> If 200,000 dead constitute a genocide, no matter how they died,
> surely
> the US war in Iraq is a genocide: "the Coalition forces could be
> responsible for as many as 200,000 Iraqi civilian deaths or more"
> (Les
> Roberts, "Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?" AlterNet. Posted
> February 8, 2006, <http://www.alternet.org/story/31508/>).
>
> The application of the term "genocide" appears to be completely
> dependent on politics.
No, I think it's dependent on whether you're working from a valid definition of it.
There's no definition that I'm aware of that would come anywhere near make it "surely" that the deaths in Iraq were "genocide" since a precondition is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. You're welcome to correct me on this one.
Don't start getting sloppy with that term.
/jordan