is a dictatorship really that bad when the people are not educated enough to make an informed vote? to me it seems like iraq is better off having somebody with an iron fist, at least there was stability. i'm all for democracy but if you have a bunch of gullible iraqi hicks with their own beliefs falling for foreign ideas (the terrorists in iraq are foreign to iraqis, yes), wouldnt it be better to have a dictator in power? maybe also control the economy?
then when iraq actually has better education let the natural process take place where the people become informed and decide they want more power, thus a democracy forms?
forced democracy never works, i'm trying to say, until people are educated enough to make their own decisions? Thoughts?
| peaceninja wrote: |
| is a dictatorship really that bad when the people are not educated enough to make an informed vote? to me it seems like iraq is better off having somebody with an iron fist, at least there was stability. i'm all for democracy but if you have a bunch of gullible iraqi hicks with their own beliefs falling for foreign ideas (the terrorists in iraq are foreign to iraqis, yes), wouldnt it be better to have a dictator in power? maybe also control the economy? |
Gullible Iraqi Hicks ? I take it then that you are familiar with the education system in Iraq and the levels and type of education within the state ? Or perhaps you have your own beliefs and have falled for foreign ideas ?
You may be interested to know that :
| Quote: |
| UNESCO reports that prior to the first Gulf War in 1991 Iraq had one the best educational perfomances in the region. Primary school Gross Enrollment Rate was over 100% and literacy levels were high. Since that time education has suffered as a result of war, sanctions, and instability. |
| Quote: |
then when iraq actually has better education let the natural process take place where the people become informed and decide they want more power, thus a democracy forms? |
So only well educated populations are capable of forming democracies then ? One wonders, therefore, how democracy was ever introduced in the US given the following education levels (even choosing fairly current data):
| Quote: |
| forced democracy never works, i'm trying to say, until people are educated enough to make their own decisions? Thoughts? |
'Forced' democracy makes the issue of decision making irrelevant, does it not?
Regards
Chris | peaceninja wrote: |
| forced democracy never works... |
It worked in Japan and West Germany. Heck, we didn't even let the Japanese write their own constitution.
Respectfully,
MTotally ****** a country's sovereign right to govern itself can't be good. Never. Each country is supposed to be the only one that can intervene (does that word even exist?) in anything that happens within its borders. If you overthrow a government, force it to respect its population, activate its industry, and also fund them actively for at least three decades, it might work; it's not likely to turn out well, but it just might work.
-------------------------------------------------
I read someone says sth about the US. If the US government were slain by a, say, a Swedish/Danish coalition and a sockpuppet dictator was put in charge of all the State's tools (justice, police, etc), it wouldn't be good right? Well then why should the same be good to any country?
| polarBear wrote: |
Totally ****** a country's sovereign right to govern itself can't be good. Never. Each country is supposed to be the only one that can intervene (does that word even exist?) in anything that happens within its borders. If you overthrow a government, force it to respect its population, activate its industry, and also fund them actively for at least three decades, it might work; it's not likely to turn out well, but it just might work.
-------------------------------------------------
I read someone says sth about the US. If the US government were slain by a, say, a Swedish/Danish coalition and a sockpuppet dictator was put in charge of all the State's tools (justice, police, etc), it wouldn't be good right? Well then why should the same be good to any country? |
I respectfully disagree. Never say never. Going to war with Japan and Germany in World War II is an example when I think it was good. It is also an example where forced democracy worked.
As for your hypothetical statement at the end, it is simply a matter of perspective. As a U.S. citizen of course I would not take kindly to a Swedish/Danish coalition conquering my country and setting up a puppet government. However, from the Swedish/Danish perspective (and perhaps that of other hypothetical U.S. enemies) it would be very good and probably even beneficial, otherwise they would not have risked war to do so. For them conquering the United States is highly advantageous. My loss as a U.S. citizen would be considered their gain.
Respectfully,
Mi go to a blog (iraqthemodel.blogspot.com) written by a group of lawyers (educated mind you), and i respect a person who got a great education in baghdad late last century. this is my only exposure to iraq other than the news.
i think a lot of the violence is driven by lack of education, so yes iraqi hicks would be accurate (i never said all iraqis were hicks).
i am with you.
The Iraq people are suffering from war evern worse than the governing of Saddam. People are being killed every day and life is in great threaten.
All of these are imposed onto the iraq people by USA and Britain. The democracy is wanted by Americans better than by Iraq. Therefore, that democracy in iraq is not the iraqic democracy but American democracy.
No one wants this kind democracy, which is imposed and decided by the hidden dictator.
| cloudship wrote: |
| No one wants this kind democracy, which is imposed and decided by the hidden dictator. |
That's odd, I seem to remember reports of the Iraqi prime minister strongly stating that the U.S. could not impose time constraints on the sovereign Iraqi government... so we want out and they want us to stay? Arguably you could say that the current government is a "puppet" government that needs the support of America to stay in power.
On a side note, who are we to judge what is best for these people? Many enthusiastically hailed the advent of democracy in their country, others were distraught over the loss of their former power, and most suffer from the current terrorism and violence. Are we to accurately weigh the good and the bad and declare it "justifiable", and what if they disagree? | Quote: |
| On a side note, who are we to judge what is best for these people? |
Essentially, we would be the people who paid to get their sovereignty slain, as well as those who imposed an artificial and, for their cultural values, broken way of administrating a country. And that is only if we leave aside the thousands of civillian deaths and torture, and the fact that we re-empowered the warlords back in control of the territory. | Moonspider wrote: |
As for your hypothetical statement at the end, it is simply a matter of perspective. As a U.S. citizen of course I would not take kindly to a Swedish/Danish coalition conquering my country and setting up a puppet government. However, from the Swedish/Danish perspective (and perhaps that of other hypothetical U.S. enemies) it would be very good and probably even beneficial, otherwise they would not have risked war to do so. For them conquering the United States is highly advantageous. My loss as a U.S. citizen would be considered their gain.
|
Not sure how that works really. When the US invades it is to the benefit of the invaded and should the US be invaded that would be to the benefit of the invader ? Wow, it seems that all you have to do is get close to Americans to get a benefit then 
In reality, of course, there are few if any examples that the US can point to as positive outcomes (for the population of the country invaded) of its numerous post war military escapades.
An interesting correlation also occurs if you look at the poorest countries in the Northern Hemisphere. At the moment this would be Nicaragua, Haiti and Guatamala. Can you spot a link? They have been the subject of the largest amount of US intervention since WWII. Is this a coincidence I wonder ?
The you could look at the countries with the worst human rights records and spot a pattern there. In the 1990s that would have been Columbia by a country mile. Turkey is currently trying to clean up it's act to get EEC membership but in the 80s it was probably the worst offender globally. What is the link ? Well, Columbia took over from Turkey in 1998 as the biggest recipient of US military aid globally. Turkey is, of course a member of NATO but if you track the arms from US to Turkey then you see a huge spike from 1984 to 1999. What was Turkey doing between 84 and 99 ? It was engaged in a terrorist war against the Kurds - the worst examples of ethnic cleansing in my lifetime for sure - 2 million refugees and 3500 towns bombed to destruction - much much worse than anything that happened is Kosovo or Bosnia. Turkey, in common with all such terrorist states, called their actions counter-terrorism (just as Russia does now when it mentions Chechnya). That is standard practice of course. Turkey is now very grateful to the US as you would expect. At the peak of killing in 1997, Turkey was getting 50% of all the military aid that the US gives out globally.
It is important to note that this is only one example and is neither unusual particularly in extent, nor is it particularly out of step with normal foreign policy. The US is now and has been for decades a major sponsor of terrorism. The reason is, of course, that it works.
Now if we look specifically at the idea that countries might benefit from US intervention, we see another myth vanish before our eyes. (This excuse for aggression was the standard operating procedure for the British at the height of Empire and was no more true then than it is today).
Since WWII I can find two examples of military intervention driven by arguably humanitarian concerns (though both can be seen as selfish to a large degree as well, but that should neither surprise or worry people). I have looked quite hard I promise. The two examples are the Indian invasion of East Pakistan in 1971 which ended the mass slaughter going on at that time, and Vietnam invading Cambodia in 1978 to depose Pol Pot. Neither of these, of course, is ever mentioned and most people will be barely aware that they happened. The reason is, of course, that the wrong people were doing the invading. In fact, in both cases the US condemned and then punished the 'culprits' financially. The UK even offered financial and military aid to the Khmer Rouge at the time.
If anyone can cite examples I have missed I would be happy to debate it.
Best wishes
ChrisI agree that a Dictatorship was the best government style for iraq. But i think that it is not so much education. People know what they want from their government educated or not. Its more about the mindset of the country. The switch from dictator to democracy has always been hard. The example i know best is the case of Mexico. And even still, the elections (atleast the bigones that matter) are decided prior to voting. But thats how it is in the united states too i suppose.
Its a hard situation. My opinon is that contries should liberate themselves if at all possable. Which would only happen when the people have a state of mind for change. A forced democracy leaves the people unprepaired.
In the real world dictatorships seem to attract the wrong sort of dictators. megalomaniacs generally. I guess the more moderate thinkers have other priorities.
In theory though I believe dictatorship to be a much more efficient form of government, when given a benevolent dictator.
All policies can be made and maintained for logical rather than political reasons as voters do not need to be kept happy and the leader can get on with the job of running the country.
Unfortunately, as I stated before, in the real world tyrants seem to seize the reins and all hell breaks loose.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: |
As for your hypothetical statement at the end, it is simply a matter of perspective. As a U.S. citizen of course I would not take kindly to a Swedish/Danish coalition conquering my country and setting up a puppet government. However, from the Swedish/Danish perspective (and perhaps that of other hypothetical U.S. enemies) it would be very good and probably even beneficial, otherwise they would not have risked war to do so. For them conquering the United States is highly advantageous. My loss as a U.S. citizen would be considered their gain.
|
Not sure how that works really. When the US invades it is to the benefit of the invaded and should the US be invaded that would be to the benefit of the invader ? Wow, it seems that all you have to do is get close to Americans to get a benefit then |
Not quite what I meant. Polarbear's point was that we'd be upset if we were invaded, and therefore should look at invading someone else from that perspective. I simply meant to argue that you could use his analogy and look at it from the Danish perspective, and assume that since they deemed it justifiable, so should anybody else.
Respectfully,
M | joshumu wrote: |
| I agree that a Dictatorship was the best government style for iraq. |
From whose perspective? Stable yes. But good let alone best? I'm sure the people of postwar Germany felt they were better off under Hitler. That was certainly true of my father-in-law's family who still suffer from the side effects of malnutrition during those post-war years. Does that mean that Nazi dictatorship was the best thing for Germany?
My European ancestors, Virginia colonists in the 17th and 18th centuries, who were wealthy prior to the American Revolution lost everything in the post-war chaos and economic depression that ensued. Does that mean Virginia was better off under King George?
| joshumu wrote: |
| ...the elections (atleast the bigones that matter) are decided prior to voting. But thats how it is in the united states too i suppose. |
Excuse me? Do you mean that some conspiratorial cabal really controls everything and that we simple citizens are mere pawns? Or do you mean that the press capably predicts the future of every political event with 100% accuracy?
Respectfully,
MThis kind of issue has been argued and debated since the beginning of time. Certainly, most dictators have abused their position as rulers of a country. Hitler was mentioned earlier, and of course Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot. You can add Stalin too, and Mussolini and Franco. There have been a few. All of these people had a profound effect on their countries and on world history.
It's also interesting to note that the majority of dictators arise in democratic society's, and that includes the Roman Emperors who took over from the Roman Republic, which in turn came to power after revolting against the Etruscan King! Under Roman Rule, there were a lot of benefits and the Pax Romana (Roman Peace), but there was also misery.
In the old days most countries (especially in Europe) were ruled by Kings. Though there were times when bad Kings (and Queens) hurt their countries and the people, we find that some of the democracies that followed and certainly many of the dictatorships, were worse for the common people.
Someone suggested that dictatorships are better than democracies. Well, that can be heavily debated. But let me ask, if you prefer a dictator to a democracy, then why not Kings and Queens? At least they identify themselves with their countries, and many made reforms to benefit the common people.
Of course, Hitler was also passionate for Germany and all things German, and it was under his guidance that the Autobahns were built, not to mention the little Volkswagen (in conjunction with Ferdinand Porsche) that was meant to be a family car.
At the end of the day it seems that history repeats itself, sadly for all the same (wrong) reasons. Human nature is the ultimate ruler. Regardless of the form of government, there will always be those who benefit and those who suffer.
I tends to agree with the original poster. If the people are not educated enough then it is really not much helpful, because democracy in those states only means more bad people have freedom to do what they want, and compete for power. Hence creating more conflicts and less stability.
It is a bit like what I think about the death penalty. I know this is cruel but in those countries where education is low and poverty rate is high, people have not much to lose. Only death can scare most of them, if not all.
There is no doubt that people everywhere prefer democracy over dictatorship. We can see that from history as many people are struggling for their freedom and dignity.
Iraqis are not different than others. They probably suffered more than many people of other countries, but they still enjoy democracy and freedom as much as others.
Despite all the present sufferings and killings in the streets of Iraq, Iraqis still favor the present situation over living under the dictatorships of Saddam Hussain. What is happening presently in Iraq is that the defeated dictator's men want to punish the Iraqi people for their enthusiasm to democracy. They simply kill civilians and create disturbances to prove that dictatorship is better for them. Another factor that fuels the instability in Iraq is its neighbours which are doing all they can to prove that democracy is not suitable for this region. They are fearing that a strong democratic Iraq means a collapse of their fragile corrupted regimes
| bangala wrote: |
....
Despite all the present sufferings and killings in the streets of Iraq, Iraqis still favor the present situation over living under the dictatorships of Saddam Hussain. |
And your support for that statement would be ?
My own perception is in line with the recent PIPA Poll - it depends which religious group you ask.
(The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) is a joint program of the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland and the Center on Policy Attitudes. PIPA undertakes research on American attitudes in both the public and in the policymaking community toward a variety of international and foreign policy issues. It seeks to disseminate its findings to members of government, the press, and the public as well as academia.)
Was Ousting Saddam Worth It?
Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?
.........Worth it.............Not Worth It
Kurds....91%.....................8%
Shia......98%.....................2%
Sunni....13%...................83%
Overall..77%...................22%
Other questions in the same poll are interesting....
Attacks on US-Led Forces
Do you approve (strongly or somewhat) of attacks on US-led forces in Iraq?
Overall....47%
Kurds......16%
Sunni......41%
Shia........88%
Overall Support for Attacks
Attacks on US-led forces........................47%
Attacks on Iraqi Govmt Security forces....7%
Attacks on Iraqi civilians..........................1%
Would you prefer to have the US or the UN take the lead in Iraqs economic reconstruction?
....................US...............UN...........Neither
Overall..........21%............59%...........18%
Kurds............43%............53%.............3%
Shia..............22%............64%............13%
Sunni..............4%............48%............46%
Full Poll Results
Regards
ChrisWow thanks Bikerman, nice information, and it proved my point about ousting Saddam Hussain. Honestly, however, I found the point about attacks on US-Led Forces to be misleading and I don't approve the explanation given for it in the report. I think the reason for such contradicting answer in this question is probably due to the ambiguity or a mis-stated question in the survey.
While I can agree with you that sometimes dictatorships are better than trying democracy, I TOTALLY disagree with your reasoning behind it.
I do not agree that the Iraqi's are ignorant hicks. They just have a different culture and values. There are many people here in the United States that I would have to put into the category of ignorant kick then. And I'm sure that they'll outnumber the population of Iraq.
No, I believe that the culture and history of the Islamic world is what makes a dictator, or at least a people of considerable power, to be beneficial to some countries. The Arab world has a history of bowing to a father/leader figure in their family and political lives. Just as European culture bows to Greek and Rome influences.
And ancient Greece used to elect someone to be "Dictator" during periods of crisis. They were a bit smarter about it though. The dictators were given a period of time to rule, with total power, but after that they reverted back to a normal citizen. This helped curb the misuse of the power that they were given. A strong leader who is looking out for the best for the people and country can be a major positive influence.
| leslewis wrote: |
| While I can agree with you that sometimes dictatorships are better than trying democracy I TOTALLY disagree with your reasoning behind it. |
Better for who ?
| Quote: |
No, I believe that the culture and history of the Islamic world is what makes a dictator, or at least a people of considerable power, to be beneficial to some countries. The Arab world has a history of bowing to a father/leader figure in their family and political lives. Just as European culture bows to Greek and Rome influences. |
The Arab world is not the same as the Islamic world. Also I would say that Arab history is completely opposite to your assertion. Early Arab history was largely nomadic without organised and centralised power structures. Compare this to your own (I should not make that assumption, change that...compare it to MY) history which is one long continuum of bowing to powerful leaders, from serfdom in the early and middle ages, through to peasant 'tithe' farmers in the late middle ages and then onto the industrial revolution which tightened the grip much further by introducing the concept of wage-slavery and therefore made the average person not just subservient and beholding to the ruling 'landed' aristochracy, but now also to the emergent middle class owners of the factorys and mills.
I would agree that emergent Islam from the 7th century onwards changed life for many Arabs radically, but you should also consider that Islam, in comparison with Christianity, is less hierarchical and top-down, and therefore 'authoritarian' . This is, to be sure, more true for Sunni Islam than Shiite (which is more in the Catholic tradition where the clerics are seen as interpreters of God's will and therefore to hold more 'important' status than the congregation). Sunni's believe that the clerics are just guides/advisers and they have no more 'holiness' or 'correctness' than any other Muslim. Again you can contrast this with Catholicism where the Pope is not only seen as more correct, in matters of church dogma he is regarded as infallible (in some circumstances). I guess the analogy would be that Sunnis are more in the protestant tradition and the Shiites more in the Catholic tradition...Even so this would seem to contradict the notion that Arabs are naturally submissive or used to having powerful and autocratic leaders because of their religion or their lifestyle.
Politically - the last 2 centuries is a story of western subjugation, manipulation and domination of much of the middle-east. Our role in this (me as British, in particular) is largely shameful and sometimes unforgivable. The modern dictators that have dogged Arab states are largely a creation and imposition of the west. Not only did we carve their lands up and set boundaries to suit ourselves, we deliberately ensured that there would be tensions between the different countries in a classical strategy of divide and rule.
Latterly the US has taken over the role of subjugator-in-chief from the UK.
| Quote: |
| And ancient Greece used to elect someone to be "Dictator" during periods of crisis. They were a bit smarter about it though. The dictators were given a period of time to rule, with total power, but after that they reverted back to a normal citizen. This helped curb the misuse of the power that they were given. A strong leader who is looking out for the best for the people and country can be a major positive influence. |
Hmm....the Greeks were able to practice true Athenian democracy for a period because their numbers allowed for it. I think it was Aristotle who wrote that democracy can only work where the population is less than (I forget the figure...40 thousand rings a bell). Real democracy, rather than the sham versions we have, relies on active and frequent participation in decision making by all (or, in the Greeks system, by all men of a certain status and birth).
What we have in the UK is an oligarchy, verging on elective dictatorship. It has been that way from Magna Carta onwards, but in recent times more and more power has accumulated in the hands of the executive and corporate leadership. Real democracy requires that real power be in the hands of the majority. The Greeks actually used to vote to send some of their leaders into exile periodically. They would write a name on a piece of tile or pot (called an Ostra) and the person with the most votes would be banished into exile. This is the origin of the word Ostracised. There is no real power in the hands of the electorate in the UK and there never really has been. Democracy is just a word, and as time passes it becomes more inappropriate as a description of our system.
Regards
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
| What we have in the UK is an oligarchy, verging on elective dictatorship. It has been that way from Magna Carta onwards |
-just two clauses of the Magna Carta to illustrate: | Magna Carta wrote: |
[clause 2]If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown...[followed by several clauses detailing the inheritance laws of nobles]
[clause 21]Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offense. |
The nobles and clergy (the oligarchs) who chased down the king and forced him to sign their "great charter" knew what they wanted, and put it in writing. Furthermore they only gave the rights listed to free men and many of the rights to men who specifically owned land, not serfs and your average pauper. The Magna Carta (like the Emancipation Proclamation) fell short, but it was a start of a solution that may still need work.
And for some clarification: When I describe the actions of the U.S. or former world powers (like the UK, Russia, Spain, Rome...) as imperialistic, I do not do so as an insult to the nation or the people of the nation, so you need not take offense. I personally believe that imperialism is a natural consequence of a nation being a superpower. The nation does not actively have to seek to exhibit imperialistic tendencies, but those tendencies naturally flow out of the actions of a superpower. In fact the principle can be extended down to (or from depending on how you look at it) individual actions; if you are more powerful than another person, then you will be more likely to take advantage of that person. Doing so under the guise of national interest is just easier because you can deny responsibility...(Thanks to Montressor for illustrating my point).
I would also say that my critique of US foreign policy is not, and should not be taken as, an attack on the American peoples nor their governance and conventions. My critique is specific to US foreign policy and it's consequences and possible consequences.
I think that the US is probably the country with the highest levels of personal freedoms in the world and that, to my mind, is a worthy and desirable thing. I also know and have worked with many Americans (when I worked at Corning) and I generally found them to be civil, honest and genuine people. Like any other population there are good and bad, intelligent and ignorant, stupid and wise and I certainly would not subscribe to the view that the US was any different in this regard.
The one point I would make is that there is a general perception of 'arrogance' which is not without justification. My own perception is that this is the confidence born of a relatively new country which is at the height of it's powers and influence. It is natural that it's citizens feel themselves in some way special and this is reflected sometimes in a way which those of us from older and more world-weary countries often perceive as arrogance.
The question of US foreign policy is, however, far too important to ignore and it's affect on the world is such that it is the right and, maybe, responsibility of non-US citizens to comment and criticise such policies. US Foreign policy is, currently, dangerous and ill-conceived. It has recently overturned the existing agreements on international law and made a bold and, I think, dangerous assertion of a new de-facto policy which includes the new concept of 'pre-emptive' war which it asserts applies only to itself. The very notion of democracy seems to be challenged by this notion since the US seems to be asserting that only it has the right sort of democracy.
Here is a paraphrase of the new policy in my own words which I don't think to be unfair and which gets to the point:
"We are top dog. We want to stay so and we therefore reserve the right to wage war on, attack, or interfere in any other way we choose with any country that looks like it might challenge us for the role. Furthermore we will not be bound by international law, treaties and conventions in this regard and we are now serving notice of this and, in fact, expect the rest of you to alter international law and expectations to fit this new reality."
This is very similar to the policy of my own country (UK) in years gone by and, as Montressor points out, is possibly a natural thing for the current top-country to do. In the modern world, however, the risks involved are terrible. Existing US abuses of international law and conventions are already seen by many as justification for taking the fight to the US and serve as powerful recruitment propoganda to may terrorist organisations. They are also contrary to the normal rights one would expect to apply in any democracy.
Two of the most pressing examples would be :
- Guantanamo bay. This is an affront to civil rights and should be finished now.
- The policy of 'extra-judicial renditions' whereby suspects are transported to countries which either support or condone torture, is another obscenity in the language of human, civil and legal rights.
Regards
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
Here is a paraphrase of the new policy in my own words which I don't think to be unfair and which gets to the point:
"We are top dog. We want to stay so and we therefore reserve the right to wage war on, attack, or interfere in any other way we choose with any country that looks like it might challenge us for the role. Furthermore we will not be bound by international law, treaties and conventions in this regard and we are now serving notice of this and, in fact, expect the rest of you to alter international law and expectations to fit this new reality."
|
lol that is a funny but close to reality definition of the US policy. I think this funny definition explains the several contradicting examples in the US foreign policy, such as backing democracy in a nation while backing a dictatorship somewhere else, or respecting human rights in one side while abusing human rights in another side. You will find the US forces move to an area to implement a UN resolution, while at the same time totally ignoring another UN resolution. | Bikerman wrote: |
| (Thanks to Montressor for illustrating my point). |
entirely my pleasure. | Bikerman wrote: |
| This is very similar to the policy of my own country (UK) in years gone by and, as Montressor points out, is possibly a natural thing for the current top-country to do. |
I forgot to mention what I believe to be theoretical solutions to this problem:- Stop acting like top dog
- Stop being top dog
Unfortuantly there are all too many historical examples of the second and no (to my knowledge) examples of the first happening without the second...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| In the modern world, however, the risks involved are terrible. |
I believe this is partially linked to increased globalization in that the English could wage a war with various African tribes and keep the war relatively isolated, now the war (and the combatants) could be anywhere and the world.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Existing US abuses of international law and conventions are already seen by many as justification for taking the fight to the US and serve as powerful recruitment propoganda[sic] to may terrorist organisations[sic]. They are also contrary to the normal rights one would expect to apply in any democracy.
Two of the most pressing examples would be :
- Guantanamo bay. This is an affront to civil rights and should be finished now.
- The policy of 'extra-judicial renditions' whereby suspects are transported to countries which either support or condone torture, is another obscenity in the language of human, civil and legal rights.
|
As a US citizen I also find these specific actions (and others) that my government and elected officials chose to commit in my name deplorable. And in saying that they are a natural or common occurrence for powerful nations I am in no way attempting to justify these actions for any nation least of all mine.
