>
>> 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.
^^^^ CB: Carrol, you really must stop with these extremely reactionary and racist comments, and I mean it, motherfucker. You are supposed to be a leftist.
^^^^^
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?
^^^^ CB; What the fuck is this supposed to mean ? This is a completely stupid comment. You are the one confused. I am so clear on genocide, it isn't funny. The charge here _is_ genocide, not "enormous crimes against not only the people of Iraq but, really against the whole world" . That is a confused, diffuse and complicated ,non-legal "charge". The legal term is "genocide". Got it ?
^^^^^^^^
It is simply silly and disrupts discussion.
^^^^^ CB: You are the one who is silly here
^^^^^^
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.
^^^^ CB: You jerk. "Genocide" _is_ the serious, world recognized and legally enshrined term that is appropriate for describing what the U.S. did to the Viet Namese. It is the complete opposite of an agitational slogan. All your discussion is agitational. Genocide is a _legal_ ,not agitational term. By using "genocide", one takes the matter out of agitation and "politics" and gives it worldwide recognized legal content, you fool.
^^^^^^
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.
^^^^ CB: This is a racist comment on your part. Of course the U.S. war on Vietnam was structurally racist and genocidal. Colonialism is structurally racist, not individually-motivated. This means you completely misunderstand racism, colonialism, imperialism. Imperialism is racist, structurally racist.
Read _Racism, Imperialism and Peace_ , selected essays by Herbert Aptheker, and maybe you'll get a clue.
^^^^^^^
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.
^^^^ CB; This is so stupid , I can't stand it. There is absolutely nothing in Marxism that contradicts charging the U.S.with genocide in its war on Vietnam. You don't understand Marxism or genocide. Marx must be updated by Lenin and Dubois on oppressor and oppressed nations, racism and colonialism, neo-colonialist racism. Do you think Lenin analyzes racism and colonialism in terms of individual morality of capitalists ? Go read up on those , and then come back and discuss this.
On the other hand, Marx himself integrates his analysis of capitalism with his analysis of racism and colonialism from the beginning, _fundamentally_
"The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation ( of capital -CB) On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in England's Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China, &c.
The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute themselves now, more or less in chronological order, particularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, and England. In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system. But, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm
^^^^^^^
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
^^^^^^ CB: Where is the white nation that the U.S. is doing this to ?
You are out of your goddamned mind. Go take a flying leap . I'm getting tired of this stupid shit, Carrol. Real tired. You better ask somebody.