If we ask ourselves the question "did Saddam create the environment of violence or was he a creature of the environment of violence?", we end up with a few, perhaps undesirable, questions.

1. How did Saddam react to the environment of violence?

     It looks like he made it much worse.

2. If the environment of violence predates Saddam, there is an implication that it is systemic to the culture / civilization of the area. This points to the impossibility of a democratic state in Iraq.

Sorry, I do not, and did not, intend to hang the "defense of the Lancet Study" requirement on you. I may have implied this, by inferring meaning in your posts, and I apologize. I think that the Lancet’s methodology might be a bit flawed, but more importantly, that they (or someone) intentionally extrapolated it to the entire Iraqi population only for political purposes.

For some reason, the link you provided (paragraph 6) indicate that al Sadr Jr. may be responsible for finishing Haidar Raifee Killidar, the custodian of a shrine. Al Sadr Jr’s culpability in the whacking al-Khoei is slightly less clear, but his alibi does not sound good.

It also points out that al-Khoei, at age 29 participated in the 1991 uprising against Saddam. Following the various links, al Sadr Jr. formed the Madhi Army in June 2003, also when he was 29 or 30, to fight the US (who apparently had no quarrel with him), instead of Saddam (who may have been involved in whacking al Sadr Sr.).

If al Sadr Jr. had any sense, he would have either 1) formed the Madhi Army years earlier (perhaps late-2001) to oppose Saddam, and thereby built up some real credibility for himself, or b) do what he did historically, but NOT attack the US and coalition forces.

But al Sadr Jr. did what he did, and there is a considerable body of opinion that says that his actions have enabled and legitimized the current violence in Iraq. Had he done nothing, or at least not attacked the local US forces, there is a very good probability that Iraq would be stable enough now, and that there would be no US troops in Iraq today. But this is useless speculation; things didn’t happen this way, and we are where we are.

"There is such a thing as personal responsibility."

Agreed, and without question.

I use Human Rights Watch’s figure of 290,000 deaths due to Saddam. By their own admission, the HRW number might be high or low.

HRW is neither a judicial nor a legislative body. They do not determine what constitutes genocide (or any other crime) and what does not, nor do they determine, for any given crime, whether a statute of limitations exists, or how long it lasts.

HRW also does not determine morality. Judging by the HRW excerpt in one of your previous posts, HRW is internally conflicted, and really can’t define how to act in a specific instance. They seem happy to evade personal and institutional responsibility and appeal to the UN, which means any action taken will be too late.

"We can justify an invasion now of the Sudan on humanitarian grounds to stop genocide in Darfur, but we cannot invade the Sudan in 2015 for the same purpose"

I’m inclined to think that the UN should move into the Sudan now (since it wasn’t done last year, or the year before) to end the killings. I think that it will be pointless to do so in 2015.

"So does that make the killings more justified?"

"Justification" seems to be a new dimension to this thread. Justification is also a cultural/religious construct. Is it really necessary to discuss this?

Saddam still seems to feel that his actions while in power were justified and legal; apparently many others today disagree, and seek revenge on those that did Saddam’s bidding. Others seem to be trying to instill fear in the general population, for one of a few reasons.

We seem to be on the verge of getting too far away from the topic of this thread, the Lancet study.

"No but the UN does. Genocide is extremely hard to prove, and the 1948 Genocide Convetion excludes "political groups,"and "opponents of the regime" from the definition of Genocide."

Which way to go with this?

Do I point out that the UN does not determine what constitutes genocide, as they have no legal or enforcement authority over any one?

Should I point out that if "political groups" (Baathists, members of the Khmer Rouge) and "opponents of the regime" are excluded from the definition of Genocide, then this seems to leave only individuals, who can be tried for murder. This argues that there is in fact no such thing as Genocide, even though hundreds, or millions, of men, women and children were killed simply because others though it should be done.

Turkey and Armenia: As a practical matter, the statute of limitations ends, in Western eyes, when all perps are dead. Who remains alive to be tried? Is there a point to invading Turkey today?

What can be done for the descendants; money, a separate country? The Turkish borders were determined long ago, by conquest, and seem as legitimate as any other land boundary. Even in the areas of Turkey indicating large Armenian, Kurdish or other minorities, the ethnic Turkish population is significant.

Cambodia: Pol Pot and most of his gang of perps are dead; the failure to capture them while they were alive rests with the Cambodian government. The remaining Khmer Rouge are for the most part low-level soldiers, proving anything will be tough. Again, what could invading Cambodia today accomplish?

East Timor: There is a current force of UN and Australians in East Timor. There are many problems there, and the UN is one of them. Check the Australian board. There are problems in the region.

The Iraqi Shia may not have clean hands, but very many of them can claim to be killing those who themselves perpetrated the murder /rape/etc. of family members. Very many cultures and people, historically and today, see these actions as legitimate.