I'm back! Bear wrote: "The problem with the Geneva Convention is that it was made during the time of the "gentleman" wars (i.e. World War 1, the Boer War, etc), and only really applied when a handful of countries ruled the world (Britain, Russia, Germany and France, among a couple of others). It doesn't really apply now, when we're having "Wars against terrorism"… which is why people like Rumsfeld and Bush can avoid it." I believe you possibly have your historical dates slightly muddled or do not entirely perceive the vast spectrum of the Geneva Convention or its incessant updating as time progresses. Firstly, the first Geneva Convention was written circa the 1850s – over half a century before World War I (a.k.a. "The Great War") due to the shady efforts of 19th-century Swiss philanthropist Jean Henri Dunant who was unsurprisingly involved with the unorthodox Italian Alta Vendita and its Jesuit counterparts. Secondly, the last Geneva Convention was held circa the 1950s – over ten years after World War II – in order to legally hang Nazi Waffen SS officers and officially account for the Jewish Holocaust (as well as furtively legalize Soviet war-crimes against Germany). There is nothing chivalrous nor gentlemanly about this era. Needless to say, this clearly places us far beyond the "gentleman wars" (Franco-Prussian Conflict circa the 1870s, the Italo-Ethiopian War of late 1880s, etc.) and into the "Korean Police Action" (1950-53), the bloody wars for Algerian independence in the crude form of the Front de Liberation National (FLN), the Argentine Civil Wars (1951-52), the increasing rumblings of the oncoming Greek-Turkish Cypriot War, etc.  All of these  involved similar circumstances as the Fourth Anglo-Afghan conflict in which we are currently scrapping hence no reason for another update to the current doctrine of the Geneva Convention. Thirdly, President George Bush, Jr. has not "avoided" the Geneva Convention. He publicly stated in January 2002 during a Pentagon press conference that the antiquated document must be "deemed" entirely null and void henceforward in American engagements – especially in the Fourth Anglo-Afghan War. Bush simply threw it out the window.  He essentially dissolved its effect on America. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away – err, sorry! :P This is a principle reason why the American Green Berets units which recently bound the empty hands of unarmed, protesting Northern Alliance villagers with nylon straps and then calmly executed them – much in the debonair fashion of the Nazi Waffen SS – may not be truly charged with war crimes. Clever, eh? Indeed, American military units may now freely rape Afghanistan women and our government could simply pay each ravaged wench maybe $50 buckaroos to recompense for the loss of virginity (since the American government are nonchalantly paying $1,000 per bullet-riddled skull of each Northern Alliance ally we unintentionally murder). The ironic words of Napoleon ring out: "Who is to say which is worse: the soldiers who traffic in blood or the politicians who traffic in souls?"* Bear wrote: "In the American constitution, it states that all Americans should have the right to own a gun to protect themselves." Incorrect. The U.S. Constitution, drafted by would-be colonial terrorists, is a lot of eloquent claptrap. It is in the floundering American Bill of Rights, drafted by would-be colonial intellectuals, which consists of ten mandatory amendments, that we find the -previous- guarantee of the aforementioned liberty to bear arms. The Anti-Federalists, who mostly hailed from the southern districts of the nation, "tacked" on the Bill of Rights – a completely separate manuscript – after causing a great uproar during the 1790s (in what is often referred to as the "Dark Ages of North America"). The initial document was later drastically "ratified" and "extended" by the boisterous Federalists, mostly from the northern districts of the nation, circa 1850s-1860s who basically twisted the Bill of Rights into furthering governmental supremacy over the lower-classes instead of weakening it (which was the original intent).  It is now laughably illegal, without proper authorization by the government, for an American citizen to bear arms. As logical as this sounds it is clearly not "freedom" in the libertarian sense of the actual word as originally inscribed by the Anti-Federalists. A well-deserved preview of what is to come in America may be seen in the current "weaponry dilemma" of Canada because of this unresolved problem. To give credit where credit is do, it is to the noteworthy Anti-Federalists, much disliked by the existing establishment, to whom America owes it shortly-lived (and now entirely superficial) "freedoms" . . . not the milksop Federalists who are outrageously lauded by the U.S Department of Education as almost unblemished deities of humanity who are curiously exempt from any scathing criticisms regarding the numerous pitfalls of Bavarian capitalism.** There are also an incalculable myriad of legal complications on the Bill of Rights such as President Franklin Roosevelt suspending the Bill of Rights during World War II (early 1940s) via Executive Order and never officially "unsuspending" it to give Americans their "rights" back.  This issue is still being debated, after fifty years of squabbling, by the Supreme Court. An excellent anthology to read if you wish to learn more upon this subject would be "The Anti-Federalist Papers" which was once required reading in public high school (1920s) then only in college (1960s), but has since been removed in place of "The Little Green Frog Who Sat On A Log And Looked At Our Faustian World Through Rose-Colored Spectacles." Since the majority of contemporary college students are more concerned with Britney Spears' bulbous attributes at the moment and "visualizing world peace" under the tattered banner of international corporations, they are a far cry from the 1960s' college students who dreamt of new forms of government and improvements upon American society. The powers-that-be – whoever we each believe they are – find it safer to keep it that way. What did the Emperors of Rome say? Give the people bread and circus ... and they shall be content . . .  We sure are. *Spartacus returns to eating Walmart-packaged popcorn and watching the television.  Oooh, I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet A Woman is on MTV... *[FOOTNOTE #1: If you do not think American troops will ravage, loot, and senselessly murder just take a look at the American "live-fire invasion" reels of the assault on Nicaragua. Or, just count how many times another female inhabitant is raped near an American base over-seas.  We are going on what – couple dozen girls in Japan alone? Ishtar, those are only the -official- reports from a peaceful country during the last few years and not amidst a confusing raid when the average smut-driven G.I. Joe gets some female inhabitant alone in a mud hut in Timbuktu.  All armies in the world unofficially rape: America's is no exception.] **[FOOTNOTE #2: It is interesting that in the prior posts the correctly designated capitalistic system of America was not adequately defined. Who is Christopher Colombus when compared to the legendary Adam Smith? How does novelist Ayn Rand's capitalistic utopia differ from economist Ludwig von Mises' vision? Is Bavarian capitalism superior to Laissez faire capitalism?  How does capitalism differ from statism? What are the differences in capitalistic thought between George Reisman, Henry Hazlitt, Tibor Machan, or John Locke? If you believe you can "demolish" capitalism and trounce all the aforementioned scholars throughout economical history in a few posts on this Lounge ComNet then – by Namtar – turn those posts into a college essay and Harvard University will probably accept you...  Either that or the People's Socialist University of Bejing. :P  Kiption had a very valid point: you cannot solve economics using dairy cows. Also, no one mentioned the polar differences of communism. It appeared that everyone assumed there is one brand of communism. There are many variants: Maoism (which China still employs), Marxism (which existed very shortly under the Russian Provisional Government headed by Alexander Kerensky), Marxist-Leninism (in which Lee Harvey Oswald believed), Menshevikism, Bolshevikism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Inglism, etc. Each is almost a separate school of thought.  You cannot just say: "I like communism!" That is like saying, "I like chips!" The variety of the individual brands are too immensely diverse. You also touch upon Nazism, because – according to the renowned John Birch Society – Communism itself is international socialism while Facism itself is national socialism and Nazism is a unique modification of Facism. Therefore, Nazism and Communism are closely related. By approving of one, you partially approve of the other. Lastly, forget Tinamen Square; start discovering the "Thousand Flower Speech of Bejing" which occured many years before and was ten times more ghastly.]   ----------------------- "As you have seen, I am a writer who came of a sheltered life. A sheltered life can be a daring life as well. For all serious daring starts from within." --- Eudora Welty (1909 - 2001)