View Full Version : Should the Geneva Conventions Apply to This War?
loseyourname
Nov19-04, 11:58 PM
I'm not saying they shouldn't, but the purpose of upholding the conventions, for any nation, is to ensure that their own people receive the same humane treatment they are affording their enemy. Now, not only is the US not fighting a nation that can be held accountable for violating the conventions, but it is clear that this particular enemy is not too concerned about upholding them. Kidnapping and beheading civilians, booby-trapping dead bodies, faking death, and hiding out in religious buildings are all forbidden. Is it fair to scrutinize the US for perceived violations of a treaty that its enemy is not upholding?
The first geneva convention was laregly disgarded because it was unconventional for most of the nations in the world... So is this one, but historians tend to wait a few decades before pointing out the obvious.
Since the Geneva Convention is mostly about civilians, there is no reason why anyone who agrees to it should not uphold it in any war any where any time,
furthermore every soldier in the enemy's forces are not responsible for suffering of your own troops at the hands of the enemy if they, the enemy, does not uphold the convention, therefor it is illogical and unethical to follow an 'eye for an eye' policy. Especially if these violations are covered up from the regular soldiers and civilians of the enemy nation. Such was the case in Germany in WW2 and possibly to several of these so-called 'Terrorists'.
PerennialII
Nov20-04, 01:59 AM
Smurf said it very much to my liking about the ethical aspects of this "conflict", you just don't turn them on/off. What I find most important is that all people involved in the war belong to something, whether that be the Geneva conventions or the justice system, but just as long as noboby is declated to be an outsider in this respect because of some convenient reason the other side sees.
OTOH, consider that the design of the Geneva convention protects civilians by putting restrictions on both the attacking and defending forces. When the defenders are fully compliant, the attackers shouldn't have any reason to carry out actions that would endanger civilians. In turn, the attackers are prohibited from endangering civilians.
They were designed to protect civilians by rendering them irrelevant to armed conflict, not by requiring the attacking force to cripple itself.
There are four Geneva conventions*, only the fourth Geneva conventions is about the protection of civilians (the others are about the sick and the wounded on land, the sick and the wounded at sea and the treatment of prisoners of war).
The Geneva Conventions provide and were inteneded to provide a bare minimum standard in war and none of their provisons are unreasonabele therefore tre is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not adhering to them.
*Actually I believe there are quite a number of international treaties bearing the moniker 'Geneva Convention', but when we talk about the Geneva Copnventions it is usually these for treaties as violatingf them constitues a war crime.
russ_watters
Nov20-04, 12:06 PM
Is it fair to scrutinize the US for perceived violations of a treaty that its enemy is not upholding? I don't know if "fair" really applies, but it is certainly right to hold the US to such high standards. If nothing else, it puts the barbarism of our enemy in high contrast. And politically, we need the moral high ground.
loseyourname
Nov20-04, 01:26 PM
I don't know if "fair" really applies, but it is certainly right to hold the US to such high standards. If nothing else, it puts the barbarism of our enemy in high contrast. And politically, we need the moral high ground.
Sure, we should have the moral high ground, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, in the eyes of a large portion of the world, we don't have it. Even 40% of our own countrymen don't seem to think we have it, and that's becoming incredibly difficult for me to understand, given the blatant disregard for all life and liberty, whether it be male, female, child, civilian or military, arab or otherwise, shown by our enemies.
The Geneva conventions should be adhered to primarily because it is the right thing to do any other reason is secondary.
russ_watters
Nov20-04, 01:35 PM
Sure, we should have the moral high ground, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, in the eyes of a large portion of the world, we don't have it. Even 40% of our own countrymen don't seem to think we have it, and that's becoming incredibly difficult for me to understand, given the blatant disregard for all life and liberty, whether it be male, female, child, civilian or military, arab or otherwise, shown by our enemies. That's true to a point, but it doesn't alleviate our moral responsibility. Opinions of the general public are often easily swayed/manipulated. But history will judge fairly.
gravenewworld
Nov20-04, 01:38 PM
LOL rules for war? That is an oxymoron. The Geneva conventions are a joke, nobody follows rules in war, not even American soldiers.
I wouldn't say its an oxymoron, an oxymoron has to cancel its self out, the geneva convention is just ignored, not self destructive.
Sure, we should have the moral high ground, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, in the eyes of a large portion of the world, we don't have it. Even 40% of our own countrymen don't seem to think we have it, and that's becoming incredibly difficult for me to understand, given the blatant disregard for all life and liberty, whether it be male, female, child, civilian or military, arab or otherwise, shown by our enemies.
Maybe because your as bad as your enemies, despite having the only superpower behind you? And its more than 40% of your own country.
loseyourname
Nov20-04, 03:23 PM
Maybe because your as bad as your enemies, despite having the only superpower behind you? And its more than 40% of your own country.
I'm pretty sure polling indicated that 54% fully support the war, and only 40% are fully against it. Then again, we all know how reliable those polls can be. But if you think you've got some insider information regarding US opinion, go ahead.
I'd really like to know how we are as bad as our enemies. Let's again recount violation of international laws committed by each side:
US:
1. Forced prisoners in Abu Ghraib to strip naked.
2. Might have intentionally killed wounded insurgents without just cause.
Insurgents:
1. Fake death.
2. Booby trap corpses.
3. Disguise themselves as civilians and hide out in civilian buildings.
4. Fight in religious institutions.
5. Intentionally kidnap and murder civilians.
6. Torture and murder POW's.
7. Murder aid workers.
Please tell me how an unbiased person could possibly say that the US is just as bad as its enemies?
Please tell me how an unbiased person could possibly say that the US is just as bad as its enemies?
By not leaving out all the crimes of the other party. Opposite of what you just did.
On another note your very system of government has aquired a reputation for this kind of thing in all of its wars so in general people arn't going to believe you're going to be any better than you were last time. But i think it's accually worse that it was in even the first Iraq war
loseyourname
Nov20-04, 03:35 PM
By not leaving out all the crimes of the other party. Opposite of what you just did.
Then tell me, Smurf, what other provisions of the conventions do you think the US has violated?
PerennialII
Nov20-04, 03:41 PM
US:
1. Forced prisoners in Abu Ghraib to strip naked.
2. Might have intentionally killed wounded insurgents without just cause.
You might want to add a huge civilian body count for starters (and a couple of other "minor" issues affecting what is going over there) ... but what the civilian population is going through in the "modern liberation effort" of the US is staggering enough.
loseyourname
Nov20-04, 03:45 PM
You might want to add a huge civilian body count for starters (and a couple of other "minor" issues affecting what is going over there) ... but what the civilian population is going through in the "modern liberation effort" of the US is staggering enough.
I would have included that, but it can be equally attributed to an enemy that disguises itself as civilian and fights in civilian areas. In fact, that is the very reason these practices are forbidden by the conventions - because they endanger civilians.
Just in Iraq? Or just since ww2? Cause if its since ww2 - then every single bloody one.
But just in iraq the list is a little shorter:
1. Intentionally killed wounded/unarmed insurgents
2. Intentionally killed unarmed suspected insurgents.
3. Intentional killing, or really just disregard thereof, civilians.
4. Hiding POWs from the red cross
5. Bombing red cross base (possible accident?)
6. Torturing Prisoners (there are worse things than sharp hooks and curved blades - and CIA knows all of them)
7. Attempting to terrify civilians into refusing to shelter insurgents.
8. Dumping large amounts of depleted uranium into Bhagdad causing cancer and severly polluting the area.
Thats just off the top of my head.
BAN WMD, NO MORE CNN!
PerennialII
Nov20-04, 04:04 PM
I would have included that, but it can be equally attributed to an enemy that disguises itself as civilian and fights in civilian areas. In fact, that is the very reason these practices are forbidden by the conventions - because they endanger civilians.
I can appreciate your reasoning, but the large civilian body count ( ~10k to 100k depending on whom you want to believe) implies that this is not the "smart" warfare it is supposed to, civilians still way too often get caught in the way of the massive US warmachine. How you wish to classify with respect to the thread topic is surely somewhat dubious, but in the list of what are causing the problems in the area & what are the greatest violations it gets the first place just because of its impact.
I can appreciate your reasoning, but the large civilian body count ( ~10k to 100k depending on whom you want to believe)
Do you find this large because you've compared it against an objective standard, or simply because you've been told it's large?
russ_watters
Nov20-04, 05:12 PM
But just in iraq the list is a little shorter:
1. Intentionally killed wounded/unarmed insurgents
2. Intentionally killed unarmed suspected insurgents.
3. Intentional killing, or really just disregard thereof, civilians.
4. Hiding POWs from the red cross
5. Bombing red cross base (possible accident?)
6. Torturing Prisoners (there are worse things than sharp hooks and curved blades - and CIA knows all of them)
7. Attempting to terrify civilians into refusing to shelter insurgents.
8. Dumping large amounts of depleted uranium into Bhagdad causing cancer and severly polluting the area.
Thats just off the top of my head.
BAN WMD, NO MORE CNN! Even if everything on that list is true, and I won't concede that they all are true/violations, it still does not compare to what the "insurgents" are doing. I can appreciate your reasoning, but the large civilian body count ( ~10k to 100k depending on whom you want to believe) implies that this is not the "smart" warfare it is supposed to, civilians still way too often get caught in the way of the massive US warmachine. "way too often" is pretty vague, so lets just lay it right out there: the civilian:military body count ratio in this war is the lowest in any urban war, ever. Yes, lets compare it to WWII:
Germany 3.2m military, 3.8m civilian.
http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html
If you really want to see some awful numbers, look at the numbers for the countries Germany invaded...
Russ's numbers are so big they're hard to comprehend.
The per day numbers might be easier to understand.
The US had around 370 dead/day, virtually all military.
The Germans lost about 3400/day; over 1800 civilians killed per day (that's about 670,000 per year)
The Soviets lost about 15,000/day; over 5000 civilians per day (about 2 million civilians per year). Add the result of Stalin's purges to that and you start to wonder how they still had anyone left by the end of the war.
War is always ugly (that's why you should make sure your reason for getting into one is airtight). But, modern warfare isn't nearly as deadly for civilians as it was in the old days.
Edit: You want to read some depressing material - something to make even your dreariest days seem good - read about Poland and Russia during the WWII, especially the siege of Leningrad (it's not even so much how they managed to survive the siege, it's more like why would anyone want to).
franznietzsche
Nov20-04, 11:09 PM
Sure, we should have the moral high ground, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, in the eyes of a large portion of the world, we don't have it. Even 40% of our own countrymen don't seem to think we have it, and that's becoming incredibly difficult for me to understand, given the blatant disregard for all life and liberty, whether it be male, female, child, civilian or military, arab or otherwise, shown by our enemies.
Its ok for them to do it, Bush didn't tell them too.
Oh wait...I'm not liberal. Nevermind, disregard that.
PerennialII
Nov21-04, 02:07 AM
Do you find this large because you've compared it against an objective standard, or simply because you've been told it's large?
I really don't need anyone telling me its large. Its large because it seems that every time a major country (like US or Russia etc.) initiates a conflict for whatever reason, the first thing they promise is that "this is something different, we're gonna do a surgical strike and keep civilians out of the way and it'll be over in a couple of weeks" ... and what follows are 10ks of civilian deaths etc. Does not quite fit the picture we're been given. Other threads I believe have tried doing comparisons to previous conflicts (the ratio of civilian deaths / combatant losses) if you're looking for such an answer.
"way too often" is pretty vague, so lets just lay it right out there: the civilian:military body count ratio in this war is the lowest in any urban war, ever. Yes, lets compare it to WWII:
Germany 3.2m military, 3.8m civilian.
http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html
If you really want to see some awful numbers, look at the numbers for the countries Germany invaded...
So you're telling me I should judge this war by the same standards as WW2, I don't want to see the connection between this conflict and WW2, then I would have to consider the participants working by the same standards as they did back then (==nonexistant, slaying the civilian population is a good way of degrading the enemies morale & a method of revenge for own casualties etc.) ... does not quite fit in with the concept of liberating an oppressed country.
russ_watters
Nov21-04, 08:22 AM
I really don't need anyone telling me its large. Its large because it seems.... "...it seeems...." is not an objective criterea. I guess I could end the conversation by saying it seems small to me - there'd be nothing more to discuss. But... ...this is something different...
So you're telling me I should judge this war by the same standards as WW2... Don't you see you're arguing against yourself? Yes, this is different from WWII. That's the whole point of the comparison - it illustrates how far we really have come. Other threads I believe have tried doing comparisons to previous conflicts (the ratio of civilian deaths / combatant losses) if you're looking for such an answer. If you have numbers you think are a better comparison, please post them.
I really don't need anyone telling me its large. Its large because it seems that every time a major country (like US or Russia etc.) initiates a conflict for whatever reason, the first thing they promise is that "this is something different, we're gonna do a surgical strike and keep civilians out of the way and it'll be over in a couple of weeks" ... and what follows are 10ks of civilian deaths etc. Does not quite fit the picture we're been given.
But nowhere in this paragraph have you given any reason to think 10k is large...
wasteofo2
Nov21-04, 10:16 AM
So uh... Russ...
You believe we should follow the geneva convention.
Yet think 10-100k dead civilians isn't necessarily a bad thing, and require convincing that it's excessive dead civilians? Did you think the 3,000 civilians that died on 9/11 was a bad thing, that it was too many innocent people being killed? If you did, I don't see how you can be so uncaring about the 10-100k innocent Iraqi's that have been killed.
I thought it was only about 1,300 that died at the WTC.
PerennialII
Nov21-04, 02:38 PM
"...it seeems...." is not an objective criterea. I guess I could end the conversation by saying it seems small to me - there'd be nothing more to discuss. But...
Yeah, its not and I certainly will not make it an objective criteria ... for someone its small, for others any number of "collateral" is too large. What would I consider acceptable ... not really a number, but if I could believe the US is doing all that it can to prevent civilian casualties. Currently, I'm seeing the campaign been executed in a quite trigger happy sense.
Don't you see you're arguing against yourself? Yes, this is different from WWII. That's the whole point of the comparison - it illustrates how far we really have come.
The point I was making is that if you have to get your references and illustrate your case by comparing to WW2, then to me that already presents that the body count is too high. WW2 should not have anything in common with the Iraqi campaign, if US were to go to Iraq using methods & mentality that would enable the conflict to be compared to WW2 the whole war would be a one big crime (which it by many other standards appears to be). As you in all likelihood know, in WW2 it was "just ok" to bombard civilian targets and do whatever it takes to win the war ... which resulted to many actions taken against "total" war to make sure it would never happen again, one of these actions were the Geneva conventions.
wasteofo2
Nov21-04, 03:55 PM
I thought it was only about 1,300 that died at the WTC.
Nope, it's definately around 3,000.
God, f*** Osama Bin Laden
And f*** Reagan for training him
And f*** Bush for not catching him
There are four Geneva conventions*, only the fourth Geneva conventions is about the protection of civilians (the others are about the sick and the wounded on land, the sick and the wounded at sea and the treatment of prisoners of war).
The Geneva Conventions provide and were inteneded to provide a bare minimum standard in war and none of their provisons are unreasonabele therefore tre is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not adhering to them.
*Actually I believe there are quite a number of international treaties bearing the moniker 'Geneva Convention', but when we talk about the Geneva Copnventions it is usually these for treaties as violatingf them constitues a war crime.
Just FYI, the United States did not ratify all of the Geneva conventions, specificly the protocals of 1977.
Just FYI, the United States did not ratify all of the Geneva conventions, specificly the protocals of 1977.
Yes it did, it ratified all four Geneva conventions.
not really a number, but if I could believe the US is doing all that it can to prevent civilian casualties. Currently, I'm seeing the campaign been executed in a quite trigger happy sense.
And that is based upon what?
If you say the number of civilian casualties, then you've got yourself stuck in a circle -- you believe the number of civilian casualties is large because the US is "trigger happy", and you believe the US is "trigger happy" because of the number of civilian casualties.
But, I think you're beginning to see that the body count is more or less irrelevant for the analysis of this war -- the ends don't condemn the means, and even if they did, there isn't an objective standard to which the ends can be evaluated.
So the question is, why do you think the US is being "trigger happy"?
Yes it did, it ratified all four Geneva conventions.
Oh no no..... The additional protocals of 1977 were signed by Carter, but when it came time to ratify them...during Reagans administration....the United States declined.
The additional protocals of 1997 can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079?OpenDocument
I guarantee you that Bush is thanking his lucky stars we did not ratify.
If thats so, then this is even more disturbing now since it means the US isn't just slipping up, it isn't even trying.
If thats so, then this is even more disturbing now since it means the US isn't just slipping up, it isn't even trying.
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding on what the Geneva conventions cover and don't cover, and when and how they are applied and how those who break them are prosecuted BUT aside from that... whether they were slipping or not even trying would definately depend on the reason Congress chose not to ratify. Perhaps they believe the protocals to be.....flawed. :wink:
Oh no no..... The additional protocals of 1977 were signed by Carter, but when it came time to ratify them...during Reagans administration....the United States declined.
The additional protocals of 1997 can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079?OpenDocument
I guarantee you that Bush is thanking his lucky stars we did not ratify.
You seem to be missing the point, the US DID ratify ALL four Geneva conventions and thus is subject to them. It didn't ratify the protocols, but I have to ask why is that even relevant as it is not the protocols that are being cited as breached.
Stanley_Smith
Nov21-04, 07:48 PM
I don't know much about Geneva Accord. I have a question though...
Will the Geneva Accord be applied to the insurgents in Iraq, who are fighting the US and Iraqi military in plain clothes, with their faces covered, hiding in civilian population and religious sites, use beheading as a tool of warfare...?
I may be behind the times but the Iraqi's aren't the ones beheading people? and they have no uniforms since the US destroyed their infra structure, and what does covering their faces have to do with this, and the Americans are fighting in Religious sites too.
I don't know much about Geneva Accord. I have a question though...
Will the Geneva Accord be applied to the insurgents in Iraq, who are fighting the US and Iraqi military in plain clothes, with their faces covered, hiding in civilian population and religious sites, use beheading as a tool of warfare...?
Yes they apply to the insurgents at all if the people responisble are captured it gives the US or indeed almsot any other country in the world a means of punishing them.
The excuse the other side are evil ****s so it doesn't matter that we're being evil ****s too doesn't wash either way.
You seem to be missing the point, the US DID ratify ALL four Geneva conventions and thus is subject to them. It didn't ratify the protocols, but I have to ask why is that even relevant as it is not the protocols that are being cited as breached.
Well, the additional protocals ARE part of the 4th Geneva convention... However, if you'll go back to my prior post you'll note the "Just FYI" I made a point of placing within the text of my message...hence..it is relevant as I said...only as an FYI...okee dokee big o buckaroo?
The excuse the other side are evil ****s so it doesn't matter that we're being evil ****s too doesn't wash either way.
This would be the infamous "He's worse, so I'm OK" argument.
Anne, the additional protocols are, well, additonal to the Geneva conventions. You said that the US did not ratify all the Geneva Conventions and therefore you were wrong as they did.
franznietzsche
Nov22-04, 12:23 AM
This would be the infamous "He's worse, so I'm OK" argument.
Politicians win election all the time on that principle.
IN fact, that is the determining princple of how people vote in presidential elections. Sadly i'm about to agree with nader: "It's a two party dictatorship"
PerennialII
Nov22-04, 12:24 AM
And that is based upon what?
If you say the number of civilian casualties, then you've got yourself stuck in a circle -- you believe the number of civilian casualties is large because the US is "trigger happy", and you believe the US is "trigger happy" because of the number of civilian casualties.
But, I think you're beginning to see that the body count is more or less irrelevant for the analysis of this war -- the ends don't condemn the means, and even if they did, there isn't an objective standard to which the ends can be evaluated.
So the question is, why do you think the US is being "trigger happy"?
At this point I'd refer back to p. 2 of this thread ... e.g. Smurf summed it up pretty good in his list of things. As long as no number is given to "acceptable number of civilian casualties" there is no single black / white criteria, and it can be viewed as circular and weighting different opinions is difficult. I'm selecting mine on the basis that the campaign has not been error free and not delivered the happy democratic & free Iraq in an instant as it was supposed to, it has lead to a development of a warzone. You can sure argue this not having anything to do with "trigger happiness", but if one thing can be said about the insurgents they have a lot less firepower at their disposal and they aren't the ones completely wrecking cities & engaging in complete urban warfare while the civilian population is still inside.
Politicians win election all the time on that principle.
IN fact, that is the determining princple of how people vote in presidential elections. Sadly i'm about to agree with nader: "It's a two party dictatorship"
Which is what I've been saying for the better part of my intelligent life. Wow, we agree on something.
franznietzsche
Nov22-04, 12:36 AM
Wow, we agree on something.
Does this mean the world is gonna end?
franznietzsche
Nov22-04, 12:39 AM
Its been nice knowing you PF. :cry:
Now to wait for the impending meteor. :uhh:
I'm pretty sure it'll be a nuclear holocaust.
russ_watters
Nov22-04, 08:56 AM
I'm selecting mine on the basis that the campaign has not been error free and not delivered the happy democratic & free Iraq in an instant as it was supposed to... If you always look for perfection, you will always be disappointed. ...but if one thing can be said about the insurgents.... they aren't the ones completely wrecking cities & engaging in complete urban warfare while the civilian population is still inside. Aren't they? Who choose to make Falluja the base of operations for the "insurgents" and why?
I'll answer: The "insurgents" choose to make Falluja their base of operations because its easier to hide in a city full of civilians than in the desert. Thus, it is he "insurgents" who are primarily responsible for the deaths that happened there.
PerennialII
Nov22-04, 11:20 AM
If you always look for perfection, you will always be disappointed.
Well, I don't take it as a big surprise when someones perfection is someone elses disaster. In any event, it does seem that even many supportive to the operation don't see it to be a much of a success.
Aren't they? Who choose to make Falluja the base of operations for the "insurgents" and why?
I'll answer: The "insurgents" choose to make Falluja their base of operations because its easier to hide in a city full of civilians than in the desert. Thus, it is he "insurgents" who are primarily responsible for the deaths that happened there.
Its pretty fruitless to try to find an innocent party here ... because there ain't one. Blame is easy to spread around, the insurgents aren't freedom fighters but terrorists, and the US is fighting a war without any reasonable justification ... at this point in time the only thing that really matters is how to get it to stop asap and stop the overall cumulation of death toll.
loseyourname
Nov22-04, 12:51 PM
Its pretty fruitless to try to find an innocent party here ... because there ain't one. Blame is easy to spread around, the insurgents aren't freedom fighters but terrorists, and the US is fighting a war without any reasonable justification ... at this point in time the only thing that really matters is how to get it to stop asap and stop the overall cumulation of death toll.
You know, I agree with you on all of this, but I don't agree that criticizing the every move of and hamstringing the force that is attempting to put an end to the violence is the best way to do this. The simple fact is, there exists one party whose best interest is to have a peaceful Iraq in which the war is over, and there is one party whose best interest is to continue the destabilization and fighting indefinitely. If you want an end to this war, don't you think it would make sense to back the party that is attempting to end it?
Burnsys
Nov22-04, 01:59 PM
You know, I agree with you on all of this, but I don't agree that criticizing the every move of and hamstringing the force that is attempting to put an end to the violence is the best way to do this. The simple fact is, there exists one party whose best interest is to have a peaceful Iraq in which the war is over, and there is one party whose best interest is to continue the destabilization and fighting indefinitely. If you want an end to this war, don't you think it would make sense to back the party that is attempting to end it?
that is not objective..... and it's not a fact...
It's your point of view...
My point of view:
There was a party ruled by a dictator saddam husein, i agree he had to go out of power, he was a killer etc etc... but he was used as an excuse by another party, america, to invade an oil rich country, a strategic country in the middle east to "Expand Democracy", to make defence contractors make more profits, and there is another party who is composed of, ex saddam loyalists, civilians on arms whose relatives had been killed by america smart bombs, rebels who don't belive in USA gov (maybe becouse they supported saddam in the 80' or maybe becouse of the sanctions that killed their childrens) foreing fighters that don't want usa in the middle east.
But of what i am sure is there is no "GOOD" and "EVIL" the way G Bush want you to belive.
If you want to stop violence.. just remove america troop from irak. You can't fight terror with more terror.....
You know, I agree with you on all of this, but I don't agree that criticizing the every move of and hamstringing the force that is attempting to put an end to the violence is the best way to do this. The simple fact is, there exists one party whose best interest is to have a peaceful Iraq in which the war is over, and there is one party whose best interest is to continue the destabilization and fighting indefinitely. If you want an end to this war, don't you think it would make sense to back the party that is attempting to end it?
Depends on your point of view.
The US is just one of the parties trying to insure their favorite government is instituted (democracy vs. dictatorship, theocracy, communist, or facist). If one were to view the situation from the outside with no favorite party or form of government, the US goals are about the same as those who want a theocracy, those who want the dictatorship restored, and even those few who want a communist government. Any of these theoretically could end the fighting if they had enough power over the rest of the country.
I agree that now that we've opened the box, we're probably the only group around with enough power to get everyone back in the box. We shouldn't have opened the box in the first place, but leaving now, with Iraq in the condition it is now, would be disgracefully irresponsible.
wasteofo2
Nov22-04, 04:58 PM
Russ and those who think that the amount of innocent civilians in Iraq killed is small or debatably important, the question still stands:
Did you think the 3,000 civilans that died on 9/11 was a large amount of people? If so, how can you say the 10,000+ civilians that have died in Iraq is not a large amount of dead civilians?
loseyourname
Nov22-04, 06:54 PM
that is not objective..... and it's not a fact...
It's your point of view...
My point of view:
There was a party ruled by a dictator saddam husein, i agree he had to go out of power, he was a killer etc etc... but he was used as an excuse by another party, america, to invade an oil rich country, a strategic country in the middle east to "Expand Democracy", to make defence contractors make more profits, and there is another party who is composed of, ex saddam loyalists, civilians on arms whose relatives had been killed by america smart bombs, rebels who don't belive in USA gov (maybe becouse they supported saddam in the 80' or maybe becouse of the sanctions that killed their childrens) foreing fighters that don't want usa in the middle east.
But of what i am sure is there is no "GOOD" and "EVIL" the way G Bush want you to belive.
If you want to stop violence.. just remove america troop from irak. You can't fight terror with more terror.....
If you want to stop violence, just remove American troops? Do you think we will see peaceful, fair elections if the American troops just end? It isn't the US that is continuing the violence. The only goal of the US at this point is to train an Iraqi security force and to ensure that elections can be held on time. The goal of the insurgents is to ensure that this will never happen. Which do you think is the better option?
The US is just one of the parties trying to insure their favorite government is instituted (democracy vs. dictatorship, theocracy, communist, or facist). If one were to view the situation from the outside with no favorite party or form of government, the US goals are about the same as those who want a theocracy, those who want the dictatorship restored, and even those few who want a communist government. Any of these theoretically could end the fighting if they had enough power over the rest of the country.
The way I view it is this: one party wants to allow the Iraqis the power to choose their own government and to ensure that everyone is granted rights under this government. The other party clearly does not want this. I'm not sure if there is any one form of government that all of them would agree on imposing, but I do know that they are the ones fighting endlessly to ensure that this war does not end.
I agree that now that we've opened the box, we're probably the only group around with enough power to get everyone back in the box. We shouldn't have opened the box in the first place, but leaving now, with Iraq in the condition it is now, would be disgracefully irresponsible.
Yes, it would be.
If you want to stop violence, just remove American troops? Do you think we will see peaceful, fair elections if the American troops just end? It isn't the US that is continuing the violence. The only goal of the US at this point is to train an Iraqi security force and to ensure that elections can be held on time. The goal of the insurgents is to ensure that this will never happen. Which do you think is the better option?
In this question you are implying that Democracy is superior to a Theocracy, or at least more benevolent. This is opinion. I do not share this opinion I see them both as equally flawed. And I object to your Generalization and Estimation that insurgents simply want to stop the election. I am under the impression that a great number of them simply want to US out of Iraq, and at least a measurable number don't even know/care about the election.
The way I view it is this: one party wants to allow the Iraqis the power to choose their own government and to ensure that everyone is granted rights under this government. The other party clearly does not want this. I'm not sure if there is any one form of government that all of them would agree on imposing, but I do know that they are the ones fighting endlessly to ensure that this war does not end.
No one wants this war to continue. Each Party simply wants to set up some sort of control over Iraq, the Americans want to 'democratize' it. Certain insurgent groups may want a theocracy or another secular dictatorship.
The only people who want the fighting to continue is whoever is selling the parties their weapons (Syrians, Saudi Arabians, Americans, Israelis, French, British, Russians)
loseyourname
Nov22-04, 08:16 PM
In this question you are implying that Democracy is superior to a Theocracy, or at least more benevolent. This is opinion. I do not share this opinion I see them both as equally flawed. And I object to your Generalization and Estimation that insurgents simply want to stop the election. I am under the impression that a great number of them simply want to US out of Iraq, and at least a measurable number don't even know/care about the election.
You have obviously never lived under a theocracy. If that's what the Iraqi people want, then let them elect a theocrat. Either way, give them the choice.
I am under the impression that if insurgents simply want US troops out of Iraq, then they will stop fighting, given that the US has said it would withdraw as soon as the fighting has subdued to the point where Iraq can defend itself and elections can be held.
No one wants this war to continue. Each Party simply wants to set up some sort of control over Iraq, the Americans want to 'democratize' it. Certain insurgent groups may want a theocracy or another secular dictatorship.
Certain insurgent groups do not have the right to tell Iraqis how they will be governed. If one of their leaders wants power, let him announce his candidacy.
Should America get out?
Well, now here's how I see it:
If the USA does leave, then what will happen? First, violence will decrease, the common enemy is gone, then certain groups will establish 'territory' and begin small wars with eachother, and I think quite quickly one group will establish it's dominance over the others and achieve sovereignity over Iraq.
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.
Ultimatly I find it quite unpredictable how it will end up, I suspect many will think of Al Quadea will have a strong advantage, but the Iraqi's are used to a secular dictatorship, they probably don't want a theocracy and they're tired of violence. Once the Americans are gone I'm not sure how much support they will be able to get. Many Insurgents in Iraq I suspect will return to simply trying to earn a living, probably a large number will resort to crime due to ruined infrastructure.
I can see the Europeans ending up with another puppet secular dictatorship.
But I don't think that will happen. Even if the USA does pull all it's troops out I think that they will still try to influence the outcome of the ensuing civil war. I think they could very well end up with another USA supported dictatorship.
Which one would end the fighting will lowest casualty count?
The one where America pulls out and then supports a group that swiftly gains control of the rest of Iraq and sets up another secular dictatorship. This time with someone a little more loyal.
What do I think would be best for the world?
What I would really like to see in Iraq, despite the infinitly low probability... Would be a communist revolution, A true communist revolution, unpolluted by western pressures. I think that what this world really needs is a communist nation to succeed.
Ok, so what would happen if the USA doesn't pull out? Well I don't think we will ever see a stable democracy as long as the USA is puppeteering it. I think that even if the USA trains Iraqi guards, sets up voting ballets and even holds several elections... the insurgents will not stop, especially with all the international pressure and support they're getting to continue the fighting. It may last as long as 10 years before being toppled by the insurgents, but It'll turn into another afghanistan/vietnam first.
There is no way I can immagine the Republic surviving without massive human rights violations. And that would be too much of a cover up for the USA, they could pull it off in the cold war, but not today (I hope!).
You have obviously never lived under a theocracy. If that's what the Iraqi people want, then let them elect a theocrat. Either way, give them the choice. they have the choice, thats what they're fighting for right now.
I am under the impression that if insurgents simply want US troops out of Iraq, then they will stop fighting, given that the US has said it would withdraw as soon as the fighting has subdued to the point where Iraq can defend itself and elections can be held.
Many of your own citizens don't trust this administration, most of the people around the entire world don't trust this administration... Why would your enemies?
Certain insurgent groups do not have the right to tell Iraqis how they will be governed.But the USA does?
This is where you and I differ in opinion.
I have yet to see a reason why Democracy is better than any other form of government. The Idea that democracy is good and dictatorships are evil is simply a widely held opinion. Show me a mathematical equation that democracy is superior. Show me a scientific experiment that proves this.
If one of their leaders wants power, let him announce his candidacy.
This is simply silly. They're fighting against a system, they're not going to co operate with it.
loseyourname
Nov22-04, 09:10 PM
they have the choice, thats what they're fighting for right now.
Then if the majority of Iraqi citizens are fighting, maybe the US should listen. When a small number that largely just happens to be the same people who were in power and abused it before, and their leader is not an Iraqi, I'd tend to not put so much stock in them.
Many of your own citizens don't trust this administration, most of the people around the entire world don't trust this administration... Why would your enemies?
Then stop the insurgency, and if the US indeed did lie, and has some intention other than training Iraqi troops and ensuring free elections, you can then fight. Why just assume that the US is lying when that assumption is costing thousands of people, mostly their own people, their lives? Does that honestly make sense to you?
But the USA does?
This is where you and I differ in opinion.
I have yet to see a reason why Democracy is better than any other form of government. The Idea that democracy is good and dictatorships are evil is simply a widely held opinion. Show me a mathematical equation that democracy is superior. Show me a scientific experiment that proves this.
No democracy has ever been violently overthown. Ever wondered why that is? Ever wonder why every powerful nation these days other than China is democratic, and even China has freed most of its markets and is moving in that direction? Democracy is a superior form of government to dictatorship when the goal of a given government is to be thought of as legitimate and if it wants to remain in existence. Simple as that. If you honestly think that a democratic Iraq would be no better than the Hussein regime or a theocracy installed by terrorists, then I don't know what to say to you. I don't know how to have a meaningful discussion with someone with such a skewed view of things. All I can tell is to go spend some time in North Korea, Iran, the Sudan, etc., then compare that with your experience in Canada, even visit some other democracies, and tell me both are equally bad.
This is simply silly. They're fighting against a system, they're not going to co operate with it.
They're fighting to ensure their own power, whereas the coalition forces are fighting to ensure that the Iraqi people are given power over their own affairs. If they feel their rule would be legitimate, then let them announce their candidacy. If not, then let them attempt to rule by force, and they will be overthrown by force, for that is the fate of all such governments.
vanesch
Nov22-04, 11:02 PM
Should America get out?
Well, now here's how I see it:
If the USA does leave, then what will happen? First, violence will decrease, the common enemy is gone, then certain groups will establish 'territory' and begin small wars with eachother, and I think quite quickly one group will establish it's dominance over the others and achieve sovereignity over Iraq.
I think you'll get more something like former Yougoslavia.
vanesch
Nov22-04, 11:05 PM
No democracy has ever been violently overthown.
:rofl:
Perron ?
I think you'll get more something like former Yougoslavia.
My argument is that without international interferance I think one group would quickly establish dominance, and by quickly I mean in a single figure of years. Yugoslavia was not free of international interferance, but as I've stated, I don't think Iraq will be either, another Yugoslavia is very possible.
No democracy has ever been violently overthown.
The USA it's self has overthrown multiple democracies and installed dictators in their place.
Then if the majority of Iraqi citizens are fighting, maybe the US should listen. When a small number that largely just happens to be the same people who were in power and abused it before, and their leader is not an Iraqi, I'd tend to not put so much stock in them.
I don't know how you can expect Iraqi's, who've just had their nation invaded by a foreign power, completely destroyed their infrastructure and one of the worlds oldest and most beautifull cities to have the same mind set as you. They Don't Like You. Those who Saddam Favoured are not the only ones fighting, this has been established multiple times.
Then stop the insurgency, and if the US indeed did lie, and has some intention other than training Iraqi troops and ensuring free elections, you can then fight. Why just assume that the US is lying when that assumption is costing thousands of people, mostly their own people, their lives? Does that honestly make sense to you?It makes perfect sense to me, what I don't understand is people like you having this blinding faith in Democracy and the American ability, and willingness, to set up a fair republic and then expect the people to like it because of your 'facts' about democracy.
If you honestly think that a democratic Iraq would be no better than the Hussein regime or a theocracy installed by terrorists, then I don't know what to say to you. I don't know how to have a meaningful discussion with someone with such a skewed view of things. All I can tell is to go spend some time in North Korea, Iran, the Sudan, etc., then compare that with your experience in Canada, even visit some other democracies, and tell me both are equally bad.
I like to think of my 'Skewed view' as open-minded. I accept the possibility, and the high likely hood that a Democratic Iraq would be better than Saddam, but that's not saying much is it? I also accept the possibility that America will not (gasp!) set up a fair democracy. And I accept the likelyhood that Iraqi's won't be satisfied with the American Republic voting system for the same reasons people in your own country don't like it, except in iraq they havn't been told 'Democracy is good, we are a democracy, we are good' over and over again their entire lives.
They're fighting to ensure their own power, whereas the coalition forces are fighting to ensure that the Iraqi people are given power over their own affairs. If they feel their rule would be legitimate, then let them announce their candidacy. If not, then let them attempt to rule by force, and they will be overthrown by force, for that is the fate of all such governments.Once again.. THEY DON'T LIKE DEMOCRACY!! WHAT REASONS HAVE YOU GIVEN THEM TO ANNOUNCE THEIR CANDIDANCY, no reason.
Furthermore, would the USA even accept them as a candidate, or would they arrest them emediatly for war crimes hmm? You can bet they're thinking about that.
russ_watters
Nov23-04, 08:50 AM
Smurf, your position would be stronger if it weren't for the fact that such a large percentage of the people the "insurgents" are killing are Iraqis.
No, I can't be sure of what, precisely, the Iraqis want, but neither can you - so how 'bout, for the first time ever, giving them a choice? A real choice. Pulling our troops out now and letting Iraq decend into anarchy is not giving the people a choice. Terrorism is not giving the people choice. Installing a new theocratic dictatorship immediately after a war is not a real choice.
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.
Gokul43201
Nov23-04, 11:01 AM
The USA it's self has overthrown multiple democracies and installed dictators in their place.
I'd like to know more about this...
Stanley_Smith
Nov23-04, 11:03 AM
So do I...
I hope you're not suggesting that Iraq before the invasion was a democratic society...
Gokul43201
Nov23-04, 11:09 AM
Well, there was the support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and for Marcos, Noriega and such...but I can't recall a democratic government uprooted by US forces and a dictator put in its place.
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
Nov23-04, 12:18 PM
I believe loseyourname was talking about internally overthrown democracies. Point being that a democracy is a stable form of government.
PerennialII
Nov23-04, 02:25 PM
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
Nov23-04, 02:51 PM
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....
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)
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
Nov24-04, 03:42 AM
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.
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
Nov24-04, 08:49 AM
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 belive the US is to spread "Democracy and Freedom".. they escape reality...
Stanley_Smith
Nov24-04, 11:30 AM
"who still belive the US is to spread "Democracy and Freedom".. they escape reality"
Yeah, whoever thinks like that gotta 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
Nov24-04, 12:46 PM
"who still belive the US is to spread "Democracy and Freedom".. they escape reality"
Yeah, whoever thinks like that gotta 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
Nov24-04, 02:31 PM
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
Nov24-04, 06:05 PM
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
Nov25-04, 12:37 AM
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
Nov25-04, 07:15 AM
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 realy serius lack of diversity... or you are being manipulated... think about it....
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 realise 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.
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 realy 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
Nov27-04, 07:38 PM
Unfortunatly this kind of thing isn't exactly Prime Time on CNN, so people don't realise 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
Nov28-04, 04:09 PM
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.
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
Nov29-04, 12:26 AM
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").
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.