Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
30. Defining away your crimes by legalism.
Wed Aug 28, 2013, 04:43 PM
Aug 2013

Yes, what the US did in Iraq was genocide. Murdered hundreds of thousands of people for imperial gain. Made millions of refugees, of whom the largest share fled to Syria.

I'm well aware of the current definition of the term and it is deficient, a long-ago compromise so that the great powers would even accept it as a crime under international law. It allows you to define away the crime by legalism. Fine.

The US committed mass murder in a war of unprovoked aggression. The present government just filed a motion to give immunity to the perpetrators of this war! It has also escalated the "global war on terror" under new names in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and is about to do so in Syria.

This country has a permanent government of the military-industrial complex with rotating administrations that inevitably serve the war machine.



Chummy!

And you actually say it's fine since the Iraqi population is rising?

Yeah, what's the big deal, start wars around the planet, kill millions, poison countries with agent orange and depleted uranium, poison their water... to call it genocide you have to meet a definition written by the empire.

And then presume to sit in judgement as the world policeman and executioner!

Those innocent civilians should definitely be punished by indiscriminate drones and airstrikes NoOneMan Aug 2013 #1
If an opinion is all the power I have, I'd still like to have it. Barack_America Aug 2013 #4
so, you do not have an answer? or just an insultive rant that has no point? seabeyond Aug 2013 #8
No, I don't have an answer. Im not going to bother NoOneMan Aug 2013 #11
it doesnt matter whether you are endorsing force to stop what is already happening, you know seabeyond Aug 2013 #14
So only more murder will stop murder? NoOneMan Aug 2013 #18
so you really are not a reflective, but impulsive poster. got it. take care of that garden. nt seabeyond Aug 2013 #21
If by not advocating murder and rape (to solve such) means Im not reflective, sure NoOneMan Aug 2013 #35
no... i am referring more to ignoring what i say and postulating what you want to argue. nt seabeyond Aug 2013 #37
So you are good with going back to Bush-style cowboy diplomacy quinnox Aug 2013 #2
I honestly don't see how the UN CAN act here. Barack_America Aug 2013 #15
well, too bad so sad. That is what the U.N. is all about. If one of the big powers says no, that is quinnox Aug 2013 #19
So use of chemical weapons is okay, if you can bribe the right country to protect you? Barack_America Aug 2013 #25
Without proof ... GeorgeGist Aug 2013 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #5
Bullshit post. Arctic Dave Aug 2013 #6
That's different. He did not gas them. RC Aug 2013 #10
Not so much Assad prohibits them from determining fault. dipsydoodle Aug 2013 #7
Why not let the UN do it's job? Rex Aug 2013 #9
If chemical weapons were used by Assad"s forces, Assad is to blame. Barack_America Aug 2013 #24
What would you suggest be done if chemical weapons were used by the rebels instead? -- n/t mazzarro Aug 2013 #28
Then that rebel faction should be removed from the pageant. Barack_America Aug 2013 #29
If someone commits a crime and the jury acquits, should you capture and imprison the person? stevenleser Aug 2013 #12
Staying out of this one Aerows Aug 2013 #22
Amen nt snappyturtle Aug 2013 #31
The problem here is that it's the same 5 damned jurors every time. Barack_America Aug 2013 #23
"a regular majority to pass general legislation and a super majority for things like military action Douglas Carpenter Aug 2013 #44
i guess no one has an opinion on whether one takes the position of allowing chemical weapon use or seabeyond Aug 2013 #13
The US has used chemical weapons by proxy when we gave them to Iraq. Aerows Aug 2013 #20
The US isn't the final arbiter of what is and what is not right Aerows Aug 2013 #16
Sorry, killers don't get to play school principal. JackRiddler Aug 2013 #17
"Punish your own damn regime for the genocides they've perpetrated around the world." EX500rider Aug 2013 #26
Defining away your crimes by legalism. JackRiddler Aug 2013 #30
I didn't say anything was fine. EX500rider Aug 2013 #33
Even by the restrictive definition of genocide JackRiddler Aug 2013 #40
This post is perfect. I've been meaning to mention depleted uranium. snappyturtle Aug 2013 #34
This may qualify even by the definition of genocide... JackRiddler Aug 2013 #39
Yes. Depleted uranium will continue to do damage for years. snappyturtle Aug 2013 #42
Oh that is just BULL HOCKEY Peacetrain Aug 2013 #27
Why should only these few "great powers" count? David__77 Aug 2013 #32
OK, let's discuss. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #36
There are many ways to skin a cat! Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #38
The people who used the chemical weapons should be punished Bradical79 Aug 2013 #41
We've dropped Agent Orange, Napalm, White Phosphorus and uranium. magical thyme Aug 2013 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should Syria not be punis...»Reply #30