I understand your position more clearly now. Thank you Evan for taking the time to provide a more indepth explanation of your views.


>I've offended you, sorry. Let me explain.
>
>>I never dismissed any deaths. Just the opposite. Every death is as tragic as anyother.
>
>I didn't say or imply that. Nor do I think you think that. I said "You can't completely dismiss the scale of human deaths". Scale is what I was refering to. Large scale is important for the use of the term Genocide otherwise it is murder. The aim must be the erradication of the group.
>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
>"The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups..."
>
>> Personally, I think your position stated below is hogwash. I could take your comments below to imply that the deaths and suffering of the Kurds in Iraq were not worthy of UN action or attention. Sheesh, that is ridiculous.
>
>I didn't state that, nor did I mean to imply that.
>
>>The deaths in the 80s of the Kurds in Iraq were ruled genocide Evan.
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555000.stm
>
>In the context of argument it is important to note that this ruling was in 2005 not during the 80's or 90's when it could have been used by NATO or the UN to help the Kurds. As well it is a ruling by the Hague and not by the UN so it doesn't force the UN to act. If the UN decrees a genocide it is compelled to take action. The 1991 coalition did take these deaths serious when they create a no-fly zone over Kurdish Iraq and the UN passed a resolution agreeing with the no fly zone.
>
>I think there is still some debate as to whether this was targetted genocide or murderous disregard for the safety. Were the Iraqi forces trying to kill the kurds during the Iran-Iraq war or were they psychopathicly overlooked while the Iraqi forces tried to gas the Iranian troops nearby.