News Should the Geneva Conventions Apply to This War?

[russ_watters]

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]

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]

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]

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 believe 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...

 

[BobG]

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]

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]

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 believe 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 anyone 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.

 

[Smurf]

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 anyone 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]

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.

 

[Smurf]

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 each other, 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!).

 

[Smurf]

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, that's 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]

they have the choice, that's 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]

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 each other, 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]

No democracy has ever been violently overthown.

Perron ?

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[Smurf]

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]

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]

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]

So do I...

I hope you're not suggesting that Iraq before the invasion was a democratic society...

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[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").