Making Baby Jesus Cry

[nononono]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's progress as compared to where we started (i.e., a totatlitarian, brutal, oppressive regime). I also am not convinced that women will have fewer liberties than they had with Saddam, although I admit I have not seen the language proposed in the draft constitution.

I believe (will check if I get a chance) that the issue is the absence of express giving of rights. From a WSJ piece by
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament (I know, I know)on the Iraqi Constitution and its likely imposition of Shariah (Islamic law):

"Hamam Hamoudi, the head of Iraq's constitution committee, refuses to discuss the article that worries the Muslim women. He also refused to put in the draft constitution that men and women have equal rights, creating a bizarre situation whereby the women had more rights under Saddam Hussein's regime than in post-Saddam Iraq. Mr. Hamoudi insists that women will have full economic and political rights, but the overwhelming evidence shows that when Shariah -- which gives a husband complete control over his wife -- is in place, women have little chance to exercise any political rights. Does Mr. Hamoudi realize that it took the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a multiparty democracy for men to vote, while if his draft constitution is ratified, women will need the permission of their husbands to step out of the house in order to mark their ballot? I thought that President Bush and all the allies who supported the Iraq war aspired to bring democracy and liberty to all Iraqis. Aren't Iraqi girls and women human enough to share in that dream?

Under Shariah, a girl becomes eligible for marriage from the moment she starts to menstruate. In countries where Islamic law is practiced, child-brides are common. Do the drafters of the constitution grasp what this will mean for the school curriculum of girls or the risks of miscarriages, maternal fatalities and infant deaths? These and other hazards that affect subjugated women are common phenomena in the 22 Arab-Islamic countries investigated in the Arab Human Development Report. An early marriage also means many children in an area of the world that is already overpopulated and poor.

The draft Iraqi bill of rights favors men in other respects, such as the right to marry up to four wives, and the right to an easy divorce, without the interference of a court, simply by repeating "I divorce you" in the presence of two male witnesses. A wife divorced in such a fashion will receive an allowance for a period of three months to one year, and after that period nothing. On the other hand, if a wife wants a divorce, she must go to court and prove that her husband does not meet her material needs, that he is infertile and that he is impotent. Once a divorce is finalized, if there are children, the custody of the children will automatically go to the father (for boys at age 7 and for girls from the start of menstruation). Inheritance based on the Shariah means that wives will get only a small portion of the property of their husbands and a sister will get half what her brother gets."

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Irrelevant. The NRZ has not been repealed. If Arafat's words from the 90s are not probative as to the bad intentions of the Palestinians, then Bush's 1999 and 2000 speeches are off limits. Thanks for playing though.

I hear you and I agree to these terms. Let me ask you though, out of idle curiosity, has he at anytime publicly admitted that what he is now doing is Nation Building? Club says it as though that is now an accepted mission and I'm not sure this administration has ever said that is what it is trying to do, but I admit that I would rather watch paint dry than follow Bush admin press conferences (except for excerpts quoted on The Daily Show), so I may have missed this.

Is that the longest run-on sentence ever? Can I get a Faulkner ruling?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What? Ty, you just had a brain fart. There is every reason for the Sunnis to buy into to a 1 Iraq, precisely because they are sitting on shitty real estate and no oil.

The existence, persistence, and ferocity of the insurgency, and the selection of their targets, suggest that the Sunnis haven't bought into your "half a loaf" strategy.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I hear you and I agree to these terms. Let me ask you though, out of idle curiosity, has he at anytime publicly admitted that what he is now doing is Nation Building? Club says it as though that is now an accepted mission and I'm not sure this administration has ever said that is what it is trying to do, but I admit that I would rather watch paint dry than follow Bush admin press conferences (except for excerpts quoted on The Daily Show), so I may have missed this.

Is that the longest run-on sentence ever? Can I get a Faulkner ruling?

1. 9/11 changed things.

2. I have written sentences in excess of 300 words. Sorry.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Another ridiculous comment. I did not say that I thought there would be a civil war. I said that even if there is a protracted civil war the people in Iraq (And us) are better off. Do you think the Iraqi people would have been better off staying in SH's regime even if the civil war turns really bad? I think we should stay in and finish the job. And I don't think when we leave things will be all the bad. All I am saying if even if we did leave a civil war behind us things still are better off.

I don't think people appreciate how bad Saddam Husseins regime was. If you did you wouldn't be vocal on how the war was such a huge mistake.

I chose not to read this post.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
1. 9/11 changed things.

2. I have written sentences in excess of 300 words. Sorry.

I get the 9/11 changed things deal. I'm asking if the administration now is claiming that Nation Building is one of its goals here. Explicitly.

[William Faulkner]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I hear you and I agree to these terms. Let me ask you though, out of idle curiosity, has he at anytime publicly admitted that what he is now doing is Nation Building? Club says it as though that is now an accepted mission and I'm not sure this administration has ever said that is what it is trying to do, but I admit that I would rather watch paint dry than follow Bush admin press conferences (except for excerpts quoted on The Daily Show), so I may have missed this.

Is that the longest run-on sentence ever? Can I get a Faulkner ruling?

It's not bad, but you'll need to infuse it with both meandering points and hallucinatory reasoning in order to approach the works of Mr. Chinaski.

[William Faulkner]

While we're on the topic, those of you who have not seen it may wish to review the results of this year's Faux Faulkner Contest. The liberals may find it rewarding reading, though some conservatives may holler and find the room tilted.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I get the 9/11 changed things deal. I'm asking if the administration now is claiming that Nation Building is one of its goals here. Explicitly.

The Administration is too busy focusing on the hard work that needs to be done to acheive things. The semantics game ended when Clinton left office.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by William Faulkner
It's not bad, but you'll need to infuse it with both meandering points and hallucinatory reasoning in order to approach the works of Mr. Chinaski.

Say hello to the land of fu...................

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Say hello to the land of fu...................

Do you realize that, by quoting the widely ignored poster, you just exposed dozens of us to something that otherwise would have remained unpublished, as it were?

[SlaveNoMore]

nononono
I believe (will check if I get a chance) that the issue is the absence of express giving of rights. From a WSJ piece by
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament (I know, I know)on the Iraqi Constitution and its likely imposition of Shariah (Islamic law):

"Hamam Hamoudi, the head of Iraq's constitution committee, refuses to discuss the article that worries the Muslim women. He also refused to put in the draft constitution that men and women have equal rights, creating a bizarre situation whereby the women had more rights under Saddam Hussein's regime than in post-Saddam Iraq. Mr. Hamoudi insists that women will have full economic and political rights, but the overwhelming evidence shows that when Shariah -- which gives a husband complete control over his wife -- is in place, women have little chance to exercise any political rights. Does Mr. Hamoudi realize that it took the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a multiparty democracy for men to vote, while if his draft constitution is ratified, women will need the permission of their husbands to step out of the house in order to mark their ballot? I thought that President Bush and all the allies who supported the Iraq war aspired to bring democracy and liberty to all Iraqis. Aren't Iraqi girls and women human enough to share in that dream?

Under Shariah, a girl becomes eligible for marriage from the moment she starts to menstruate. In countries where Islamic law is practiced, child-brides are common. Do the drafters of the constitution grasp what this will mean for the school curriculum of girls or the risks of miscarriages, maternal fatalities and infant deaths? These and other hazards that affect subjugated women are common phenomena in the 22 Arab-Islamic countries investigated in the Arab Human Development Report. An early marriage also means many children in an area of the world that is already overpopulated and poor.

The draft Iraqi bill of rights favors men in other respects, such as the right to marry up to four wives, and the right to an easy divorce, without the interference of a court, simply by repeating "I divorce you" in the presence of two male witnesses. A wife divorced in such a fashion will receive an allowance for a period of three months to one year, and after that period nothing. On the other hand, if a wife wants a divorce, she must go to court and prove that her husband does not meet her material needs, that he is infertile and that he is impotent. Once a divorce is finalized, if there are children, the custody of the children will automatically go to the father (for boys at age 7 and for girls from the start of menstruation). Inheritance based on the Shariah means that wives will get only a small portion of the property of their husbands and a sister will get half what her brother gets."

This is a real fucking problem. IMHO, a bigger problem than the insurgents.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This is a real fucking problem. IMHO, a bigger problem than the insurgents.

Yes, but won't the free market lend to the societal evolution that will eventually remedy this inequity? Or are you anti-markets now?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes, but won't the free market lend to the societal evolution that will eventually remedy this inequity? Or are you anti-markets now?

Sorry, but why, if freedom and rights "for the people" were important enough to invade a country for (and yes, I am putting aside for this point the other reasons), can we wait and allow "evolution" to take care of these things for women?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by nononono
Sorry, but why, if freedom and rights "for the people" were important enough to invade a country for (and yes, I am putting aside for this point the other reasons), can we wait and allow "evolution" to take care of these things for women?

Someone has to do the dishes.