> You are covering up for some world historic criminality.
I don't think I'm doing that at all. But "criminality" is not the same as "genocide" -- it's just what we've all decided; there's plenty of other kinds of criminality other than genocide, and, as defined and largely understood, I don't believe the US is engaging in genocide in Iraq. I'm (only a little) sorry that I poked fun at your statement, I see now that you're serious about your charge. I don't agree with you, purely on linguistic grounds. But to repeat: I'm not covering up for any crimes by anyone, and it's a little annoying to have to say that in this kind of thread. Disagreeing with you about the use of the term genocide automatically makes me a US-apologist?
Sheesh.
> We don't have to find Bush or one of his minions saying that
> they intend to destroy the Iraqi "national group" in part in
> order to find intent necessary to charge the Bush (and Clinton)
> regimes with genocidal assault on the Iraqi people.
So you say. I'm probably splitting hairs about the word, but I don't think I'm the only one here who thinks it gets used in a lot of ways that aren't appropriate.
Get your own word for it, I say; otherwise you'll make the distinction (between genocide and not-genocide) meaningless. I think it's useful to have the word genocide around, with its narrow definition. Because that kind of behavior does exist, and it's important to deal with that as such.
/jordan