Look again at the countries listed there! Check out Sudan - a country where the (gasp) Islamic government has been involved in all-out genocide against the Southern Sudanese people for over 20 years. AND THEY'VE SIGNED ON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

Check out Rwanda. Remember Rwanda? Yeah. GENEVA CONVENTIONS PEOPLE!


Shall I go on? Or do you see why I, like millions of others, are saying that the Geneva Conventions are a JOKE!

I think the content of the GCs are quite serious and meaningful.
It's the enforcement that would probably be labelled as a joke.

But that's possibly a mainly semantical observation...
What's that phrase? The path to hell is paved with good intentions...

I agree.

Good idea, those GCs. But honestly, let's admit that the nations that are going to cause problems aren't abiding by them any way. It's kind of like the United Nations itself. It was a utopian-minded, post-WWII idea that sounded good on paper, but has never really lived up to the ideals.

So there's a part of me that's asking, "What's the point?" That's like me making all kinds of rules for my kids that I have absolutely no intentions of enforcing or backing up. It's a waste of time and energy, and it makes my "serious" words empty and without warrant.

Noting the lack of teeth of enforcement is a good point.
But if, at the same time, we Americans complain that we don't want the UN to interfere with our U.S. actions, isn't that just blatant hypocrisy?

Not to me it's not - because I want nothing short of the total abolition of the United Nations. It's a corrupt, sham organization that should have been disbanded decades ago. The money they go through, and the wrong they do, FAR exceeds any of the good done. Period.

Hehe.
I guess there is absolutely no hypocrisy in that view-point...

This is the opinion I have held and stated from day 1. There is no hypocrisy in it. The United Nations does more harm than good in the world.

oh please. how was Iraq a threat to the world. If so the UN would have a green light for the war. But the rest of the world did not see Iraq as a threat. And boy were they a threat when the first bombs fell. They were running like chickens all over the farm. Now is that what a nation who poses a threat would do? Why did they not launch their WMD? maybe cause they did not have any!!!!

bush just took their oil and now the Iraqi people are suffering. Iraqi blood is on your hands.

Sure Iraq is a mess, but the people of Iraq are better off without Saddam in power. The voter turnout proves this notion. If they honestly were against the movement from a dictatorship to a democratic nation, they would have shown this by not showing up on voting day. This was not the case however..

Maybe they are... maybe they aren't. Before our pre-emptive strike, Iraqis had fairly stable electricity, water, and no suicide bombers.

I don't think voter turnout says anything about whether the voters believe they are better off without Saddam. I do think it says something about their involvement in their country. (Has anyone posted a translation of the ballot online?)