quote:

---

BAGHDAD, Jan. 15 -- For the past four decades, Iraqi women have enjoyed some of the most modern legal protections in the Muslim world, under a civil code that prohibits marriage below the age of 18, arbitrary divorce and male favoritism in child custody and property inheritance disputes.

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out, ordering in late December that family laws shall be "canceled" and such issues placed under the jurisdiction of strict Islamic legal doctrine known as sharia.

This week, outraged Iraqi women -- from judges to cabinet ministers -- denounced the decision in street protests and at conferences, saying it would set back their legal status by centuries and could unleash emotional clashes among various Islamic strains that have differing rules for marriage, divorce and other family issues.

"This will send us home and shut the door, just like what happened to women in Afghanistan," said Amira Hassan Abdullah, a Kurdish lawyer who spoke at a protest meeting Thursday. Some Islamic laws, she noted, allow men to divorce their wives on the spot.

"The old law wasn't perfect, but this one would make Iraq a jungle," she said. "Iraqi women will accept it over their dead bodies."

The order, narrowly approved by the 25-member council in a closed-door session Dec. 29, was reportedly sponsored by conservative Shiite members. The order is now being opposed by several liberal members as well as by senior women in the Iraqi government.

The council's decisions must be approved by L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, and aides said unofficially that his imprimatur for this change was unlikely. But experts here said that once U.S. officials turn over political power to Iraqis at the end of June, conservative forces could press ahead with their agenda to make sharia the supreme law. Spokesmen for Bremer did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

---

You tell me- what should the USA do right now? What is the moral solution here?

majorvictory, do you ever write stand-alone posts, or is linking to external articles all you are capable of?

[ 17 January 2004: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

Destroy their infrastructure, kill their people, cause general chaos and misery and then, in the words of another babbler, slink off victorious, leaving nothing of value in their wake.

quote:

---

You tell me- what should the USA do right now? What is the moral solution here?

---

Those of us who opposed the war often used the term "quagmire" to refer to the moral and political morass which would likely follow.

I remember writing here that it was likely that Iraq would descend into civil war as the majority
Shi-ites could not be relied upon to protect the rights of the minorities (which make up 35% of Iraqis).

And I remember saying that the Shi-ites, if allowed a democracy such as Bush was proclaiming, would likely ally with the fundamentalists in Iran, at the very least strengthening the mullahs there at the expence of incipient democratic trends.

Others told Bush that if he invaded, he would face these intractable problems. But he knew better.

Gir: there is no "moral solution" here. Haven't you figured that out yet? There is no upside to this situation, and never has been. There's only degrees of awfulness. And this latest misogynist bullshit raises the awfulness quotient considerably.

This mess was guaranteed as soon as the frothing ideologues in Washington launched their fucking war. The costs of their utter detachment from reality are now being paid by Iraqi women. Way to go, Shrub.

quote:

---

majorvictory, do you ever write stand-alone posts, or is linking to external articles all you are capable of?

---

Everyone knew this was going to happen. Everyone who had any grasp of history or world politics said this is what would happen. And, it's happening.

Over 500 young American people are dead. Gone. Thousands ? I don't even know how many Iraqis are dead. The religious leaders are calling for elections sooner than later and for the U-S to leave. The U-S President wants the world to look away since it's an election year and he's been exposed as the liar that he is. People are living in a state of civil war and women are losing the few rights they did have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by windymustang:
Good topic and feedback going on here folks.
What's this about Gir?

Hope it's a joke

---

It is in the sense that I'm not really interested in a flame war or anything, just joshing majorvictory a bit. Though it is true that the vast majority of his posts are just links.

I guess what I was trying to say is that although the situation is grim, there have to be certain things that the coalition forces could be doing to at least try and lessen the suffering in "post-war" Iraq. Even if there is no perfect solution, there are options with varying "awfulness quotients".

My questions were based on a mantra of "solutions, not finger pointing". We can argue back and forth all day about what certain countries SHOULD HAVE done, and while that may be a worthy pursuit in some ways, unfortunately it doesn't help Iraqis right now. Instead we should be working to help organizations within Iraq promoting democracy and an end to insurgent violence. This may involve the withdrawal of troops, but not all at once and not immediately. That would cause a bigger mess.

And has been pointed out before that sharia law DOES NOT mandate discrimination against women. It is only when you have misogynist fundamentalist clerics doing the interpretation that Islamic law becomes a bad thing.

quote:

---

Instead we should be working to help organizations within Iraq promoting democracy and an end to insurgent violence.

---

A challenge to you, Gir. One thing..just one thing you could do to promote democracy and an end to violence in Iraq. Talking about it here doesn't count.

quote:

---

This may involve the withdrawal of troops, but not all at once and not immediately. That would cause a bigger mess.

---

I'm not convinced of that. I think a big mess is coming no matter what happens. I have no idea if it'd be worse if the troops pull out or not. Nor does anyone else. We're in uncharted territory here.

On the one hand, total anarchy could ensue if they pull out, even worse than what we see now, maybe full-fledged civil war or Balkan-style ethnic cleansing. On the other, the continued presence of American troops in a West Bank-style occupation of an Arab country (for that is how it's perceived in the region) can only serve to further inflame hatred and resentment, and swell the ranks of recruits for bin Laden & co.

Like Gwynne Dyer said in an article posted on another thread, I suspect that Bush's idiotic plunge into Iraq may end up being to the 21st century what the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was to the 20th -- the spark that triggered an avalanche of cascading disasters nobody could possibly have imagined or foreseen beforehand. Let's hope not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
What if the USA prohibited sharia law? That would be trampling on the Iraqi right to self-determination, wouldn't it?

---

Well, yes, actually. Any decision the US imposes on Iraq does trample on the Iraqi right to self-determination, whether it's a good or correct decision or not.
Of course, Iraq has been a secular state for decades, so if they left sharia law inoperative they wouldn't actually need to impose a change on Iraq. If Iraqis vote to change things, that's their business.

quote:

---

You tell me- what should the USA do right now? What is the moral solution here?

---

quote:

---

BTW, while majorvictory may indeed be a man of few words, his archival activities have been a tremendous contribution to babble. People will be able to reference the info on those "War Is Over" threads for years. Don't knock him!

---