Why do liberals say they are for human rights?

Question

What about the people of Iraq? Oh, I guess it only applies to other liberals like free speech does also. My bad!

Answer 1

Because we are.The people of Iraq?Included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the following.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized
So how's Iraq doing?On these points now?I honestly believe those people were better of under Saddam and that's not because of American soldiers but the cowardly yihady's they attracted.

Answer 2

There isn't a politician on the face of this earth that is for human rights. They are in it for the power. No, I am not saying this as a liberal. Bush had no right to invade Iraq. Why Iraq? Why not North Korea or a dozen African or South American Countries that are suffering from ruthless dictators?

We have problems here...why don't we start by finishing what we have going in Afghanistan?

I would like to point out to liberals, that Clinton and his gang sat around debating what genocide was, while Rwanda killed 800,000 Tutsis.

No politician in contemporary times does anything for anyone but him/herself.

Answer 3

I'm for human rights (gay marriage for example), not anarchy. The Bush administration has created a state of anarchy in Iraq. Just ask the soldiers that are over there. A system of government, oppressive or not, is better for the people than a state of anarchy. All we have done is ousted the party that was in control to wait until the next party takes control. Once one is in power (sunnis or shiites), they will oppress the other. At best, we've shifted who is oppressing who. So tell me...what does the situation in Iraq have to do with human rights?

Also, if you were really concerned with human rights, we never would have gone to Iraq. Lybia had a much worse dictator than Hussein at the time. Or we could have gone to Darfur. Or Rwanda. Saying that we were going there to get rid of an awful dicator was pretty much a lie because there were better places we could have gone for something like that. I have no idea why we're in Iraq, but Hussein is definitely a smoke screen for something (not oil).

Answer 4

I would just like to point out that liberals and conservatives play a part in Iraq. Anyways, right now in Iraq, it's mostly the Shites and the Suni that are denying eachother rights. Mot of it really has nothing to do with Americans. But we just like to get involved.

Answer 5

They are but they can't actually help anyone. If somebody was not having a terrible time then the Democrats would not have people to vote for them because the mean Republicans are keeping them back. This country really needs a leader and a Congress that will not pnader to the zealots running both parties this is insane. One side we have people so liberal they would not be happy unless we had anarchy and evil America was gone and the other side won't be happy til we all go to church on Sunday. Nothing wrong with going to church but should be personal choice. My philosphy is religion is good but church is bad because chuch is ran by people.

Answer 6

I'm a liberal. First of all, I think people--both liberal and conservative--can talk about whatever they want to talk about as long as they do it in a non-offensive way. And, I think the people of Iraq did deserve to be liberated, but we did not do it correctly. We did the exact same thing in the Phillipines, and look what happened there.

Oh wait, most people don't know about that because they don't teach about the United States' mistakes in public school history classes.

Answer 7

Not really sure were you're going with this. Seems like you are trying to insinuate that liberals care more for animals than the Iraqi people. My, you are bright.

If it were not for the neo-cons in power, neither Americans nor Iraqis would be dying today. Iraqis might be oppressed, but at the time it was at least stable, and people weren't dying by the bus loads like they are today.

If we were really being altruistic, there are places in Africa that were in a much worse humanitarian condition than Iraq. Of course, there's not much oil there....

Answer 8

True liberals did support the ousting of Saddam Hussein, because they know the world will be a far better place when dictators are a thing of the past. These liberal pretenders like Michael Moore etc. identified themselves as opposite of the President, a conservative Republican, therefore they call themselves liberal democrats they're not.

It still doesn't stop the fact that Bush has waged the war terribly.

Answer 9

That's the first time I've ever heard a con talk about human rights in Iraq. Are you going to continue talking about it, or was this just a one-off dig?

Answer 10

Yeah - I think it really really is your bad - that was a no winner for you. Liberals are for human rights - Conservatives are for human rights - its just the methods each used to achieve them that sometimes differs and the reality is that both of them are often right.

Good Luck!!!