Should the Geneva Conventions Apply to This War?

[BobG]

But there's one thing wrong with this hypothesis, it's assuming that other nations stay out of it. Even if the USA gets out and never looks back we still have the Syrians, Turks, Arabians, Al Quadea, European Powers, Russians... All these people will have an agenda with it, now while none of them will go in directly like the Americans did, they will support their favoured group, send weapons and supplies, provide propoganda, provide shelter and training.

The only one you left out was Iran. Iran is a Shiite theocracy. If things go bad for the Shiites in Southern Iraq, Iranian involvement would be very likely. That would also be very threatening for the rest of Iraq, especially considering Iraq and Iran fought a ten year war.

And the folks on the Northern border would be very interested in what happens with the Kurds. An independent Kurdish state would cause problems for Turkey, Iran and other countries that have Kurds living in their own country.

As you also mentioned - the ultimate outcome is very unpredictable regardless of what action is taken.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe loseyourname was talking about internally overthrown democracies. Point being that a democracy is a stable form of government.

 

[PerennialII]

A real choice is setting up a stable, prosperous democracy with a slow handover of power. It may take 5 years, but once the handover is complete, they will, like every other country we've done the same thing for, embrace democracy while adding their own flavor.

When the situation has come to what it is I really don't see much of an other option ... except that perhaps a better outcome might be achieved if international, real coalition, troops were around more like in peacekeeping form and giving the Iraqis the tools to handle the situation themselves. If the country is as divided as it appears, perhaps strong local autonomy could be a carrot. In the current case, since it appears that the insurgents themselves may see themselves fighting against an occupation, collaborators and other hostile "tribes" etc., can't see why they would give up the fight, guerillas of all sorts tend to be persistent, being religious seems to be an "asset" in this direction as well.

 

[Burnsys]

I believe loseyourname was talking about internally overthrown democracies. Point being that a democracy is a stable form of government.

there are many democracys overtrown by CIA coups, i don't know if we can call them internaly overtrown couse the CIA is foreing.. but there where also internaly overtrown democracys without the participation of the CIA. For example here in argentina 20 december 2000, a massive manifestations overtrown democraticaly elected and IMF puppet president Fernando de la RUA, he and Economic minister and trilateral comision member, when they Confiscated all people savings in the banks,
Another example is the failed coup by the cia in Venezuela, when they try to overtrown president chavez who breake the control of the elite over PDVSA.

Just to name some, now i am trying to document all democratic goverments overtrown by CIA backed coups or by direct US military interventions, and it's motives.. when i finish writing it i will post it in a new thread, please be patient i am not very good writing in english...

 

[Smurf]

I believe loseyourname was talking about internally overthrown democracies. Point being that a democracy is a stable form of government.

Well there are also many examples of internally overthrown democracies with and without CIA/USA help.
for example;
The Russian provisional government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks.
The Spanish Democratic government was overthrown by Franco, Hitler and Mussolini both overthrew the Democracies of Italy and Germany more or less legally.
The only one here who had any help from international forces is Franco (but I believe he would have done it anyway). There are rumors that the CIA helped Mussolini come to power, but it was never proven (as far as I'm aware)

 

[Smurf]

The CIA has overthrown many democracies as well (often with UK help).
Such as;
Syria (1949), Greece (1949), Cuba (1952), Iran (1953), Guatamala (1954), Dominican Republic (1963) x2, Equador (1963), El Salvador (1972), Chile (1973), get this one, Fiji (1987), Venezuela (2002), Haiti (2004).

This is just a sample of the democratically-elected governments that the USA has successfully overthrown, there are many more examples that I havn't mentioned, both successfull and unsuccessfull.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/TWTwebsite_INDEX.html

 

[Gokul43201]

The CIA has overthrown many democracies as well (often with UK help).
Such as;
Syria (1949), Greece (1949), Cuba (1952), Iran (1953), Guatamala (1954), Dominican Republic (1963) x2, Equador (1963), El Salvador (1972), Chile (1973), get this one, Fiji (1987), Venezuela (2002), Haiti (2004).

This is just a sample of the democratically-elected governments that the USA has successfully overthrown, there are many more examples that I havn't mentioned, both successfull and unsuccessfull.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/TWTwebsite_INDEX.html

This doesn't entirely answer my question, but perhaps the linked websites do...will read when I find time.

 

[Smurf]

I believe the websites will answer any questions you have, Third World Traveler is bigger and has more information but KryssTal is much more organized and easier to navigate.

 

[Burnsys]

I believe the websites will answer any questions you have, Third World Traveler is bigger and has more information but KryssTal is much more organized and easier to navigate.

Great site... i feel shame those who still believe the US is to spread "Democracy and Freedom".. they escape reality...

 

[Stanley_Smith]

"who still believe the US is to spread "Democracy and Freedom".. they escape reality"

Yeah, whoever thinks like that got to have very low IQ. Remember this, there is no ally that lasts forever, only interest comes first. However, would you want to be an ally eventhough for a period of time, with a democratic government, the US, or with the Soviet Union or the Taliban ?

Think about how you pick your friend/associate...

 

[Burnsys]

"who still believe the US is to spread "Democracy and Freedom".. they escape reality"

Yeah, whoever thinks like that got to have very low IQ. Remember this, there is no ally that lasts forever, only interest comes first. However, would you want to be an ally eventhough for a period of time, with a democratic government, the US, or with the Soviet Union or the Taliban ?

Think about how you pick your friend/associate...

and what if i don't want the taliban, the soviets or US?

Why do i have to chose the lesser of two evils? you may be used to it, having to chose only betwen 2 for president out of 300 millons people

 

[loseyourname]

I believe loseyourname was talking about internally overthrown democracies. Point being that a democracy is a stable form of government.

I was referring to internally overthrown democracies. I am also excluding puppet regimes, regimes that were elected continually through fraudulent processes, and provisional governments. It isn't necessary to overthrow a democratically elected government because you can simply vote it out of office.

Edit: I'm also excluding nations that denied the right to vote to large blocks of voters and practice systematic ethnic cleansing or genocide.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

and what if i don't want the taliban, the soviets or US?

Why do i have to chose the lesser of two evils? you may be used to it, having to chose only betwen 2 for president out of 300 millons people

You cracked me up with what you just said !

You seem to be missing the point... It's all about choices, you can do whatever you want but keep this in mind, you will have to interact with other nations like you will have to deal with people around you; even animal in the jungle has to interact with each other ! So you aree you going to be friend or "do business" with ?

It's not choosing 2 for president out of 300 million people, if you vote in the US, you know there are so many other candidates that you can vote for, Nader, MICHAEL BADNARIK for LIBERTARIAN party, DAVID COBB for green party and so many more depend on which state you reside in. Anybody can come out and run for office if he/she fullfill certain requirements...

 

[PerennialII]

It's not choosing 2 for president out of 300 million people, if you vote in the US, you know there are so many other candidates that you can vote for, Nader, MICHAEL BADNARIK for LIBERTARIAN party, DAVID COBB for green party and so many more depend on which state you reside in. Anybody can come out and run for office if he/she fullfill certain requirements...

I think we can acknowledge the choice is there, but it might not hurt if there were at least one, or two, added major party around. The current system seems to make some/many people choose the lesser of two evils, or the one they have at least something to affiliate in ... one could argue that it would be a more realistic form of democracy.

 

[Burnsys]

You cracked me up with what you just said !

You seem to be missing the point... It's all about choices, you can do whatever you want but keep this in mind, you will have to interact with other nations like you will have to deal with people around you; even animal in the jungle has to interact with each other ! So you aree you going to be friend or "do business" with ?

Actualy i don't want to do bussines with USA, neither europe, of course neither the taliban, becouse we have 500 years of "Doing Bussines" with europe since they came here and trade color mirrors for our gold to the natives.
Now USA and europe have bougth all our mayor corporations, like electricity, comunications, water, oil, food industry, and they control our banking system.. that is what they call "Doing Bussines"

The problem is that if we or our democraticaly elected president don't want to do bussines with them (i think we should be free to decide who we do bussines with) then they overtrow the goverment, and place a military dictatorship. it already appened here, and in almos every country of latin america, here in argentina was Galtieri and videla in the 70', 30.000 tortured and disapeared. THAT IS THE POINT!

It's not choosing 2 for president out of 300 million people, if you vote in the US, you know there are so many other candidates that you can vote for, Nader, MICHAEL BADNARIK for LIBERTARIAN party, DAVID COBB for green party and so many more depend on which state you reside in. Anybody can come out and run for office if he/she fullfill certain requirements...

ofcourse i know you have more than 2 partys... but tell me. did some one of those win anytime?
and hoy is it posible that 150 millon people voted for republican and 149 millon people voted for democrats? having many other candidates.
wow, or america have a really serius lack of diversity... or you are being manipulated... think about it...

 

[Smurf]

Actualy i don't want to do bussines with USA, neither europe, of course neither the taliban, becouse we have 500 years of "Doing Bussines" with europe since they came here and trade color mirrors for our gold to the natives.
Now USA and europe have bougth all our mayor corporations, like electricity, comunications, water, oil, food industry, and they control our banking system.. that is what they call "Doing Bussines"

The problem is that if we or our democraticaly elected president don't want to do bussines with them (i think we should be free to decide who we do bussines with) then they overtrow the goverment, and place a military dictatorship. it already appened here, and in almos every country of latin america, here in argentina was Galtieri and videla in the 70', 30.000 tortured and disapeared. THAT IS THE POINT!

Unfortunatly this kind of thing isn't exactly Prime Time on CNN, so people don't realize that they're country is doing these things. often times the other nation is made out to be a Communist-Soviet enemy who is threatening the "American way of Life". Many people grow up believing that America can't do any wrong.

 

[kat]

ofcourse i know you have more than 2 partys... but tell me. did some one of those win anytime?

Locally, yes other then two parties win. The state of Maine had a wonderful governor for 2 terms who was an independent. This wasn't the first time we've voted independent for governer either. Many think that if he had run for president he would have done quite well even without party affiliation.

and hoy is it posible that 150 millon people voted for republican and 149 millon people voted for democrats? having many other candidates.
wow, or america have a really serius lack of diversity... or you are being manipulated... think about it...

Uhhh... less then 123 million people voted...which is also less then the amount of people who made it out to shop during yesterdays black friday shopping bonanza. Over a million of those 123 million voted for a candidate other then dem or rep. each of which are chosen out of a field of candidates.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

Unfortunatly this kind of thing isn't exactly Prime Time on CNN, so people don't realize that they're country is doing these things. often times the other nation is made out to be a Communist-Soviet enemy who is threatening the "American way of Life". Many people grow up believing that America can't do any wrong.

Actually it's the other way around. Typically in nondemocratic countries, which either run by the same old leader or a party or a group of people for the last couple decades, always have to face some invisible enemies, most likely the US. The so call "enemy of peace", "hostile and unfriendly forces" always try to destabilize the societies...Tyy read state-run newspaper in Cuba...

Those who believe that American can't do anything wrong like you said don't live in the real world, but an ideal world rather. Finally, remember this: it's better to know that you are being brainwashed than not knowing at all!

 

[loseyourname]

I think we can acknowledge the choice is there, but it might not hurt if there were at least one, or two, added major party around. The current system seems to make some/many people choose the lesser of two evils, or the one they have at least something to affiliate in ... one could argue that it would be a more realistic form of democracy.

I've often voted for third-party candidates in the past and I think they add an important element to political dialogues, but I don't think we should completely demonize the two-party system. If every party was on equal footing, then we could end up with twenty or so relatively fringe parties, all catering to a particular special interest, perhaps even "one-issue" parties we have seen pop up in the past. You also have the obvious possibility, really a likelihood under such a system, that a president could be elected with as little as 20% or less of the popular vote. Such a president would not only be hard-pressed to accomplish anything with a congress likely made up of very divergent interests, but he/she would not be an accurate reflection of the American voting public. At least under the two-party system, each party is forced to turn somewhat to the middle and appeal to as large a number of people as is possible.

 

[Smurf]

Actually it's the other way around. Typically in nondemocratic countries, which either run by the same old leader or a party or a group of people for the last couple decades, always have to face some invisible enemies, most likely the US. The so call "enemy of peace", "hostile and unfriendly forces" always try to destabilize the societies...Tyy read state-run newspaper in Cuba...

how do you mean? explain.

 

[PerennialII]

I've often voted for third-party candidates in the past and I think they add an important element to political dialogues, but I don't think we should completely demonize the two-party system. If every party was on equal footing, then we could end up with twenty or so relatively fringe parties, all catering to a particular special interest, perhaps even "one-issue" parties we have seen pop up in the past. You also have the obvious possibility, really a likelihood under such a system, that a president could be elected with as little as 20% or less of the popular vote. Such a president would not only be hard-pressed to accomplish anything with a congress likely made up of very divergent interests, but he/she would not be an accurate reflection of the American voting public. At least under the two-party system, each party is forced to turn somewhat to the middle and appeal to as large a number of people as is possible.

Yeah, it has its pros and cons. If the field fragmented too much that would likely be the worst case scenario, having at least 3 parties would give you an argumentation with other sides than "yes/no", "on/off" etc. (even though it would then probably be "don't know").