I think that is where I drift from the Liberal mold and the respect of multiculturalism. We of course learn in our anthropology and sociology classes that one cannot make value judgements on cultures, we must remain impartial, reserving comparisons to our own prejudices and belief system so as not to belittle another's. However, whether or not treatment of women as property/second class citizens in a fundamentalist, Islamic regime is a tenet of Islam doesn't really matter. The point is, I can't abide a theocracy as it is repressive and absolute and I will always call BS whether it's chosen by the people or not regardless of the religion.
The constitution we designed it to be has been a headache. It's deliberately loaded to give disproportionate power to the Kurds and the Sunnis. Despite that, the Shiites have influenced the issue of women's suffrage and equality, and it will be the first bargaining chip to go. Let's just assume that the government Iraq is building is democratic. If it's the majority's choice to restrict freedoms, shouldn't it be our obligation to respect their wishes? If not, isn't it disingenuous for the writer, who appears to be against the war in the first place, to fault the actions of the majority and make them synonymous with a brutal dictatorship? You're damned if you do. You're damned if you don't.
bigtexxx, if you can put the red herring aside (at least temporarily for the sake of discussion), do you agree or not that Iraqi women in Saddam's regime had the highest degree of freedom and the most civic rights by Western standards, relative to their male counterparts, among all Muslim countries in the Middle East during the same era?
It's not a red herring, it's a valid point and has everything to do with your statement. What good are "equal rights" if everyone is getting gassed, raped, tortured and murdered equally?
I know you are better than this, bigtexxx. International affairs and historical events need to be viewed within certain contexts, and not dichotomously.
Putting it into perspective it isn't a ridiculous question. Even at his height of gassing his own folks most women in Iraq weren't in danger of being gassed by Saddam. However all women in Iraq are in danger of having previous freedoms removed. That being said I understand that it is up to the Iraqis to decide for themselves, and I am glad that Saddam isn't in power. But to pretend that all women were in danger of being gassed at any moment isn't true. One reason is that Saddam didn't have the capability for WMD attacks on whole villages anymore. Another reason is that most of the people in Iraq didn't live in an area likely to be targeted by Saddam. Women were able to attend universities, become doctors, lawyers, choose their own husbands, etc. It doesn't look like all of these freedoms will be taken, but some appear to be on the way out. To argue whether it doesn't matter that they are losing some freedoms, because they aren't under Saddam any more is like apples and oranges. We are talking about removing specific freedoms. Looking at just specific freedoms, they won't have freedoms they once had.
^^^ Should that happen, it isn't Bush's fault nor is he accountable as the writer is portraying this to be. For better and mostly worse, the Bush Administration has actively meddled with the coalition government. One of their many goals is to prevent these and other fundamental Muslim moral incentives. Now, politically inclined writers want to cut support when their idealistic dream- if they truly harbored them at all- has been compromised. Democracy has to be accepted along with all its warts in order for it to work.
This was entirely predictable before Bush chose to invade and occupy Iraq. Why should anyone be surprised? When the majority of the country, the Shia Iraqis, have been put under the thumb of a minority for decades, isn't it an obvious result of their sudden "freedom" that the more extreme (in my view) leaders of the Shia have the greatest influence... being those who most likely worked the hardest undercover to keep their beliefs alive during Saddam's regime? Wars have unintended consequences. That's why you don't start one unless you have a damn good reason, and the country you go to war with is a clear and present danger to your own country. It's a truism that has existed as long as societies have had the means to organize and make war on one another. Why Bush's advisors, those he listened to, thought the result would be any different is beyond me. We are there now. It was a terrible mistake by a failed President, but, dammit, we're there. As tempting as it is to pick a "date certain" to leave, we can't just walk out of a country that we tore apart ourselves, and leave it to chaos and anarchy. Until there is a strong, viable goverment, with the means to keep itself in power despite to various insurgent movements, we are stuck. If the government turns out to be an oppressive religious theocracy, well, we brought that about, didn't we... meaning to or not. Bush made a horrible mistake. Iraqis, the US, and the world will just have to live with the consequences of that grevious error. Keep D&D Civil!!
Having fought a war to bring democracy to Iraq, it would be pretty rediculous of us to then say that they cannot determine their own government. If they choose to go down a path that we do not like, that is their right. We must be as hands off as possible in the formation of the new Iraqi government. In time, living in a democracy should make them less radical and their government will reflect that. We need to take the long view here. In several generations, Iraq can be a thriving secular democracy.
boy, i sure admire your optimism. do you mind if i ask where i can buy myself a pair of those rose-colored glasses?
Why do you even care about several generations down the line? It is not likely that you will live to be 100.
No no no no no! Bite your tounge!!! You just don't 'get it' man. Clearly, your just a chickenhawk warmongering Bush apologist.
ima Do you have anything substantial to add to D&D threads? I mean, it seems all you do is throw out snide comments (and I know you aren't the only one, but really). What do you think of a possible Iraq democracy? Do you care?
The liberals expect a thriving secular democracy to happen overnight. Poof! No casualties, no injuries, no bumps in the road! Just goes to show out how of touch and ridiculous their stance is. Typical...
