U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?

[J.A. Terranson]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Sunder wrote:

> That all depends on your definition of sovereign.  After all, "we" put, or
> at least helped, that monster into power.  No different an action than we
> the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important
> nations under the guise of "protecting democracy."  

<huge snip>

Whether we put the mofo into power or not is not relevent: the "nation" is a
sovereign, regardless of the current figurehead who purports to represent it.

Note:
I don't *think* that anyone here is arging that Saddam was a nice guy - we're
all just arguing at cross purposes.  Camp A (me) seems to be arguing from a
meta [societal] position, while Camp J is arguing from a personal-dislike
position.  Neither camp is likely to deter the other, since our frames of
reference can never intersect :-(

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at mfn.org

"Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate
patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a
whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind
its citizens." 

The Promise of World Peace
http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm