Should the Geneva Conventions Apply to This War?

[kat]

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.

 

[jcsd]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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"?

 

[kat]

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/7c4d08d...f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079?OpenDocument

I guarantee you that Bush is thanking his lucky stars we did not ratify.

 

[Smurf]

If that's so, then this is even more disturbing now since it means the US isn't just slipping up, it isn't even trying.

 

[kat]

If that's 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 definitely depend on the reason Congress chose not to ratify. Perhaps they believe the protocals to be...flawed.

 

[jcsd]

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/7c4d08d...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]

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...?

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[jcsd]

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.

 

[kat]

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?

 

[Smurf]

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.

 

[jcsd]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Smurf]

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]

Wow, we agree on something.

Does this mean the world is going to end?

 

[Smurf]

'fraid so.

 

[franznietzsche]

Its been nice knowing you PF.

Now to wait for the impending meteor.

 

[Smurf]

I'm pretty sure it'll be a nuclear holocaust.

 

[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 propaganda, 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!).