Daniel has left a new comment on your post "Saddam Hussein's karmic retribution": Bush is the Hitler of the XXIst century. He massacred to thousands of Afghan innocent and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, initiating two wars with lies. And the weapon of massive destruction of Iraq? And Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Where there are Bin Laden and the weapon of massive destruction? The war of Iraq was realized to appropriate of the oil of this country, and to favor to the corporations that direct the government. What Hussein was an assassin? Without doubts, but it does not mean that Bush also it is. Bush is the " Butcher of Texas ". Posted by
Daniel to Confessions of a Closet Republican at 11:17 AM
At least we agree that Saddam was an assassin, but I am sooooo incredibly tired of the ludicrous comparisons of Bush to Hitler, and the equally absurd claims that he's culpable of genocide and somehow responsible for all the world's ills. People love to blame Bush and the current administration for every global problem that exists today. But unlike those countries that live under authoritarian rule, our system of government is a democracy and the President, though he does have veto power, can NOT make decisions on his own. That's why we have a duly elected Congress and Senate. So, no Daniel, Bush is NOT personally responsible for any of the deaths in Afghanistan or Iraq, though you'd like to believe so. I will readily admit that GWB has his faults, as do most world leaders (both past and present), and the problems in Iraq are very troublesome, but one thing he is not is another Hitler. I think the Bush administration, unfortunately, overestimated the capacity of the Iraqi people to embrace democracy (given their tribal and archaic mentality), and they also failed to take into account how far the foreign and regional Islamic factions might go to undermine the efforts to build a democracy in that region. But hindsight is 20/20, as they say. Then, factor in having to fight a P.C. war against an enemy that does not abide by any rules of engagement (as per the Geneva Conventions) and you have major trouble.
As for initiating those wars "with lies", I'm not sure what "lies" you are referring to when you reference Afghanistan, Daniel, but as I mentioned in my response to your comment, Afghanistan has been invaded countless times over the centuries. Muslims conquered Afghanistan back in 637 AD, and as recently as 1979 it was invaded by Communists (the former Soviet Union). Civil War erupted after the Soviet troop withdrawal in 1988, and when the current war began, in October 2001, the Afghan Northern Alliance provided the bulk of the fighting forces, with the U.S. and other NATO members (including Britain, France, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Norway) lending support. Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan also provided troops. So, I'm sorry to say, it wasn't only Bush (and the U.S.) that participated in what you call the massacre of thousands of innocents, there were other countries involved, as well. (And what would you call the initial Muslim conquerors or the Soviet invaders? But that's another post). And the guerrilla fighting that continues today, in Afghanistan, is between the Taliban and NATO, not the U.S. This was never solely a U.S. operation.
Moreover, prior to the 2001 invasion, it was common knowledge that the repressive Taliban regime had been offering sanctuary (since 1996) to Osama Bin Laden and other al-Quaeda operatives, and had allowed them to set up terrorist training camps there. The invasion in 2001 was initiated in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which Bin Laden has taken full responsibility for. We were attacked on our soil and, considering we had intel that he was in Afghanistan, at the time, we had every right to seek him out wherever he happened to be hiding. I'm not sure where you live, Daniel, but I guarantee that if anything similar happened in your country, you would think very differently. And where is he today? Bin Laden lives in a region that is more than willing to hide and protect him.
As for initiating the war in Iraq "with lies", every other major world power also happened to believe that there were WMDs in that country, and Saddam had years, prior to the invasion, to ship them off to Syria, where they are probably stored today. People tend to forget that Iraq had been slapped with U.N. sanctions after its invasion of Kuwait in 1991 and that no U.N. weapons inspectors had visited Iraq since 1998, so anything could have been arranged during the interim. Then in November 2002 (just prior to the invasion in 2003), the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 (which passed unanimously!) offering Iraq, "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" . Those "obligations" had been defined in 10 other U.N. Resolutions (660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986 and 1284) all of which were, by and large, ignored! Saddam finally agreed to comply with Resolution 1441 and allowed U.N. weapons inspectors to, once again, visit suspect sites. Iraq was also to supply the U.N. with a 12,000 page weapons declaration, which it did, on 12/7/2002. However, U.N. inspector Hans Blix claimed that, "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." The U.N. weapons inspectors had good reason to believe that Saddam might still possess WMDs, as did the Security Council, so why shouldn't we have trusted that information? If Saddam had fully complied with that final Resolution, or had all the members of the Security Council held him accountable for not complying and stood together with those countries that were threatening to invade if he didn't, we would never have gone to war! Which leads me to the ridiculous notion that we invaded Iraq because of their oil. If the fatuous "Blood for Oil" proponents bothered to do any research, they would have discovered that it wasn't the U.S. that had anything to gain from an invasion, but rather China, France and Russia that had too much at stake to support it. I wasn't sure how I felt about the War, at first, so I researched the issue extensively and found that those 3 countries had huge investment ties to Iraqi oil and that was why they refused to join forces. I have that info somewhere and will share when I eventually find it. But, as of 2006, Iraq is 7th on the list of countries we import oil from; Canada and Mexico being the top 2. And thinking that the U.S. government would ever believe it could get away with "appropriating" the oil from ANY country in the Middle East (or anywhere else, for that matter) is tantamount to saying our leaders are total morons and believe in committing suicide and, I assure you, they are not and do not (with maybe a few exceptions)!
And don't forget the whole "Oil for Food scandal" that eventually was uncovered. People love to conveniently forget about that whole travesty.
GENOCIDE vs WAR: Part 2
So lets talk about GENOCIDE.
(jěn'ə-sīd') n. The systematic and planned extermination of anIt's a term, by the way, that was coined by Raphael Lemkin , a Polish Jew who took interest in the Armenian Genocide (by the Turks in the early 1900s), after he heard about the case of Soghomon Tehlirian (a genocide survivor) who, while in Berlin on March 15th 1921, assassinated Mehmed Talat Pasha, the Turkish Minister of Interior, for his participation in orchestrating the massacre. Tehlirian was acquitted, but Lemkin began to question why a man like Tehlirian should be tried for murder and yet annihilating entire populations wasn't considered a crime. So, he lobbied for international laws to address that inequity and in 1948 the U.N. adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It, unfortunately, does not also include the decimation of ideological, political or cultural groups or members of a social class, as Lemkin had hoped for. These groups were excluded because the Convention needed the support of the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, and they were opposed to those classifications, for obvious reasons.
entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. [Greek genos, tribe, race; + -cide Occidere- Latin for Killing or massacre.]
Sadly, wars have been waged over land and power and religious control, since the beginning of time. There will always be those who lust for power, or who are unwilling to live in peace with others because they are so filled with hatred for those who are different, or those who just want what's yours. There are some ethnic groups that have such enmity for each other (that goes back centuries), that they will always live in conflict. It's as if there's some genetic mutation that keeps getting passed down from generation to generation, that makes them unable to live peaceably with their neighbors. And yes, sometimes war is a necessity: when defending one's land and population, or coming to the aid of those unable to defend themselves.
1.a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
Genocide, on the other hand, is the result of attempts to get rid of large groups of people by lunatics who have decided they are unfit to live. There is a concerted effort to exterminate them all. In the 20th Century alone, there have been at least 7 acts of Genocide:
Armenian Genocide: (1915-1918) approx. 1,500,00 - 2 million killed by the Turks
Ukrainian Genocide: (1932-1933 )approx 7 to 10 million dead (Stalin created an artificial famine)
The Holocaust: (1938-1945) approx 6 million Jews (and others) killed by Hitler & the Nazis
Pol Pot: (1975-1979) approx. 2 million Cambodians killed by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge
Bosnian Genocide: (1992-1995) approx. 150,000 to 200,000 killed by the Serbs
Rwanda: (1994) approx 200,000 Tutsis were massacred by Hutus
There may be some I have missed.
Then you have the persecution of the Bahais and Kurds in the Middle-East, where many have been killed, though not to the extent of the above-mentioned incidents.
Our incursion into Iraq and Afghanistan was NOT for the express purpose of ridding the world of all Iraqis or all Afghanis. So, technically speaking, any deaths in those countries cannot be considered acts of genocide, they are the unfortunate by-product of war. And claiming it is genocide sullies the memory of those who actually did die at the hands of genocidal maniacs.
And I ask you, Daniel, why you don't criticize the insurgents fighting in Iraq? They have caused far more death and destruction to the people of that country than any coalition soldier has.
Something to ponder.