Iraq is not worth discussing until the US gets out. For all I care, Al-Q can be in charge of the country. They can't **** it up worser than America. I don't think we need to worry about the rights of women as there are more pressing issues like survival that take priority at this moment...
Using the term "mysogynistic-fundamentalism" does not impresss me. You speak of a diplomatic effort. What kind of effort are you talking about?
Damn . . .I was trying to impress you by using those BIG mult-parted words . . . . and . . jeez, if you didn't notice by golly!!
Diplomatic effort: I mean in some way presenting a constitution that would seem in the intersts of even the Idiot-macho-orthodoxreligious-nuts (aka= "mysogynistic-fundamentalism" ) would abide by, that has, as part of it, a respect for universal Civil Rights, including the rights of women.
It is vague because I think, as I said, that it would be virtually impossible considering the triangulation of regressive attitudes: once repressed archaic religious ideas and ancient tribalism and a war hardened people . . . it also excacerbates the issue that their are real competing forms of each of those three backward-leaning tendencies
(ooops... did I say "backward-leaning tendencies" . . . didn't mean to throw you for a loop SDW)
So, it would take a miracle worker who could work magic with diplomacy . . . maybe Shwarzennegger?
That's a rather vague question. I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Alrighty I'll try again.
The reason the question sounded so vague was because I was trying to phrase it in a way that didn't express any opinion on my part because I'm not after a polemical response. I just want to know. I think you know as well as I do, that we're not going to agree here but that doesn't deter me from wanting to understand your point of view.
I guess what I was asking was why should the US be the world's international policeman but I didn't want to ask it like that because "international policeman" seems like a bit of a loaded phrase.
How about this. Why is it right for the US to involve itself uninvited in the affairs of other sovereign countries? And I don't want you to answer in terms of why those countries need you (eg. WMD, abuse of human rights etc). At the start of WW2 when Hitler started stomping around Europe, the US didn't get involved because at that time it's foreign policy was in many ways opposite to what it is now. So what drives (in your opinion) the current policy.
I guess what I'm really trying to find out is if there is an answer to that question that doesn't boil down to because we know best or we're better or we have a duty to spread democracy or whatever.
And yes I realise it's kind of off topic but then again it's not.
With all due respect, that's exactly what you were arguing, whether you knew it or not.
What should it be based on, Judeo-Christian laws? Do you think that would be accepted?
With all due respect my original statement contains irony. Saddam was known for his evilness, and now after he is imprisonned some aspects of social life in Iraq are worse.
Don't you find an irony here ?
I don't think that it has to do with Judeo-Christian laws, just human rights. Considering one gender has inferior with less rights is sickening.
Do you find normal to oblige a woman to put a veil if she don't want, especially she is christian.
What do you think, will be the future of christians people in Iraq ? I think that they will be obliged to be converted.
Why do you think this ? Because of Islam or because of 'radical' Islam ?
Essential Islam accepts Jesus, accepts the virgin birth, believes the Bible and New Testaments are sent from God, believes that Christian and Jews will go to heaven and believes that Jesus will return to earth.
I guess that's why Christianity has survived in Islam lands for 1500 years and why Jews and 'heretic' Christians sought safety in Islamic Spain from the Church's pogroms of the middle ages.
Of course if you mean anti-Muslims like Saudi might gain a foothold in Iraq then you have a very valid point and it is a real concern.
I haven't got any problems with tolerant islam.
I fear that the islam who oblige people of others religions to comply with their religious standarts, do not belong to the tolerant one.
I don't think it will turn into Saudi'like, but more in the Iran like way.
The whole discussion is "I want my cake and eat it too!"
Why are the "fundamentalist" muslims wrong? How can you walk into a country and say, "this Islamic principle is okay, but that one has to go out the door?" What is the basis for "human rights"? Natural law? Who gets to decide what consitutes "natural law"?
If you aren't going to upfront about the basis for your arguments, then your wasting your breath.
Either everyone on this planet should be held to the same standard of right and wrong, or it's all mob rule and a crap shoot; if you live in a country with a dictator and tyrannical mindset, that's your problem.
You can't bitch about the U.S. being in Iraq in one breath and then complain because Iraqi women are losing their "rights." The people who want women veiled want the U.S. out just as badly.
That doesn't mean I agree that women should be veiled. I just don't think you can pick and choose what and predominately Islamic country applies of it religious convictions.
And yeah, this post is full of glib statements without much elaboration, but I've only got a little bit of time. Sue me.
And yeah, I'm a woman. And I wouldn't put up with it.
The whole discussion is "I want my cake and eat it too!"
Why are the "fundamentalist" muslims wrong? How can you walk into a country and say, "this Islamic principle is okay, but that one has to go out the door?" What is the basis for "human rights"? Natural law? Who gets to decide what consitutes "natural law"?
If you aren't going to upfront about the basis for your arguments, then your wasting your breath.
Either everyone on this planet should be held to the same standard of right and wrong, or it's all mob rule and a crap shoot; if you live in a country with a dictator and tyrannical mindset, that's your problem.
You can't bitch about the U.S. being in Iraq in one breath and then complain because Iraqi women are losing their "rights." The people who want women veiled want the U.S. out just as badly.
That doesn't mean I agree that women should be veiled. I just don't think you can pick and choose what and predominately Islamic country applies of it religious convictions.
And yeah, this post is full of glib statements without much elaboration, but I've only got a little bit of time. Sue me.
And yeah, I'm a woman. And I wouldn't put up with it.
You get my vote! Thank you for posting in, because that is exactly the idea I wanted to express, as well.
My own comments to add:
Women's rights are certainly important, but for a country as F-dup as Iraq, right now, it is not exactly the foremost priority. Reform will come over time to all the areas that need it. I think the least we can do for Iraqi women right now is to ensure that their basic human rights are being met, rather than if they are forced to wear a veil or not. Right now, we just need to concentrate on making it a remotely functional, viable nation. Otherwise, it won't matter if you have women's rights in place or not, because there won't be a civilization there to benefit from it.
That's just my 2 cts, but what do I know about nation building, anyway? I'm sure a lot of people here are not nation builder experts, either, so lets try to avoid the "well, the solution to this is obviously xyz, and if you don't agree, you are a [add political party here] idiot" tone. Can we do that, people?
SDW, you said in another post that it's ridiculous to say that disagreeing with gay rights (or agreeing with the President on the issue of gay rights) will automatically make you a gay hater.
Apparently you cannot take your own advice. Just because we don't like the current situation in Iraq does not mean we automatically want Saddam reinstated. I think what Powerdoc and others are trying to argue is that the US hasn't completely "fixed" Iraq. Yeah, we've gotten rid of Saddam and his evil practices, but that doesn't make us saints. I do think the Iraqi people should follow a constitution based on their own ideals, but I also think it should include things like religious freedom that we value so much here in the US. If a woman is not a Muslim, let her be herself and not be forced into Islam against her will!
I could go on to say that you hate Iraqi women because you favor the current constitution which allows violence against free-thinking Iraqi women to go on, but I won't. Likewise, you could call me a bigot against Islam for saying that, but I really hope you won't. We both know that those statements aren't true.
Iraq is either better off or "not better off" now. There can be no question that it better off. I agree women need equal rights, but you won't convince anyone in Iraq had it better before Saddam's fall...except maybe Saddam. Of course we haven't "fixed" Iraq. That's not going to happen overnight.
Probably true but sooner or later we (in the west) are going to have to start asking questions about this administration's middle east agenda.
The worst abuser of women's rights (human rights actually) in the region (in the world possibly) is Saudi. Worse than Syria, worse than Saddam, worse than the Taleban, worse than anyone in the 'axis of evil'.
The Saudi-US relationship needs to be put under the microscope and until that happens we have to question the 'commitment' to democracy, human rights and all the other dial-a-cliches that that were trotted out to sell a war and conveniently forgotten ever since.
Well, I agree we need to take a look at the Saudis. No quesiton there. Problem is we NEED their oil right now. I'm not sure what we can do until we get off of foreign oil (and eventually oil, period).
With all due respect my original statement contains irony. Saddam was known for his evilness, and now after he is imprisonned some aspects of social life in Iraq are worse.
Don't you find an irony here ?
I don't think that it has to do with Judeo-Christian laws, just human rights. Considering one gender has inferior with less rights is sickening.
Do you find normal to oblige a woman to put a veil if she don't want, especially she is christian.
What do you think, will be the future of christians people in Iraq ? I think that they will be obliged to be converted.
How do you support the notion that women are now "worse off" than they were?
Iraq is either better off or "not better off" now. There can be no question that it better off. I agree women need equal rights, but you won't convince anyone in Iraq had it better before Saddam's fall...except maybe Saddam. Of course we haven't "fixed" Iraq. That's not going to happen overnight.
Isn't that what I was saying? You're painting the issue in black and white. Of course people are better off in Iraq. What I'm saying is you can't allow that to make us complacent. It's not enough to chase off Saddam Hussein and then let a slightly better regime continue to oppress people, even if it's not to the extent that Saddam did. I do completely agree that Iraq is better off without Saddam, and that we haven't fixed it yet, and that it won't happen overnight. I just thought that you were being too much of an apologist for the Bush administration. Everyone in the US should be leaning on Bush to make things right in Iraq. If we don't, he might just leave them by the wayside, and no one wants that. The US has a responsibility to uphold there, and we damn well better do the right thing.
Well that seems unlikely to me - but I would prefer it a million times over Saudi.
Iranians can travel freely, there is a thriving and award winning international film industry - one that is highly critical of the regime. The leading filmaker is a woman for God's sake. An Iranian poet just won the Nobel Prize (another woman), the whole of Teheran is covered with internet cafes and women are in positions of influence in the workplace.
Of course it is part of the 'axis of evil' and so must be demonic but you can always visit and check it out for yourself. You won't even get a visa for Saudi, though it western Arab ally #1.
Won't happen anyway, The Saudis won't let any Shi'i grouping gain power in Iraq and when they say jump the US will dance the foxtrot.
Well, I agree we need to take a look at the Saudis. No quesiton there. Problem is we NEED their oil right now. I'm not sure what we can do until we get off of foreign oil (and eventually oil, period).
You don't see the total and utter hyprocrisy in this statement (in the light of your other arguments) at all do you? Not to mention the irony. Yes America must defend human rights and freedom - unless of course you've got something the US wants.
Good you answered my question finally. Jeez it's the friggin' white man's burden all over again. Oh and...
Well I guess your idealistic measuring stick on things is explained by your "from" entry. It would be nice if we all could live in fluffy fantasy world... Tell me- do you own a car?
How do you support the notion that women are now "worse off" than they were?
I repeat some aspects of life for women are worse than before. Many aspects are much better (and i do not see the necessity of elaborating this point, but will do if some people disagree with this point), but the future of woman in Iraq seems bright ...
Fangorn :
Quote:
Either everyone on this planet should be held to the same standard of right and wrong, or it's all mob rule and a crap shoot; if you live in a country with a dictator and tyrannical mindset, that's your problem.
You can't bitch about the U.S. being in Iraq in one breath and then complain because Iraqi women are losing their "rights." The people who want women veiled want the U.S. out just as badly.
No problem with part one, but there is a contradiction with part 2.
Nobody asked US to change the fate of Iraq people. The WOMD thing is a vaporware and US admin itself is now blaming bad intelligence (there is plenty of thread about this point elsewhere). If they found WOMD, they could just have put in jail or hell Saddam and his fellows : it was their right, the preemptive war would have been right.
Now the only reason for this war, was ousting a tyrant : good, but if it's the case US has the responsabilitie to help building the best democratic system. I know it's difficult and not an easy trip, but if they failed, then the war would have been an error.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Pfflam,
Using the term "mysogynistic-fundamentalism" does not impresss me. You speak of a diplomatic effort. What kind of effort are you talking about?
Damn . . .I was trying to impress you by using those BIG mult-parted words . . . . and . . jeez, if you didn't notice by golly!!
Diplomatic effort: I mean in some way presenting a constitution that would seem in the intersts of even the Idiot-macho-orthodoxreligious-nuts (aka= "mysogynistic-fundamentalism" ) would abide by, that has, as part of it, a respect for universal Civil Rights, including the rights of women.
It is vague because I think, as I said, that it would be virtually impossible considering the triangulation of regressive attitudes: once repressed archaic religious ideas and ancient tribalism and a war hardened people . . . it also excacerbates the issue that their are real competing forms of each of those three backward-leaning tendencies
(ooops... did I say "backward-leaning tendencies" . . . didn't mean to throw you for a loop SDW)
So, it would take a miracle worker who could work magic with diplomacy . . . maybe Shwarzennegger?
Human Rights is a pile of crap.
/someone needs some Imprisonment for a Crime They Did Not Commit.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's a rather vague question. I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Alrighty I'll try again.
The reason the question sounded so vague was because I was trying to phrase it in a way that didn't express any opinion on my part because I'm not after a polemical response. I just want to know. I think you know as well as I do, that we're not going to agree here but that doesn't deter me from wanting to understand your point of view.
I guess what I was asking was why should the US be the world's international policeman but I didn't want to ask it like that because "international policeman" seems like a bit of a loaded phrase.
How about this. Why is it right for the US to involve itself uninvited in the affairs of other sovereign countries? And I don't want you to answer in terms of why those countries need you (eg. WMD, abuse of human rights etc). At the start of WW2 when Hitler started stomping around Europe, the US didn't get involved because at that time it's foreign policy was in many ways opposite to what it is now. So what drives (in your opinion) the current policy.
I guess what I'm really trying to find out is if there is an answer to that question that doesn't boil down to because we know best or we're better or we have a duty to spread democracy or whatever.
And yes I realise it's kind of off topic but then again it's not.
Originally posted by SDW2001
With all due respect, that's exactly what you were arguing, whether you knew it or not.
What should it be based on, Judeo-Christian laws? Do you think that would be accepted?
With all due respect my original statement contains irony. Saddam was known for his evilness, and now after he is imprisonned some aspects of social life in Iraq are worse.
Don't you find an irony here ?
I don't think that it has to do with Judeo-Christian laws, just human rights. Considering one gender has inferior with less rights is sickening.
Do you find normal to oblige a woman to put a veil if she don't want, especially she is christian.
What do you think, will be the future of christians people in Iraq ? I think that they will be obliged to be converted.
Originally posted by segovius
Why do you think this ? Because of Islam or because of 'radical' Islam ?
Essential Islam accepts Jesus, accepts the virgin birth, believes the Bible and New Testaments are sent from God, believes that Christian and Jews will go to heaven and believes that Jesus will return to earth.
I guess that's why Christianity has survived in Islam lands for 1500 years and why Jews and 'heretic' Christians sought safety in Islamic Spain from the Church's pogroms of the middle ages.
Of course if you mean anti-Muslims like Saudi might gain a foothold in Iraq then you have a very valid point and it is a real concern.
I haven't got any problems with tolerant islam.
I fear that the islam who oblige people of others religions to comply with their religious standarts, do not belong to the tolerant one.
I don't think it will turn into Saudi'like, but more in the Iran like way.
Why are the "fundamentalist" muslims wrong? How can you walk into a country and say, "this Islamic principle is okay, but that one has to go out the door?" What is the basis for "human rights"? Natural law? Who gets to decide what consitutes "natural law"?
If you aren't going to upfront about the basis for your arguments, then your wasting your breath.
Either everyone on this planet should be held to the same standard of right and wrong, or it's all mob rule and a crap shoot; if you live in a country with a dictator and tyrannical mindset, that's your problem.
You can't bitch about the U.S. being in Iraq in one breath and then complain because Iraqi women are losing their "rights." The people who want women veiled want the U.S. out just as badly.
That doesn't mean I agree that women should be veiled. I just don't think you can pick and choose what and predominately Islamic country applies of it religious convictions.
And yeah, this post is full of glib statements without much elaboration, but I've only got a little bit of time. Sue me.
And yeah, I'm a woman. And I wouldn't put up with it.
Originally posted by Fangorn
You can't bitch about the U.S. being in Iraq in one breath and then complain because Iraqi women are losing their "rights.'
Sure I can
And mean it too.
Originally posted by Fangorn
The whole discussion is "I want my cake and eat it too!"
Why are the "fundamentalist" muslims wrong? How can you walk into a country and say, "this Islamic principle is okay, but that one has to go out the door?" What is the basis for "human rights"? Natural law? Who gets to decide what consitutes "natural law"?
If you aren't going to upfront about the basis for your arguments, then your wasting your breath.
Either everyone on this planet should be held to the same standard of right and wrong, or it's all mob rule and a crap shoot; if you live in a country with a dictator and tyrannical mindset, that's your problem.
You can't bitch about the U.S. being in Iraq in one breath and then complain because Iraqi women are losing their "rights." The people who want women veiled want the U.S. out just as badly.
That doesn't mean I agree that women should be veiled. I just don't think you can pick and choose what and predominately Islamic country applies of it religious convictions.
And yeah, this post is full of glib statements without much elaboration, but I've only got a little bit of time. Sue me.
And yeah, I'm a woman. And I wouldn't put up with it.
You get my vote! Thank you for posting in, because that is exactly the idea I wanted to express, as well.
My own comments to add:
Women's rights are certainly important, but for a country as F-dup as Iraq, right now, it is not exactly the foremost priority. Reform will come over time to all the areas that need it. I think the least we can do for Iraqi women right now is to ensure that their basic human rights are being met, rather than if they are forced to wear a veil or not. Right now, we just need to concentrate on making it a remotely functional, viable nation. Otherwise, it won't matter if you have women's rights in place or not, because there won't be a civilization there to benefit from it.
That's just my 2 cts, but what do I know about nation building, anyway? I'm sure a lot of people here are not nation builder experts, either, so lets try to avoid the "well, the solution to this is obviously xyz, and if you don't agree, you are a [add political party here] idiot" tone. Can we do that, people?
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
SDW, you said in another post that it's ridiculous to say that disagreeing with gay rights (or agreeing with the President on the issue of gay rights) will automatically make you a gay hater.
Apparently you cannot take your own advice. Just because we don't like the current situation in Iraq does not mean we automatically want Saddam reinstated. I think what Powerdoc and others are trying to argue is that the US hasn't completely "fixed" Iraq. Yeah, we've gotten rid of Saddam and his evil practices, but that doesn't make us saints. I do think the Iraqi people should follow a constitution based on their own ideals, but I also think it should include things like religious freedom that we value so much here in the US. If a woman is not a Muslim, let her be herself and not be forced into Islam against her will!
I could go on to say that you hate Iraqi women because you favor the current constitution which allows violence against free-thinking Iraqi women to go on, but I won't. Likewise, you could call me a bigot against Islam for saying that, but I really hope you won't. We both know that those statements aren't true.
Iraq is either better off or "not better off" now. There can be no question that it better off. I agree women need equal rights, but you won't convince anyone in Iraq had it better before Saddam's fall...except maybe Saddam. Of course we haven't "fixed" Iraq. That's not going to happen overnight.
Originally posted by segovius
Probably true but sooner or later we (in the west) are going to have to start asking questions about this administration's middle east agenda.
The worst abuser of women's rights (human rights actually) in the region (in the world possibly) is Saudi. Worse than Syria, worse than Saddam, worse than the Taleban, worse than anyone in the 'axis of evil'.
The Saudi-US relationship needs to be put under the microscope and until that happens we have to question the 'commitment' to democracy, human rights and all the other dial-a-cliches that that were trotted out to sell a war and conveniently forgotten ever since.
Well, I agree we need to take a look at the Saudis. No quesiton there. Problem is we NEED their oil right now. I'm not sure what we can do until we get off of foreign oil (and eventually oil, period).
Originally posted by Stoo
/someone needs some Imprisonment for a Crime They Did Not Commit.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
With all due respect my original statement contains irony. Saddam was known for his evilness, and now after he is imprisonned some aspects of social life in Iraq are worse.
Don't you find an irony here ?
I don't think that it has to do with Judeo-Christian laws, just human rights. Considering one gender has inferior with less rights is sickening.
Do you find normal to oblige a woman to put a veil if she don't want, especially she is christian.
What do you think, will be the future of christians people in Iraq ? I think that they will be obliged to be converted.
How do you support the notion that women are now "worse off" than they were?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Iraq is either better off or "not better off" now. There can be no question that it better off. I agree women need equal rights, but you won't convince anyone in Iraq had it better before Saddam's fall...except maybe Saddam. Of course we haven't "fixed" Iraq. That's not going to happen overnight.
Isn't that what I was saying? You're painting the issue in black and white. Of course people are better off in Iraq. What I'm saying is you can't allow that to make us complacent. It's not enough to chase off Saddam Hussein and then let a slightly better regime continue to oppress people, even if it's not to the extent that Saddam did. I do completely agree that Iraq is better off without Saddam, and that we haven't fixed it yet, and that it won't happen overnight. I just thought that you were being too much of an apologist for the Bush administration. Everyone in the US should be leaning on Bush to make things right in Iraq. If we don't, he might just leave them by the wayside, and no one wants that. The US has a responsibility to uphold there, and we damn well better do the right thing.
Originally posted by segovius
Well that seems unlikely to me - but I would prefer it a million times over Saudi.
Iranians can travel freely, there is a thriving and award winning international film industry - one that is highly critical of the regime. The leading filmaker is a woman for God's sake. An Iranian poet just won the Nobel Prize (another woman), the whole of Teheran is covered with internet cafes and women are in positions of influence in the workplace.
Of course it is part of the 'axis of evil' and so must be demonic but you can always visit and check it out for yourself. You won't even get a visa for Saudi, though it western Arab ally #1.
Won't happen anyway, The Saudis won't let any Shi'i grouping gain power in Iraq and when they say jump the US will dance the foxtrot.
Yes, Iran is in great shape.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, I agree we need to take a look at the Saudis. No quesiton there. Problem is we NEED their oil right now. I'm not sure what we can do until we get off of foreign oil (and eventually oil, period).
You don't see the total and utter hyprocrisy in this statement (in the light of your other arguments) at all do you? Not to mention the irony. Yes America must defend human rights and freedom - unless of course you've got something the US wants.
Good you answered my question finally. Jeez it's the friggin' white man's burden all over again. Oh and...
Yes, the US is in great shape.
Originally posted by SDW2001
How do you support the notion that women are now "worse off" than they were?
I repeat some aspects of life for women are worse than before. Many aspects are much better (and i do not see the necessity of elaborating this point, but will do if some people disagree with this point), but the future of woman in Iraq seems bright ...
Fangorn :
Either everyone on this planet should be held to the same standard of right and wrong, or it's all mob rule and a crap shoot; if you live in a country with a dictator and tyrannical mindset, that's your problem.
You can't bitch about the U.S. being in Iraq in one breath and then complain because Iraqi women are losing their "rights." The people who want women veiled want the U.S. out just as badly.
No problem with part one, but there is a contradiction with part 2.
Nobody asked US to change the fate of Iraq people. The WOMD thing is a vaporware and US admin itself is now blaming bad intelligence (there is plenty of thread about this point elsewhere). If they found WOMD, they could just have put in jail or hell Saddam and his fellows : it was their right, the preemptive war would have been right.
Now the only reason for this war, was ousting a tyrant : good, but if it's the case US has the responsabilitie to help building the best democratic system. I know it's difficult and not an easy trip, but if they failed, then the war would have been an error.
Originally posted by segovius
They've definitely got some babes that are in great shape under those burkas k....
So what are you doing roaming around the streets of Bagdhad with those X-Ray goggles...hmmmm ?
Aqua
Yeah, I own a car Randycat - a flying one (doesn't everybody?
(either/or, black/white, either/or, black/white - yep I think I've got it).