reason to LEAVE Iraq!

Answer 1

The term genocide is overused to the point in which any instance of extensive casualties is called "genocide." This collogial usage cheapens the meaning and discounts genuine instances of genocide. According to Wikipedia, Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group." Merriam-Websters Online defines it as, "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 calls genocide, "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

This act was initiated to prevent acts similiar to the Holocaust, and punish those responsible if something similar did occur.

The key word in all definitions is "intent." Casualties consequent to a war are not gencide. War is not "deliberate and systematic." If the current colloqial definition of was accepted, every country forced to fight would be guilty of the heinous crime of genocide--regardles of whether its cause was just or not.

I might note that you fail to mention the intentional infliction of death on civilians in Kuwait consequent to Saddam Hussein's invasion. These deaths were not simply casualties of war, but wanton hate for the people of Kuwait. I do not call this warfare, nor do I call it genocide. I call it cold-blooded murder.

Sanctions were brutal; however, one must note that Hussein and those who supported him suffered little. The sanctions sought to compel the sitting government to behave according to established international norms, and were initiated by a legitimate international body of states--not just the United States--following brutal exercises of state power against its own people that may well have qualified as genocide. If anyone committed genocide, it was Hussein for failing to comply with UN demands. One must also note the blatant abuse of the "Oil for Food" program, which the United Nations initiated to end civilian suffering. It ultimately enriched Hussein and his regime.

I personally believe your civilian casualty figures are exaggerated for the current war in Iraq. You provide no sources from which to verify their accuracy. While a plethora of slanted sources exist, few reliable authorities do. According to a CNN report from 29 October 2004, the civilian casualty count exceeded 100,000. Lancet medical journal published the original results. A later study, (Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy et al., “Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of
Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey”) placed Iraqi civilian casualties at between 426,369 and 793,663. An extremely broad range. The methods used in the study have come under intense scrutiny within academia. One must also note that counter-occupationists, insurgents and terrorists (there is a difference) killed many of these, not coalition forces.

I opposed going to war against Iraq in 2003. I think we were blindly led into a war that should not have occurred--not only for Iraq, but also for the interests of the United States and its allies--with slanted intelligence (refined information) designed to support a specific position. It's called backstopping, and not much different than the 'information' you provide. The only good thing is Saddam is gone. No one can support his leadership as benevolent or just. He was a brutal dictator, who probably was guilty of genocide and many other heinous crirme according to the accepted definitions.

Regarding the present. We invaded, we broke it, and it is ours to fix. That is whether one is a liberal or a conservative, Republican or Democrat or Independent.

IT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO REPAIR IT, not only for the Iraqi people, but also for the interests of the United States. We will never be seen as a great power if we leave Iraq broken and helpless. We do not need a Somalia in the Middle East.

As a liberal, can one justify leaving innocent Iraqis helpless to those who would brutalize them?

As a conservative, can one permit the United States to leave Iraq in disgrace and against its national interest?

This is one time liberals and conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents had better work together. Granted, the methods of the Bush Administration have clearly failed. Perhaps it is time for real military leadership--not Administration "Yes-men"--to step forward and run the operation in Iraq.

Iraq is not genocide--yet; however, it has the potential of becoming one if the United States and its partners leave. Perhaps a true international effort could develop to save Iraq, if the United States admitted it made a mistake, needed help, and was willing to accept partner input.

Preventing genocide is a damn good reason to stay in Iraq--especially since we created the circumstances underwhich one could develop.

Answer 2

Firstly a definition
From webster.com
genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

The war in Iraq, while I'm not for it, is a long way from genocide. Many have died... many many many have died. But the US is not trying to wipe out all the citizens. I don't believe it is a just war. It is an economically motivated war as virtually all wars are, but it is not a genocide. The Nazi's were genocidal, as was the crusade launched by the Catholic church in 1095-1291, as is what is happening in Darfur and what happened in Rowanda. This on the other hand is war that is very heavy in civilian casualties.
Not every rational person would call it as you have brashly labeled it.

Answer 3

We need to get our military out of Iraq, but we owe to the Iraqis to help rebuild their country. You are right about the economic sanctions and we also supported Saddam Hussein during his atrocities! Now we sent our military and are running around killing people despite the fact that Iraq didn't have anything to to do with 9/11 and they don't have WMD's.

We destroyed their economy and sent them back to the stone ages. Now Bush, government and corporations will force this poor country to pay back huge amounts of loans with extremely high interest to help rebuild their country. This means that the Iraqis will always be indebted to us. We will also build a military base and a have a puppet government in place that will place American interest first instead of Iraqis interest.

Doing this to Iraq and previous countries will (Nicaragua and Haiti) ensure the dominance of the U.S. and then they will smile on t.v. and say that they are bringing democracy and peace to Iraq knowing full well that they are only bringing death.

Answer 4

Iraqi vice president has asked US troops to leave and the president has supported the request, the same president and vice president whom were elected by the democratic election system that we helped to put into place. Even their people want us out. We cannot force our way of thinking on others. To do so with violence and deadly force is is what we call a dictatorship, which runs counter to what we claim to stand for, and that is democracy. Stand by your principle and leave.

Plus sending thousands of your own people into a situation where you cannot win because the people who your are defending are even against you, is also genocide.

Answer 5

Just the American way my friend.Sending troops because Saddam killed a few thousands decades ago(not that I believe this was the reason) - good idea,sending troops to stop genocide that will kill millions - not a good idea.

Answer 6

There is no good reason to stay in Iraq. We have done enough damage to their country and their loved ones and need to get the hell out. They need to settle the civil war we started on their own.

Answer 7

It may indeed be time to leave Iraq, but I am under no delusion as to what is going to happen to the people there.

Biden today said it directly....we will be leaving...they need to understand that.

If they do not stand up for themselves now while they have the opportunity, what is coming for them is indeed horrible.

Answer 8

genocide is a long stretch from civil war.

maybe you should write him and ask, unless all you are trying to do is take a cheap shot at democrats, while having very little knowledge on the subject matter.

Answer 9

You have to live in liberal HQ or San Francisco huh. Yeah the US should have not go involved in WW2 even though we stopped the Holocaust. Perhaps we should have let South Korea be overrun huh. Despite today South Korea is a democracy. Perhaps we should not have stopped that thug Manuael Norigia, you know the thug who was beating up and killing people in Panama. Or maybe you would have prefered the US war machine stand by and let the Serbs murder millions in Bosnia in Kosovo.

Answer 10

Genocide, schmenocide--tell that to the slaughtered Sudanese!