So Basically, Women Have Just Lost Their Rights In Iraq

[Me.]

No wmds and no votes for women!

BUSH CAVES IN TO ISLAMIST CONSTITUTION FOR IRAQ -- AND THE U.S. PRESS MISSES THE STORY


"If the Bush administration brokered a deal in Occupied Iraq to enshrine Islamic law as the guiding principle of the new Iraqi Constitution, you'd think it would be headline news in the U.S. media, wouldn't you? Well, that's what has happened -- yet you can search the Sunday papers in vain to find this sell-out to the Islamists clearly portrayed -- or, in some cases, even mentioned.

"But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam 'the,' not 'a,'main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test. 'We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want.'"

In a dispatch that Reuters moved at 1:33 P.M. on Saturday (August 20), the headline reads, "U.S. concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law." "U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure," Reuters reported. "Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.


Under the soporific headline, "Iraqi Talks Move Ahead on Some Issues," The Sunday New York Times did report, under an August 20 Baghdad deadline, that "Under a deal brokered Friday by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, Islam was to be named "a primary source of legislation" in the new Iraqi constitution, with the proviso that no legislation be permitted that conflicted with the 'universal principles' of the religion. The latter phrase raised concerns that Iraqi judges would have wide latitude to strike down laws now on the books, as well as future legislation. At the same time, according to a Kurdish leader involved in the talks, Mr. Khalilzad had backed language that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes. That gave rise to concerns that women's rights, as they are enunciated in Iraq's existing laws, could be curtailed. Finally, according to the person close to the negotiations, Mr. Khalilzad had been backing an arrangement that could have allowed clerics to have a hand in interpreting the constitution." But because of the way the Times presented the story, it's doubtful that anyone bothered to pay attention to it or wade into the body of the story to find this revealing detail." cont...



http://www.pageoneq.com/news/2005/bush_caves_0821.html

[ComerPerro]

1. An Islamic state is on the march!

FReepers love to talk about how horrible the Taliban was, and how its good that we liberated Afghanistan.

Yet, at the same time, they are pushing to set up something similar here (just Christian, but that's the only difference) and are seemingly helping to create a new Taliban in Iraq.

Disgusting.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Wonderful, isn't it? and we broke their public utilities. And killed

our folks and theirs. And all just for a trillion bucks.

Lovely.

[ComerPerro]

8. what a bargain

And, as an added bonus, our gas prices have almost doubled.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Exactly

On Maher's show Friday night he was talking about this and some blonde rightwing wacko kept saying over and over the talking points of how Saddam was sooo evil and how the women are sooo better now. :eyes: I wanted to scream but it was eleven pm at night and my dad was in bed.

[mike_c]

22. OBL must really be enjoying this....

The Great Satan overthrew one of his least favorite secular governments, and made itself a pariah all over the world in the process, only to help install an Islamist state in its place. Allah works in mysterious ways indeed.

[fujiyama]

2. Keep this kicked

We go to Iraq to create an Islamist state where women have no right to vote?!!??!

Next time you hear some kool aid chugger claim we went there to free the Iraqis and goes on about women not wearing burkhas should just bring this fact up!

[FreedomAngel82]

9. They'll just tell you

about those "elections" in January. "Women were there!!!" Yeah, to tell us to get the fuck out!

[Me.]

18. And What Double Ticks Me Off

Is that the taxes women pay in this country have now gone to setting up a government that takes women's rights away.

[plasticwidow]

100. Takes Women's Right Away ????

"Is that the taxes women pay in this country have now gone to setting up a government that takes women's rights away."

Well, we don't know what the government in Iraq is going to do or what form it is going to take. They don't even have a constitution yet. However, if it is truly Islamic as it is supposed to be, and not some corrupted version of Islam, then women have a whole lot of rights, more than men do. Please do not presume that because the government or law is titled "Islam" or "Islamic" that it automatically takes away the rights of women (or any other individual). Islam gave the vote to women 1400 years ago, as opposed to America giving women the right to vote less than a hundred years ago. The message of Islam was revolutionary for its time and brought an end to female infanticide and gave a voice and a vote to women who up until that time had been considered nothing more than property. And it forbade the practice of marrying women off to someone they did not want to marry, among many other rights of women. There were women scholars and educators from the earliest days of Islam, the right to literacy and an education for all women was promised by the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself at the time. Unfortunately many of these ideals have been lost by governments consisting of men but we must never forget that the real ideas of Islam were quite revolutionary at that time and still remain revolutionary.. guaranteed rights for women, children and animals were covered by the prophet in the very first consitution ever written, the Consistution of Medina. Perhaps what is needed isn't a knee-jerk reaction against the idea of an Islamic Government, but rather the promotion of a real Islamic government, just as christian values shouldn't be reviled because of the word "christian" but rather maybe real christian values such as those taught by Christ (peace be upon him) should be promoted. It isn't an Islamic government we should be fighting against, but rather the right type of Islamic government we need to try and promote. Any future that Iraq has is up to the people of Iraq and we're not going to help them or our relationship with them by condemning their choices.

Peace to you!

Jean

[Me.]

120. Nice Post

I will hope that when all is said and done that the "true" version of Islam rules the day.

[AuntPatsy]

4. color me surprised.

[eleny]

7. How about a lovely shade of burka blue?

[AuntPatsy]

14. shaded with a slight hint of gray highlights and we have a deal.

[eleny]

6. Is this the noble cause?

[Jacobin]

10. That's only the beginning of the bad news

Think:

A huge new Afghanistan, filled with experienced fighters who are enraged by the torture, rape and pillage of their country.....this time with the world's second largest reserves of oil....and lots of money.

The blowback from IraqNam will be felt for decades and is likely to cause bedlam the likes of which we have not seen for 60 years.

We can thank George Fucking Bush and his nimrod idiot PNACing fuckwads for this....oh, and the complicit Dem idiots who helped him do it.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. Let me shout this out loud......

SUBMISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

[PurgedVoter]

79. Brilliant! nt

[Me.]

12. “So, after all the lives lost in Iraq, the US just threw women's rights

down the toilet"!

“After talking for years about the evil of Saddam Hussein (and yes he was evil), and saying that the very REASON we were going to war, and then staying at war (even when the WMD lie was exposed) was to give the Iraqis a "Democracy" --- something that BushCo has resoundingly insisted the people of Iraq wanted (um, Georgie, where were those flowers you said they would greet us with again?? Oh---you're probably too busy riding around on Tour de Crawford to remember that promise).

So, today, in order to rush through the constitution of Iraq, so that back here they can tell the sheeple sitting so very far away from Iraq (most of whom do not even possess a US passport) that "IRAQ HAS A CONSTITUTION" - the US has just agreed to allow the clause in the constitution of Iraq that "Islam will be THE main source of law" in the country.

Of course, they won't mention this to the sheeple, most of whom get their news through their church's filtered reading material. They won't mention that Islamic law will not only NOT be democratic at all, it will strip all of the rights of women- rights that at least they did have prior to being "freed" by Georgie's gang. Women will:

1. Not be allowed an education (even writing or reading in most cases)
2. Not be allowed to drive
3. Not be allowed to be seen anywhere outside their homes without the shroud of a burka
4. If a woman is raped, she will be the criminal, not the man who raped her
5. Under Islamic law, if a women is even accused of adultery, she is killed - usually by a father or brother or uncle, and this is okay - women are not allowed into a court to defend themselves” cont…


http://www.bigbrassblog.com/2005/08/so-after-all-lives-lost-in-iraq-us.html

subject line edited

[plasticwidow]

102. Islamic Law

What you are describing sounds more like our good old ally, Saudi Arabia, who we haven't tried to free from their oil yet. :)

And not like the Islamic Government of Iran, which doubtless the Shiites of Iraq will use as a model for their own government. You might be surprised if you look at the rest of the Islamic world and see that the Saudis are a minority actually. All around the Arabian peninsula Islamic feminists and their supporters are slowly making headway, particularly in the fields of politics. In most Islamic countries women have guaranteed rights of voting and an education. The Saudis are the exception, not the rule. And unfortunately the Saudis will be the last to change their ways.

Peace to you!

Jean

[jimshoes]

13. We have surrendered our principles?

That's what this sounds like to me.

Edit to add
They not we, meaning bushco.

[AuntPatsy]

17. Old news, they are always trying to find new ways to diminish

women's rights to that of the little women standing quietly behind but yet close enough to have to freshen up the stench of disquiet that is often left in the wake of those that believe themselves superior...

[journalist3072]

15. Warms my heart, I tell you!

I'm so proud of our country! We have taken the lead and spread democracy to those terrible outposts of tyranny!

Well done, George, Condi and Rummy!

In all seriousness though, I don't think I've ever been so embarrassed to be an American. I do not recognize my country anymore.

[Terran]

16. Did anyone actually think this *wasn't* going to happen?

I think the odds against a real secular democracy being the immediate outcome of what * has done are approximately infinity to one.

[evil eggplant]

19. essentially, yes..

Essentially, yes.

So much for Bush dream of a peaceful, democratic secular society. Why is it that everything we touch in the Mideast turns into shit?

I'm a fucking moron, but if you asked me, I could have told you this was going to happen.

It was so obvious.

[SmokingJacket]

65. Yes, it was so totally obvious I want to scream.

From the beginning I said, (*I*, who really knows nothing other than what I read in the papers and on the internets) that if the Shi'ites are the majority, and we are pushing for democracy, then... we'll have another Islamic government in Iraq and all that entails. I mean DUH!

Saddam maintained a secular government by squelching the Shi'ites. Was that a good thing? No! But it was the only way a secular goverment was going to happen there.

The idea that some kind of Americanesque democracy would sprout in Iraq made no sense at all -- never did.

It just pisses me off to be right!!

[evil eggplant]

75. history repeating itself

So fucking obvious. What a bunch of morons we are, huh?

[Solly Mack]

20. Yes, soldiers and Iraqis died so theocracy could flourish

[tuckessee]

76. Not quite

The soldiers killed the Iraqis so theocracy could flourish.

I wonder how this sits with the GI Janes? American women being empowered so that they could plunge millions of foreign women into the Dark Ages.

[Solly Mack]

78. but right wingers don't care about Iraqis

but they do pretend to care about the troops...so if you say troops died for an Islamic theocracy, it mocks the lie of Bush spreading democracy

Bush claims the troops and Iraqis dying...well, he calls it "sacrifice", is for democracy...so...

[Copperred]

80. Our troops are dying for a Islamic Theocracy....

That's perfect...

[Solly Mack]

82. It says so much...in just a few words

it exposes the lie, it exposes the hypocrisy and it exposes the bushbots as fools...

[mike_c]

21. America overthrew a stable secular government to install...

...an islamic state. Now THAT is Osama bin Ladin's greatest victory. OMFG.

[Solly Mack]

24. Bush eradicated Christianity in Iraq (new phrase to tick rw's off)

[tuckessee]

83. That would make a great bumper sticker...

...or sig line at FReakville.

[Me.]

25. Exactly!

So typical of this administration. Will the people, especially the women, of this country pay attention?

[mzteris]

23. 1st Iraq

Then Amurkha.

You know wimmin are s'posed to stay home barefoot and pregnant.

After all, can encouraging housewives to be LAWYERS be good for the common good???????????

:sarcasm:

[Egalitariat]

26. What rights did they have to lose?

[Me.]

27. They Had The Right To Vote

To be educated, to drive, to not wear the burka, to divorce & inherit, to work as professionals, the right to their children.

[cornermouse]

28. Women did not have to wear burkas under Saddam Hussein.

And believe it or not, they did have rights and freedom. For women, this is a major step backwards.

[me b zola]

118. Well,

They had the same rights as the women of Afghanistan did BEFORE we created the taliban & OBL.

Women were allowed to vote, were educated, and were professionals--very much like the western nations.

[spuddonna]

29. Well, that's just great...

I'm sure with this kind of 'freedom on the march', we'll all be wearing burkas soon...

:grr:

[walldude]

30. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't

Regan and Rummy support Saddam to keep Iraq from becoming an Islamic Republic and allying themselves with Iran?

So much for spreading freedom and democracy... I wonder what the new reason for invading is going to be.

[H2O Man]

31. The corporate media

will barely report the true story. As I mentioned in another thread, a politician from a close ally told VP Cheney recently that the US has lost the war in Iraq, and that now it is merely a question of how bloody and expensive the defeat becomes. Iraq is becoming part of the Persian Empire, not part of the Republican/Neocon Conglomerate.

There are articles in the recent editions of both Time and Newsweek that hint at how terribly wrong the US effort has gone in Iraq. Bush has clearly replaced LBJ as the least competent Commander in Chief this nation has had in the past 150 years.

[kath]

63. But LBJ at least did some good...

EVERYTHING Chimpyshit does is a total, utter disaster.

[H2O Man]

87. You are 100% right.

LBJ did a lot of good things. His "Great Society" was well-intended and progressive. He was also tortured by the war. Unlike Bush, LBJ had the capacity to feel guilty about sending young people to their deaths. I find LBJ a fascinating person.

[Quixote1818]

32. So our soldiers are dying protecting a country that will stand for

everything we are against????? It's like we are protecting the writers of the Iranian constitutional convention.

:argh:

[Me.]

33. As Good As

this is such a freakin', colossal failure. Was just watching a show on Caligula and was struck by how I kept thinking about "Little Boots" B***. What a stupid failure he is, along with those lemmings who voted for him and continue to stand by him. I wish they'd all make a push towards the sea.

And once again Howard Dean was right, women were better off under SH, as ghastly as that was.

[Quixote1818]

34. You know this is a HUGE failure and a HUGE talking point for Dem's

Once the constitution is written and if it contains language that takes rights away from women and other insane things we need to go absolutely ballistic!!!!!!! We have to scream at the top of our lungs about this because it's absolutely an outrage that our kids are dying to protect a country that stands for everything we are against!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :argh: :argh: :argh: :grr: :grr: :grr: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Me.]

37. We Need To Start Screaming NOw

write everyone you can think of. I felt like screaming this morning when some jerk on MTP said women didn't have to have the vote for there to be a democracy in Iraq, they only got it in the 20th century in this country, after all. The whole thing is simply mind boggling! Women should stop paying taxes until they make sure that constitution guarantees rights for women. Have to stop now, I feel a rant coming on.

[mike_c]

68. not just to protect that country-- to CREATE it....

:grr:

[H2O Man]

36. This is terrible,

but not only is Dean right, but Imus is right when he says the best thing Bush could do would be to let Saddam out, say "sorry we killed your psychopath sons," and put him back in power.

Cheney's plan has made the world a far more dangerous place. Rumsfeld has exposed himself to be a fucking pin head. And the president is the most dismal of failures.

[Me.]

38. Damn Them All

to hell!

[alarimer]

73. It's probably what they want to happen here

I think there is a certain segment in the Republican party and conservative movement that wants women to have no rights. Look at Santorum. That's why they are not complaining too loudly.

[wli]

35. they're losing their rights here, too

After all, we wouldn't want them to "hate us for our freedoms."

[Eloriel]

39. I saw some American jerk this afternoon on TV (Blitzer??)

saying that it wouldn't be SO terrible if what got installed in Iraq was equivalent to 1900 U.S. democracy (where women couldn't vote until the Women's Suffrage Amendment was passed with TN being the last state in 1919).

See plenty of it here on DU: women's rights and gay rights are entirely disposable, immaterial, not worth bothering about in the grand scheme of things.

[H2O Man]

52. Pathetic.

It wasn't so bad in South Africa, either, according to that line of reasoning. One suspects that if it were men being denied the right to vote, it is possible -- perhaps even likely -- that his opinion would be different.

[Eloriel]

110. Correction -- and text

It was on Meet the Press, and here's what the jerk actually said:

Gerecht:
"Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876

Edited to put a point on the obvious: You simply can't see men and women as equal if it's "okay" with you that women don't have the same rights. This man is a misogynist pig, and a danger to not just Iraqis, not just women, but to the world. And, that would go without saying just knowing he's a PNACer.

[cthrumatrix]

40. sadly...it could get even worse IF "civil war" is to breakout on

the distribution of weath issues ...meaning "OIL".

The Sunni's in the middle of the country are not too happy.

[growlypants]

41. Yeah, and the woonderful Codoleeza Rice played an integral part

She is such a total sell out. I hope she goes to jail when the rest of em do.

[BrightKnight]

42. Freedom = Fundamentalism in Bush speak.

I don't think that he understands the difference between Freedom an Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is on the march.

[BrightKnight]

45. A war for Islamic Fundamentalism in the name of 9/11?

That is ironic.

[BrklynLiberal]

43. Meet the Press, Reuel Marc Gerecht,"not too worried about it"

After they take Iraq back to the 1900s, they will do the same to the USA.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, discussing the forthcoming Iraqi constitution on Meet the Press, August 21:
"In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective."

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4415996:puke:

[jimshoes]

53. I keep asking myself

how can these people keep becoming more and more vile by the minute. When it's incomprehensible that they can sink any lower they take a quantum jump into the next level of hell.

[ninkasi]

54. Reuel Marc Gerecht

Needs to be locked up in the same room as me, my daughter, my stepdaughter, and 3 granddaughters. We will explain women's rights to him. He might survive the explanation. My daughter-in-law is welcome to be there, too, but his survival would not be an issue then.

[NightOwwl]

44. In other words...

Spreading freedom and democracy in Iraq, was nothing more than a bunch of crap.

[BrklynLiberal]

48. Right from the getgo..

[BrklynLiberal]

46. Article about this by James Wolcott

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/08/the_shame_game.php

The Shame Game
Posted by James Wolcott

Roger L. Simon, August 16: "Women's rights are the very center of the War on Terror. In fact I would argue Islamofascism at its core is more than anything else an expression of rage against women and that Islam itself is not much better on that score."

<snip>

"Those who think this war is not worth fighting chose to ignore the fate of hundreds of millions of Muslim women. Shame on them."

Reuel Marc Gerecht, discussing the forthcoming Iraqi constitution on Meet the Press, August 21: "Women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there, I think they will be there, but I think we need to keep this perspective."

So those who think this war isn't worth fighting are shameful because of their craven indifference to women's rights while one of the leading neocon architects of the very war that Simon champions--and not just any architect, but a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Director of the Middle East Initiative for the Project for the New American Century--isn't that concerned that a new Iraq constitution might roll back and restrict women's freedoms, subjecting them to Islamic law.

His exact words to MTP guest host David Gregory were, "Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this."

<snip>

Women's rights aren't at the center of the War on Terror, nowhere near the center. They're a flimsy, detachable rationale that neoconservatives won't hesitate to discard if inconvenient to their goals. If neocons have to choose between women's rights or permanent US military bases in Iraq, it'll be, "Burkas are a small price to pay for democracy. Besides, black is so fashionably slimming!"
08.21.05 2:27PM

[jbnow]

47. Now there's a cause to die for

Let freedom now unring.

Saddam is gone (I can't recall now, was that the end of torture and civilian deaths)
And we will leave women who have been free, educated, employed in careers of their choice...enslaved.

Victory!

[jimshoes]

56. Or ...

Let fiefdom reign. To parphrase the chimp.

[prodigal_green]

49. Each and every day

I am more and more convinced that the chimp is a Taliban "Manchurian Candidate"

Everything he does advances their islamofascist agenda.

[Perky]

50. The Neo-cons pretty hacked about this

Rumsfeld said it would neveer happen...

So we have torn down totalitarian regime and permitted an islamic one to replace it...

I saw this as inevitable two weeks ago and got flamed a hundred time for it.

[BrklynLiberal]

51. Iraq's Second-Class Citizens

Iraq's Second-Class Citizens Yifat Susskind August 18, 2005

Yifat Susskind is associate director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization.

This week’s constitutional crisis in Baghdad demonstrates again that the Bush administration’s drive to recreate the Middle East in its own image is producing theocracy, not democracy, in Iraq. On Bush’s watch, Iraq’s once-secular government has been delivered to religious parties (Dawa and the Prime Minister’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq) that want Iraq to be ruled by Islamic law. In the provinces they control (which make up roughly half the country), Islamists have already imposed severe restrictions on the rights of women and religious minorities. Now, they are fighting to ensure that Iraq’s new constitution paves the way for the creation of an Islamic state.

Like religious fundamentalists in the United States and around the world, these parties use religion as a means of asserting a reactionary political agenda that begins with the subjugation of women within the family. That’s why the first battle over the new constitution concerns family status laws governing marriage, divorce and women's inheritance and property rights. The Islamists are pushing to replace Iraq’s current statutes—among the most progressive in the Middle East—with language that would subordinate women’s human rights to arbitrary interpretations of Islamic law.

<snip>

The administration’s decision to trade women's rights for support from religious conservatives has left Iraqi women worse off today under U.S. occupation then they were under the notoriously repressive regime of Saddam Hussein. The Ba'ath Party utilized women's rights only to consolidate its own power. Yet, for all its brutality, Saddam Hussein’s government guaranteed women’s rights to education, employment, freedom of movement, equal pay for equal work and universal day care, as well as the rights to inherit and own property, choose their own husbands, vote and hold public office. Ironically, these fundamental rights stand to be abolished in an Iraq “liberated” by the United States in the name of (among other things) promoting democracy.

more....

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050818/iraqs_secondclass_citizens.php

[Quixote1818]

55. Nominated! This is a huge issue! Our soldiers are dying to take

womens rights away???? Why are we protecting these ass holes?

[BrklynLiberal]

58. A question everyone should be asking every day....

[robertpaulsen]

57. There's a good article on this in Scotland's Sunday Herald

US backs down on Islamic law in Iraq




By Luke Baker and Michael Georgy In Baghdad



THE careful negotiations over the Iraqi constitution appeared last night to be leaning further towards making Islamic law the main source of law for the country rather than a source after US diplomats apparently gave way to the concerns of Iraqi officials.
Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that “contradicted Islamic principles”.

Yesterday Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators, meeting with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani and US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before. (emphasis added by robertpaulsen)

One secular Kurdish politician said: “We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi’ites. It’s shocking. It doesn’t fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state. I can’t believe that’s what the Americans really want or what the American people want.”

more...

http://www.sundayherald.com/51378

Gee, I wonder what this PNAC former UNOCAL advisor could be up to?

[Me.]

60. "I can’t believe that’s what the Americans really want"

Chances are they won't even know unless we tell them, cause the media and the B***bots certainly aren't going to let the cat out of the bag.

[robertpaulsen]

62. Exactly. And they need lots of plumbers to fix those leaks.

Wonder if Khalilzad gets to hang out much with Iranian spy turned Iraqi Oil Minister Chalabi lately? Too many coincidences piling up.

[CornField]

59. Islamic Freedom is on the March!

Wow... what will the Christians say?

[rateyes]

61. A Shiite state...

just like Iran. I guess Iran wins the Iran/Iraq war after all! Oh, the irony of it all.

[melody]

64. Bush nominated Roberts

If he's not a woman-hating fundamentalist, I don't know what one is.

[niallmac]

66. Womens rights womens schmites.

bushie said there would be a constitution on schedule and here it is. Libruls always complainin. :banghead:

[Greyhound]

67. Ironic isn't it

The women were better off under Saddam. We suck so much even I hate us. :grr:

[Me.]

69. This Is All Such A Travesty

This country should be lamenting what it has allowed that cocksure cow poke and his grievous posse to do. And then it should be afraid, very afraid.

[mixedview]

70. Well, you can't expect perfect Jeffersonian democracy

I'm a libertarian. I didn't agree with the way we went to war, but now that we're there we have to make it work.

Freedom is a process which begins with a few basic rights while leaving many wrongs unaddressed.

That is how it happened in this country. The founders wrote all types of loopholes and ambiguity into our Constitution because they knew it was all they could sell to a largely reactionary population (slavers, religous fundies, etc).

However, I agree we shouldn't allow anything other than a secular state with basic rights for all(including the right to vote for women), and maybe concede some ceremonial type of role for religious leaders - just as many former monarchies did for their traditional leaders. It is the best compromise until the tradition can be phased out. We are still trying to phase out the Christian fundies and social reactionaries in this country .. and I think this is just what the founders intended. They understood that the democratic process would eliminate the nuts eventually. Religion, traditionalism and other oppressive belief systems cannot stand up for very long under the forces of the market..under the free exchange of goods, services and ideas.


edit to add: our very own Bill of Rights was added after our Constitution was ratified, again, mainly because it's proponents knew it if included it would make ratification much more difficult if not impossible.

[alarimer]

74. No I don't think you can expect that either

And I don't know how to achieve a secular government there either but I also think that there is no way in hell we can do anything more. There are not enough troops there to even get the lights turned back on. How the hell are we going to get them to establish a democracy? Especially now that we have basically conceded the constitution to religious fundamentalists.

[mixedview]

84. the only way to have done this was

to first begin by telling the American people the truth about the reason for going to war. Then if support was there, we should've assembled a broad (not neccesarily UN) coalition, boxed Saddam in, and pressured him to surrender or leave peacefully, and only use force as a last resort. A broad coalition would've had a much easier time creating a strong democratic nation - they would've poured resources, people, troops, investment, etc into the effort. A military state and a plan for rebuilding similar to Japan after WWII would've been needed for years until stabilized.

In other words, if we wanted democracy there, we ourselves should've acted in a strong but democratic fashion, as an example for Iraqis and the world.

Now - I don't know. We probably need to bring in other countries (which would bring the neccessary resources) for this to have any chance of working.

[alarimer]

71. Women's rights are always the first to go

I guess you can dismiss half the population so a bunch of fundamentalist religious FREAKS can get their way. I guess this is what Georgie wanted. Fuck him and all those losers who voted for him.

[Me.]

72. Right There With You n/t

[buddysmellgood]

77. So that's what he means by "Freedom is on the march." It's womens freedom

and it's leaving.

[Swamp Rat]

81. This is a win/win for the Amerikan Taliban

THEY want women to be repressed and THEY want an excuse to nuke the Islamo-ragheads in the future. :puke:

[PsychoDad]

85. Women in Iran have the vote.

They also hold office.

It's in America's good friend Saudi Arabia where women have no rights.

There is nothing in the story that states women will have no voice in the government of an Islamic Republic in Iraq. Women had many rights in Saddam Iraq, and it's hard to accept that they would quietly stand by while they lose all rights.

My sisters in Iraq are strong, no the weak victims so often portrayed in the west. They have withstood 12 years of crushing sanctions and the slaughter of their men and children by our more "enlightened" country, and yes, I think they will have a say in any decision.

Please stop drinking the anti-Islamic kool aid that states that an Islamic republic would be bad that is being served up in preparation of our invasion of an Islamic republic. (namely Iran)

Would a Bush appointed dictatorship where none had a vote be better than an Islamic republic where men and women have the vote?

Any government that offers the people of Iraq a role in the direction their country takes is better than one that doesn't.

[Me.]

86. It Is Not Drinking The "anti-Islamic kool aid "

To be concerned about women's lives and their rights under Islamic religious law. As long as there is one single woman in a burka women everywhere have a right to be concerned. And to assume that women will have equal rights and abilities as men under Islamic law, as it is now interpeted, involves as much kool-aid as thinking B*** is a truth telling, faithful to the constitution, compassionate leader does.

[PsychoDad]

95. Currently no one in Iraq has any rights...

Under the rule of the Crusaders.

And I agree, the rights of women need to be fought for, wherever we can, be it in Iraq, or Ireland (where the state recognized religion is Catholicism and abortion is illegal) or here in the US (where women still, on the whole, earn less than their male counterparts).

What I object to the the knee jerk reaction to the Idea that the religion of the majority in Iraq is somehow going to automatically reduce the quality of life for women in that country, if the government recognizes the importance of Islam in that Government.

Honestly Me, can their condition worsen after we, the compassionate west has instilled upon the men AND WOMEN of Iraq 12 years of horrific sanctions then bombed their cities into rubble? Can their condition worsen from now where foreign men break into their homes, hold then at gunpoint, tie them up and tear their house apart? Can it worsen after we have raped and tortured them? After we have raped and killed their children in front of them?

Where are their rights right now? What is their recourse now?

And you think that somehow it will get worse because the government recognizes the religion of the majority as important?

And as far as you or I imposing our idea of a "fair and just democratic" government upon the Iraqi people against their will, what, tell me, is the difference between us and freepers who would impose their idea of a "fair and just democratic" government?

None.

Democracy does not come from being imposed, it comes because the people choose to take their own destiny into their own hands, and make their own decisions.

Not mine or yours, theirs.

Currently there is no indication that women will not retain the right to vote that they had under Saddam, or the right to an equal education which they also had. Rights which were influenced bu Islam, not in opposition to it. Much as in Iran, another Shiite Islamic Republic, which doubtless Iraq will attempt to emulate.

If I can find it, I will post an article by a friend of mine, a wonderful woman from Iraq who talks about the same sort of things. Insha Allah.

As far as wearing a berka, shouldn't that be up to the woman if she wishes to wear on or not? Shouldn't she have the right to choose?

Peace.

[Me.]

98. The Wearing Of a Burka Should Be The Choice of The Women

but it isn't. Where the law applies there is no choice but to submit. And from what I've read wearing it makes you dizzy, hot, nauseous and distorts your sight. Some choice!

Creating a theocratic government is light years away from " recognizing that the religion of the majority is important". Where one group's rights are diminished the validity of the government as a whole is diminished.

We are however in total agreement regarding the harm this country has done to Iraq.

[PsychoDad]

103. My suggestion...

Would be to see if it is possible to contact any representitives of the current Iraqi government (perhaps at the UN) and suggest strongly that the rights of women and minorities be maintained and respected in whatever government is approved.

I suspect that they will be, at least in the constitution.

I'll do that myself, as soon as I find a contact , and I'll share it.

Peace.

On Edit:
Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations
14 East 79th Street, New York, NY 10021
Telephone: [phone], Telefax: [phone]

[H2O Man]

88. Sure there is.

There is plenty in "the story" that indicates the women in Iraq will not have a strong voice in their government. Not having the right to vote is a pretty clear indicator of that. The OP is about women's rights in Iraq, not Iran, by the way.

[PsychoDad]

92. I missed the quote...

in the OP that stated "Women under the new Iraqi constitution will not have the right to vote".

I could not find it, perhaps you could point it out. I apologize in advance if it is there and I simply missed it.

[Bridget Burke]

97. There's nothing in the story about Iraqi women losing their right to vote.

And your reference to women's status in Iran is meaningful. Somebody else mentioned the burkha--found mainly in Afghanistan. Muslim women's status varies from country to country & sometimes within a country.

Christianity was responsible for centuries of oppression of women; some Christians want to bring back the old days. There are Muslim feminists trying to better things for themselves & their sisters--within their faith.

Invasion & occupation do not foster better rights for anyone. US sabre rattling against Iran does not help the Iranians who want further liberalization.

[H2O Man]

112. Nor will you find it

in my response to you. You can make things up if you want, but it doesn't do anything but diminish your stance.

[PsychoDad]

113. I wasn't claiming that you had made anything up.

The original post stated that Iraqi women were going to lose the right to vote. A position I did not see in the article.

You had mentioned in your response that women may not have a strong voice in the future constitution, a statement I percived to mean that you also had read that they would lose the vote.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

Whereas I agree that women may not have a strong voice in the future government of Iraq, at least to start, any voice is better than none, particularly if the chance exists for it to grow stronger. None of us have yet to see what form it will take, but as this thread shows, the mere mention of "Islamic law" has conjured up all sorts of images that have been placed in the western mind that may not hold true in this case..

Only time will tell.

[Me.]

119. "any voice is better than none"

Not an equal voice and not good enough. Would it satisfy you?

And it certainly isn't giving a voice to the majority, as 65% of the population of Iraq is female.

[txindy]

91. What about the women being attacked with acid or murdered?

The ones who aren't deemed to be wearing the 'proper' clothing? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/8a93a9929db09e4e7c5580a543e7e779.htm

There's a lot more at stake than voting:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraqconflict/women_2681.jsp

Just as Iraqi women were anticipating a new era of democracy and freedom, a wave of intimidation by extremist groups has arisen to crush their hopes. Violent oppression of women is spreading across Iraq, a weapon of mass mental and physical destruction. And yet there is silence from world leaders, religious leaders, politicians and the media.

Insurgents and religious extremists use rape, acid and assassination to force Iraqi women to wear the veil – the symbol of submission, first signal of further repression to come. Many Iraqi women have never worn the scarf. Now, dead bodies of girls and women are found in rivers and on waste ground with a veil tied around the head, as a message.

As well as unveiled women, key targets are those who wear make-up, who are well educated and in the professions, and who work with organisations connected with the coalition forces.

[Me.]

94. Good Article

as it describes exactly the peril women are now in and to think otherwise is to be as delusional as B***.

[PsychoDad]

99. Tell me...

Do you think these horrid actions against women are from the majority of Iraqi men, or a sick minority?

" Insurgents and religious extremists use rape, acid and assassination to force Iraqi women to wear the veil"

Insurgents... Those nasty Insurgents again. Let's not call them the Resistance.

And lets not mention that Iraqi women may be just as opposed to the invasion, occupation, rape and torture as the nasty ol insurgents.

I'm sorry, it just reads like so much pro war propoganda.

I'm sure that there are minority extreme elements that are doing horrid and criminal things, Just as they would do in a lawless America, but do you think the majority of Muslim men and women in Iraq support them? Do you think that their actions are even supported by the religion that they claim to be practicing?

You may want to look into that. A good place to start might be the Muslim Women's Leauge at http://www.mwlusa.org/welcome.html

The only thing that will help the women of Iraq is a government founded upon the rule of law. In the end that is up to the people of Iraq, men and women.

[txindy]

106. What are you talking about?!

And lets not mention that Iraqi women may be just as opposed to the invasion, occupation, rape and torture as the nasty ol insurgents.

Gee, I'm sorry, is it necessary to say that the Iraqi women are opposed to invasion, occupation, rape and torture?! Is there ANYONE on this entire PLANET who would think otherwise?! And what the HELL is with the comment about "the nasty ol insurgents?!"

Those "minority extreme elements" that you're talking about are taking over the entire country. You're hoping for the majority to restore order through "rule of law." Yeah, and that went so well in Afghanistan. You might want to look into that. Start with googling "Taliban," as in: NOT the majority in Afghanistan.

Talk about propaganda. I'm not the one with the Kool Aid. There's something awfully peculiar about this entire 'discussion'.

[PsychoDad]

115. Those "minority extreme elements" that you're talking about ...

"...are taking over the entire country. You're hoping for the majority to restore order through "rule of law." Yeah, and that went so well in Afghanistan. You might want to look into that. Start with googling "Taliban," as in: NOT the majority in Afghanistan."

Well, while I sip my kool aid :), firstly the future Islamic state of Iraq would probably be much more inclined to follow the example set by it's neighbor Iran, which is also majority Shia, not like the Taliban, which was influenced by Wahabbi sunni interpretations of the law. Remember it was the CIA and their agent Osamma Bin Ladin, among others, who overthrew the more progressive government that was in power with assistance from the soviets, which led to a state of lawlessness... but I digress.

In a democracy, one can only hope for the majority to impose civil order. A democracy operates on the presumption that a population knows what is best for itself. You know, the "we the people, by the people, for the people," etc.

As it seems that you do not feel that the majority of Iraqi's are able to govern themselves because they seem to want to enact a form of government that you feel is wrong, what is the answer?

Do we keep our troops there and impose our social order and values on them at gunpoint and call that democracy? Maybe it will only take a generation to indoctrinate the next generation. How many more lives will it cost?

We have a difference of opinion, you have pointed out the problem as you see it. What is your answer?

Mine is get out of there and allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves.

Peace

[txindy]

116. No, you lost me with your previous, telling post

And lets not mention that Iraqi women may be just as opposed to the invasion, occupation, rape and torture as the nasty ol insurgents.

That's just too weird for words. You're in your own little world. One that I want absolutely nothing to do with.

For the record, though, (and my last words to you on anything) I also think we should get out of Iraq and let them govern themselves. But it's not going to go the fairytale way that you've made up regarding women's rights and the law. But I doubt we see women's rights in the same way, anyway. I seriously doubt it.

[Me.]

107. Which Law?

Sharia (sp.?) or one where there is equal rights for all?

Arguing that women are as equal as men under theocratic law is a waste of your time and mine. Time and the new Iraqi constitution will tell that story soon enough.

The rule of equality is very simple, what is good for the gander is good for the goose. And there should be no parsing whatsoever.

And my standing up for the rights of women has nothing to do with pro-war propaganda in any way shape or form.

[PsychoDad]

114. Sharia.

Another word programed to elecit a negitive response in the modern western mind.

Since you have brought it up, what is Sharia? What is your understanding of it?

What do you in particular have against it?

""When many non-Muslims think of the Sharia, they often conjure up an image of a public beheading or amputation.

However, Sharia differs enormously in its various implementations throughout the Islamic world. " - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/621126.

Did you know the the legal systems of most Islamic countries is influenced by it, that there are five major schools of understanding and it's interpitation is not monolithic? That there are major differences between Shia Sharia and Sunni Sharia?

Wikipedia article on Sharia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Here's a CFR report on Sharia, most certanly not a source biased toward muslims.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=8034
A report from the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia/practical.shtml
An Islamic view
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/621126.stm

Enough for one to see that Sharia is only a guideline for a legal system, much as english common law influenced the legal systems of many countries in the west, and should not be considered monolithic in it's application. The truth of the matter is that irregarless of how "liberal" the future government of Iraq will or will not be, Sharia will probably still be influencial in the construction of the legal system.

As for the rule of equality, I couldn't agree more. That is exactally as it should be, but still is not, even here in the west.

[Fleshdancer]

89. You just know Santorum is proud of them for this. n/t

[leesa]

90. Mission Accomplished! Now, if only the Neocons can achieve that

triumph in America!

[Me.]

93. I'm Sure He's Deeply Appreciative

and in lock step with fundamentalists everywhere who would like to curtail women's rights. After all, women who don't stay at home and choose to go to college and get jobs are responsible for all the problems in this country. And damn those feminists, they are, for sure, wrecking the country, certainly not him and those like him.

[opihimoimoi]

96. One bad idea after another.....Damn.....

At least Bush is consistent....

[sunnystarr]

101. Let Cindy know that the "noble cause" has been clarified by

this administration. From the rw radio on my morning school drive, they're not too happy either. Maybe this is *'s way of uniting this country :sarcasm:!

[DemocracyInaction]

104. U.S. Supports Child Sexual Abuse.......how about reporting that??

Apparently under Sadaam it was forbidden to have the "young" marriages that are allowed in Islamic Law. Under Sadaam the girl had to be 16-17 years old. Islamic Law allows for 9 year olds to be "brides". How about throwing that up on the TV screen and letting Amurekans wave their plastic flags and congratulate themselves on all the wonderful things they have brought to the poor Iraqi people!!! And you won't even hear that from our Dem leaders, will you?? .. because they are all sleeping the same flea infested pig stye with this White House organized crime gang. Maybe it's time for "family members" to look in the mirror and admit that their "loved ones" died for absolutely, squat nothing. They were snookered. They contributed to their loved ones deaths because they refused to get off their lazy, fat asses and be informed of the workings of the Bush administration.

[lonestarnot]

105. Oh the sweet smell of freedom....

[Alpharetta]

108. PNAC victorious!

Let that be a lesson to you other Islamic states.

Democracy is on the march. Let freedom reign.

[wtmusic]

117. Completely

Ought to keep that war machine running smoothly for another 20 years

[Beaverhausen]

109. apparantly we are fighting for bhurkas over there...

...so we wont' fight when they make us wear them over here.

:mad:

[BlueJac]

111. GW care?

Bush doesn't care about the people in Iraq, that is just a cover for giving his oil buddies money!

[KamaAina]

121. Great. Now we get to invade 'em all over again.

'Cause they're a the-o-cracy, don'tcha know.

Also note:

Under a deal brokered Friday by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad,

Khalilzad is an original PNAC signatory. How in the Sam Hill did he get into such a sensitive post with a minimum of fuss in terms of confirmation?!

[Hissyspit]

122. Welcome, Theocracy.