Charles Brown wrote:
>
>> CB: So, you don't think there is probable cause to believe that Bush and
> Clinton intended to destroy the Iraqi nationals in whole or in part ?
Charles, I really don't understand at all why you put forth notions like this. That Clinton and Bush have committed enormous crimes against not only the people of Iraq but, really, against the whole world, is overwhelmingly obvious. So why should you complicate and confuse this simple and sufficient charge by this suggestion? It is simply silly and disrupts discussion. The U.S. was _willing_ to slaughter as many Vietnamese as it took to "teach a lesson" to Latin America, and the death total was around 3 million (with probably a couple million indirect deaths since then). It made some sense to use "genocidal" (the adjective) as a sort of agitational slogan in reference to that. But even so, it is clear the U.S. had no interest in killing Vietnamese because they were Vietnamese, and that is the core of genocide, in all its serious meanings.
But the U.S. (I'm channeling Sartre here) could do that because the economic exploitation of Vietnam was not crucial for u.s. imperialism. But while the U.S. is certainly willing to impose great "collateral damage" on the people of Iraq, it would genocide would be sheer lunacy, from the viewpoint of u.s. imperialism. When you make charges such as this it _seems_ to show serious doubt of Marx's analysis of capitalism; you seem to need to supplement that analysis with purely moralistic charges against individual capitalists. And that is nonsense.
Bush, Clinton, and Bush clearly have/had no interest whatever in killing Iraqi just because they are Iraqi! They would be delighted to stop killing them if only the Iraqi would consent to serve rather than oppose u.s. interests!
Carrol