George Bush was a Genocidal Maniac

I will address my opponents points before I make my closing argument "I don't think the local or state governments could respond to this crises seeing how lots of the cities in the south Louisiana were flooded and the state government could have been busy with other cities in the same state. They should have given control of the situation to the federal government. " If Iowa, can deal with flooding (which happened this year) of a similar proportion, then any state should be able to deal with it. The reality is that the Democrat Govenor and Democrat Mayor were the biggest failure of the whole debacle. The Govenor refused to yield control to the Federal Govt, to the point (as I pointed out in my original argument) that the Fed attempted to wrestle control from the State FIVE DAYS after Katrina made landfall. For anyone to assert, as my opponent has, that the failures of Katrina are a blight on the legacy of the Bush Administration exclusively, then they are trafficking in intellectual dishonesty. It appears as though my opponent, in this last argument of his, concedes that the Bush Administration at the very least is not exclusively to blame as he has asserted before. "For this we have to go back to Vietnam where America was paranoid at the time that if Vietnam was taken over by the communist that they would start to spread to more of South-East Asia. Bob Kerry, a so called "Hero" was responsible for carrying out a role in which US forces massacred twenty un-armed and innocent women and children. . http://www.independent.co.uk...; I would encourage my opponent to read some other source of history other than revisionist history. The primary reason the US entered SE Asia, was to assist the French (Yes, The French. .. .again) in a debacle that was draining France of soldiers and resources. The opposition to communism as a lesser factor to the larger one of assisting an allied nation. In addition to which, the example of 6 men who may or may not have taken part in a massacre can not in any way be used as a corner stone for the assertion that US Forces have killed over 100 000 civilians. If my opponent wishes to engage in a debate regarding The Vietnam War and how it influences SOP of US Forces Today, I'd be more than happy to accomodate him. As it stands though the introduction of unrelated material does nothing to support my opponents position that George Bush is a genocidal maniac. Genocide is defined by Merriam-Webster's online dictionary as: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" The assertion that US Forces under direction of the Bush Administration engaged in genocide is ludicrious, particularly considering the the extreme pains US Forces in Iraq underwent to avoid collateral damage, be it human, sacred or humanitarian. As evidence I point to the Siege of Sadr City, a battle that lasted the better part of 4 years. Had the Bush Admin, or US Forces indeed been genocidal maniacs, the siege wouldn't have lasted longer than a week with US Forces not given any quarter to anyone found within the limits of Sadr City. Examples of the deliberate pains taken by US Forces can be seen in the fact that no hospitals were destroyed, despite Mahadi Militia Command and Control building were set up a mere 55 yards away from a hospital, and no places of worship were destroyed despite their being used as shelter by Mahadi Militia Men. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent in his statements prior to this debate has never once addressed the well known fact that the only group that actively targeted civilians, were the insurgent groups themselves. In his rush to label US Forces and GW Bush as genocidal maniacs, he complete misses the groups that are responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties in Iraq. Sadly, due to my ignorance about this site and how to set up debates, I have inadvertently brought this debate to a premature close. My sincerest apologies to all who may have been following it. I would urge my opponent to consider a rematch, where I'd be happy to cut and past my opening statement, allow him to do the same with is response, cut and past my second argument and have my opponent pick up from there. If he chooses not to, then this debate is at an end. I believe that I have present ample evidence that demonstrates George W Bush is not a genocidal maniac by any stretch of the imagination, as well as the fact that there are forces out there that produce massive amounts of factually vacant accusations aimed at the former President, which is conveniently package to take advantage of naive citizens who cannot or will not dig a little deeper to discover the reality of what they are espousing. I urge you to vote Con in this matter. Thank You