The first few comments I read stated that the US would not intervene between Bahrain and its people. Currently, there is a US Naval Fleet headquarters on Bahrain, and commentators are suggesting that America does not want to lose its main headquarters in the Middle East.
As one Commenter said, "Bahrain plays a key strategic role in the Middle East and is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters."
LOOOOL.... nothing major lol..... just having a massive fleet there
and army bases and military stuff... nothing to see here.... just plain
democracy, please move on to the next article... go watch the mainpage,
there is probably something on syria.... hush about bahrain ;)"
Personally, I believe that this comment is too harsh on America. Although I understand that this commenter believes that America is selfish when it comes to International Politics, and I partly agree, America also believes in human rights. Bahrain is violating its citizens rights, and I doubt that America will just ignore this, as Bahraini citizens are further limited by their government.
However, not all commentators agree that Bahrain is in the wrong. As another commented stated,"The ban is temporary and not permanent so what's the big deal! These demonstrations which are taking place on daily basis are very violent and unjustified and the government has the right to take such measures. What would the US and UK do if they had similar violent demonstrations on their streets? we are sick and tired of organizations such as Amnesty International looking at one side of the coin. The government of Bahrain should do what what it needs to do."
This comment is definitely biased. While one does have to respect that a government has a reason it makes tough decisions, I don't believe that all protests should be banned. According to other sources, it is a select few who are turning protests violent, and many times the police are the first instigators of violence. In my World Politics class, we talked about "name and shame" which describes actions taken by NGO's to alert the world of countries who violate human rights. While these commentators have a lot to say, most of it is extreme, and must be taken with a grain of salt.
Personally, I believe that this comment is too harsh on America. Although I understand that this commenter believes that America is selfish when it comes to International Politics, and I partly agree, America also believes in human rights. Bahrain is violating its citizens rights, and I doubt that America will just ignore this, as Bahraini citizens are further limited by their government.
However, not all commentators agree that Bahrain is in the wrong. As another commented stated,"The ban is temporary and not permanent so what's the big deal! These demonstrations which are taking place on daily basis are very violent and unjustified and the government has the right to take such measures. What would the US and UK do if they had similar violent demonstrations on their streets? we are sick and tired of organizations such as Amnesty International looking at one side of the coin. The government of Bahrain should do what what it needs to do."
This comment is definitely biased. While one does have to respect that a government has a reason it makes tough decisions, I don't believe that all protests should be banned. According to other sources, it is a select few who are turning protests violent, and many times the police are the first instigators of violence. In my World Politics class, we talked about "name and shame" which describes actions taken by NGO's to alert the world of countries who violate human rights. While these commentators have a lot to say, most of it is extreme, and must be taken with a grain of salt.
No comments:
Post a Comment