Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Drew
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ninty9
I don’t want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I’m wrong, but what I see you saying is that since Iraq has human rights violations, their rights as a country get thrown out. From this, other countries are now, without competition form international law, allowed to do what they please to Iraq because of this loss of rights. More specifically, the US gets to present a case stating why an invasion should take place, while Iraq can do nothing but stand idle waiting for the invasion to come, whether the invasion is justified or not.
|
The comparison was not about the revocation of all freedoms, but instead the revocation of having a voice in the decisions of a governing body. Most countries do not allow convicted felons to vote, there is a purpose for this. As for going to trial and losing their rights after being proven guilty.. that doesn't make sense. Everyone knows Iraq is guilty of human rights violations. The government admits to slaughtering Kurds.
I'm not saying they should lose all rights as a nation, but I am saying they should be excluded from the discussion regarding it. |
Iraq is not guilty of human rights violations, its government was. So now they DO have the right to a voice/discussion regarding whatever they please about their own nations future as that government is no longer in power, rather then have dictated leaders from the Bush camp as you would happen if Iraq has no 'voice'
but anyway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4365661.stm