Ranting to /dev/null

It's comments like yours that make me happy that you are not in any influential branch of government. Cmon dude, do your homework about the REAL state of women's rights in Iraq...don't buy the truth that they've (the pro-Bush press) been selling you. The real state of women's rights has been getting progressively more like Taliban and Iranian rule than the fairy tale you write about.

See here for examples of what I'm talking about:
http://www.itp.net/business/features/details.php?id=3024&category=
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_riverbendblog_archive.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1549353,00.html

K, just read those three articles, and I'm not saying you're wrong, I just fail to see how any of those articles present facts or arguments contrary to what Ryan's saying or supporting your position.

I get how some of the articles touch on the spectre or the threat of a more rigorous application of Islamic law, but that's always been and odds are always will be a possibility in any predominatly muslic country.

That being the case, it doesn't prove either way whether or not things have gotten better or worse for women in Iraq post the US invasion.

Given your sources, I don't think you're in any position to tell me or anyone else what the "real" situation is anywhere in the world. Furthermore, while there is an ongoing discussion as to the role that Islamic law will take in the new Iraqi government, you and I should seem to be on the same side as to what we want to see in Iraq. But puzzlingly, you seem to wish that Saddam were still in power, while I want the democratic process to work and produce a favorable result. Your argument seems to be as follows:

1) Islamic law is a bad thing.
2) There is a possibility that Islamic law might aquire legal force in the new Iraqi government.

Ergo: Bush is evil.

Or, more with less of a non sequitur:

Ergo: We should never have removed Saddam from power.

Does this strike anyone else as being really, really weird? I can't see at all how these things follow from your premises. Now who's buying into a bill of goods marketed by journalists with an axe to grind?

You're right in that I personally am not in a position to tell you what the real situation is in Iraq. That's why I, like everyone else who is not in Iraq, should rely on a variety of first-person source reports (like the riverbend.blogspot.com link I mentioned) as well as other news media reports to get an informed picture of what is happening. And what I hear and read is that women in Iraq are experiencing more limitations on their freedoms (similar to women under the Taliban and in present-day Iraq) than when Saddam was in power. Feel free to direct me to first-hand accounts or news reports that prove me wrong.

By the way, the conclusion you draw (that I think Saddam should still be in power) reminds me of the smoke-and-mirror arguments of persons like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh where everything is black or white and if you don't buy into what Bush says, then (ergo) you must be anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-freedom. I am glad that Saddam is no longer in power as he was a brutal, cruel dictator--however, I do not approve of the method to remove him or the chaos, tragedy, and loss of life that daily affects the lives of those who live in Iraq now.

Whether or not one is pro or anti Bush, one should be aware that there are no less than two potentially "evil" forces at work in the middle east.

1. The loony power hungry secular dictator - aka, Saddam
2. The loony power hungry religious extremists - aka, the Taliban

What we want to avoid is replacing one with the other.

And I could see how a case could be made that women as a group would suffer more under option 2 than under option 1, although I think it's far too early to declare that is what's happening in Iraq.

Umm... do you remember January? All those purple fingers? Symbolic it may have been, but that's the first time women have voted in an Islamic country as far as I can tell.

You'll have to excuse me if I take what the author of "Riverbendblog" has to say with half a salt mine: she's linking to Al Jazeera and the BBC, both sources which were distinct supporters of the Baathist regime in their time. One may infer that she is at least sympathetic with their perspective, which means I'm unlikely to be sympathetic with hers.

As to the actual content: one person's story does not a situation make, especially when that person appears to have an axe to grind. While I won't quibble about the stories she tells - I'll just assume that she isn't blatantly lying - there isn't any reason to follow her to her conclusions about the war or the current administration.

Okay, so you're going to say that we're better off with Saddam out of the picture, but that you don't like the way the war is being handled. Neither do I. But given the fact that you presented absolutely no actual argument in your post, just some vague, anti-Bush rhetoric followed by links to inconclusive articles discussing possible future problems, I did the best I could with what you gave me. If that isn't what you meant, then you should have said what you meant in the first place.

Better yet, say something period. Move from clear premises to a clear conclusion. That way we know what you're talking about and I don't have to make up your argument for you. I guarantee you won't like it if I do.

Stephen: we agree on this too.

I too agree that one person's story does not a situation make. But, if I could speak as a first-hand observer of women's rights in the Middle East, I'd like the chance. As a woman, and someone who grew up in Saudi Arabia (and did some extensive traveling in the region), I'd like note that virtually ANYTHING women are experiencing now is an improvement compared with what women experienced in that part of the world 20 years ago . . . or even 3 years ago. That's an indisputable fact.

Siting isolated incidences that may suggest there is still work to be done is certainly valid, but NOT a legitimate premise with which to conclude that "The real state of women's rights has been getting progressively more like Taliban and Iranian rule". If you think so, you clearly don't have a grip on what they had experienced or what the life is like under Taliban rule.

Gosh, Ryan, don't let the facts get in the way of whatever the dittoheads told you to believe.

Umm... do you remember January? All those purple fingers? Symbolic it may have been, but that's the first time women have voted in an Islamic country as far as I can tell.

Iraqi women attained the right to vote and run for office in 1980 -- that's twenty-five years before all those purple fingers.

Other countries in the Middle East where women can vote (and the year when they gained that right: Bahrain (1973), Iran (1963), Jordon (1974), Lebanon (1952), Qatar (2003), Syria (1949), and Yemen (1970).

And then there are these Islamic countries: Afghanistan (1963 - 1996, 2001-), Algeria (1962), Azerbaijan (1921), Bangladesh (1972), Benin (1952), Cameroon (1946), Comoros (1956), Egypt (1956), Gambia (1960), Guyana (1928), Indonesia (1945), Kazakhstan (1994), Malaysia (1957), Maldives (1932), Mali (1956), Morocco (1963), Mozambique (1975), Niger (1948), Pakistan (1956), Palestine (1946), Senegal (1945), Sierra Leone (1961), Somalia (1956), Sudan (1964), Tajikistan (1924), Turkey (1930), Turkmenistan (1927), Uganda (1962), Uzbekistan (1938)

Given your sources, I don't think you're in any position to tell me or anyone else what the "real" situation is anywhere in the world.

Jeeze, Ryan, seeing as you offered NO sources, with a dash of willful ignorance mixed in for good measure, what exactly makes you believe that *you* are in a position to tell anyone else what the "real" situation is anywhere in the world? Seeing as you didn't even bother to check the basic facts regarding women's rights in Iraq, it would seem that you're hardly in a position to evalutate the at least minimally informed postions of either Howard Dean or the other people who left comments in this thread.

Way to jump all over that one, Alice. I consider myself well and truly chastised. Brava.

In response to your data - the veracity of which isn't particularly relevant - you've spent a lot of time and effort attempting to prove me wrong on a point that isn't actually necessary to my argument. The point I was making was that the articles referenced by SG didn't actually argue that things are worse than under Saddam, but that there is reason to fear the influence of Islamists on Iraqi politics. We already knew that, and there is no way to get from there to the conclusion that women's rights are more like they were under the Taliban than when Saddam was in power. Quoting a list of predominantly Islamic countries - though it's worth pointing out that the vast majority are constituted as secular states - in which women can vote doesn't disprove that.

I'm sensing a little hostility here that goes beyond the normal, everyday combativeness that is expected in the blogosphere. I'm more than willing to admit merely factual mistakes when called on them, but this seems to represent a lot more than that for you. What gives? If you've got a problem with me, say so. Considering you were never actually involved in the little scuffle Stephen and I had a few weeks back, that I offered apologies to the forum in general and Stephen in particular, that neither he nor I, the principle characters involved in said debate, have taken lasting offense, you seem to be nursing one hell of a grudge against me. Why the vendetta? I don't have anything personal against you, you know.

And now this on the proposed Iraqi constitution.

Specifically from this article:

"This is the future of the new Iraqi government - it will be in the hands of the clerics," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. "I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around."

"I am not going to stay here," said Dr. Kuzai, an obstetrician and women's leader who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.