Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
I've been reading all this talk about trials and such. Yet what is a trial? let's boil it down, a trial is where somebody in charge makes a decision, We in the west think it must include lawyers and evidence, as per "our standards". In other parts of the world they have differant standards. What makes us think we can pass judgment on their standards, is that not EXACTLY what the anti-war crowd is accusing the USA of doing by trying to "make"(more accuratly discribed as "ALOW") a democracy to start in Iraq? Oh yeah I forgot it's ok for each of us to demand our standards to be upheld by others as long as others don't demand we uphold their standards.
|
Right. Only the issue is rather confused in this case isn't it. Justification for the invasion of Iraq has by no small measure rested upon the notion that Saddam was a 'brutal dictator' that needed to be removed in order to bring 'freedom' and 'democracy' (Western ideas and standards) to Iraq. So, it was unacceptable by 'Western' standards for Saddam Hussein to imprison and execute his opponents without trial, but it
is acceptable for the new, American-appointed Iraqi Prime Minister to do so? Where is the consistancy here?
Do you, John, believe that the war in Iraq was justified? Do you think that imposing your standards upon people you will most likely never meet was justified? If so, then fair enough, but if these allegations of execution without trial are true, then surely this PM must be opposed and removed from power? Right?
[ 07-20-2004, 04:05 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]