Isn't Iraq supposed to be getting better?

[Andonyx]

from here:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073281040335


Iraq's Governing Council on Wednesday defended its approval of a controversial family law that would make it possible to apply Islamic law - Sharia - instead of civil statute in domestic matters such as inheritance and divorce.

Opponents, mainly Iraqi women's groups, say the measure is a sop to Islamic clerics, who are holding up agreement on the national political process.

Hamid Kifa'i, Governing Council spokesman, denied the text, which was approved with no announcement, was part of a political deal with clerics. "It is not a concession to fundamentalists, we don't have fundamentalists in Iraq," he said.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Andonyx
from here:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073281040335

[/B]

Representative democracy at work...no one said we would approve of what they represent.

We cannot change their religion beliefs, and they have no constitution or bill of rights to separate religion and state.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Representative democracy at work...no one said we would approve of what they represent.

We cannot change their religion beliefs, and they have no constitution or bill of rights to separate religion and state.

Well, yes and no....

We did use our military to invade and toss out their former leader because we disapproved of the way they were doing things.

I mean you kind of make it sound like, "Hey we can go ahead and oust their leader and invade if the ENTIRE populous is being oppressed. But if it's just the women, then who are we to argue."

[crackmonkey]

Saddam's regime wasn't a democracy... are you advocating the overthrowing a democratic government because its beliefs differ from your own?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Saddam's regime wasn't a democracy... are you advocating the overthrowing a democratic government because its beliefs differ from your own?

What exists in Iraq right now can hardly be called a "democratic government." That's pure propaganda. No government installed--not "supported," not "backed," installed--by an occupation force can be called "democratic." Democratic governments are elected. Hell, even fake "democratic" governments have some elections.

[Ziggurat]

Andonyx, Iraq IS getting better. And your own story proves it. I'm not thrilled about Sharia being applied either, but something even more important is right under your nose: people opposed to it actually get to protest against it, speak out with opposing opinions, and not get killed. That's a REALLY big improvement in Iraq, don't you think? And in the long run, that's going to make possible a lot of little improvements as well, quite possibly including getting rid of this Sharia stuff.

[demon]

Yeah, Afghanistan is getting better too...like "making them better" is the point of any of this.

Edited to add: I see Kodiak has replied to this thread so I just want to say I`m giving due regard to "state craft" "spying craft" "diplomacy craft" and "military craft"...just incase I missed out any other bleeding obvious crap I`ll throw in "witchcraft"


Make sure you don`t get shot in the bum while looking away from your enemy...didn`t some famous chinese guy say that? Might be wrong, I`m always willing to apologize if I am.

[karl]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Andonyx, Iraq IS getting better. And your own story proves it. I'm not thrilled about Sharia being applied either, but something even more important is right under your nose: people opposed to it actually get to protest against it, speak out with opposing opinions, and not get killed. That's a REALLY big improvement in Iraq, don't you think? And in the long run, that's going to make possible a lot of little improvements as well, quite possibly including getting rid of this Sharia stuff.

How many countries that have introduced Sharia laws have let people keep the right to protest and speak out with opposing opinions? I've been trying to find successful examples of where Sharia was just an initial bump in the road to freedom and democracy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by karl

How many countries that have introduced Sharia laws have let people keep the right to protest and speak out with opposing opinions? I've been trying to find successful examples of where Sharia was just an initial bump in the road to freedom and democracy.

Iraq right now is without precedence in the Arab world. Where in the arab world has anyone EVER had the right to protest, or to free speach? Nowhere. So the premise of your question is flawed: no one has ever introduced Sharia law into a place where you had the right to protest to begin with.

[karl]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Iraq right now is without precedence in the Arab world. Where in the arab world has anyone EVER had the right to protest, or to free speach? Nowhere. So the premise of your question is flawed: no one has ever introduced Sharia law into a place where you had the right to protest to begin with.

Simply wrong. Sudan and Nigeria, to name two examples, were budding democracies with weak governments that introduced Sharia laws to counter the political instability resulting from people's freedom. Your attempt to restrict this to the Arab world makes no sense unless you can explain why Arabs would be better equipped to handle the situation than Africans. Come to think of it, if the Iraqi government introduced Communism, that too would be without precedent in the Arab world, so there's no reason that shouldn't work -- right?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by karl


Simply wrong. Sudan and Nigeria, to name two examples, were budding democracies with weak governments that introduced Sharia laws to counter the political instability resulting from people's freedom. ...

This analogy equating 3rd world Africa with Iraq is a poor one.

Furthermore, neither Sudan nor Nigeria ever had even a semblance of "freedom". I could be wrong but as I recall the Sharia laws in NIgeria only apply to the most undeveloped part of the country not including the oil regions.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by karl

Simply wrong. Sudan and Nigeria, to name two examples, were budding democracies with weak governments that introduced Sharia laws to counter the political instability resulting from people's freedom.


Nope. Neither ever really had freedom of speach. Here's a little hint for you: "budding democracy" doesn't mean there's freedom of speach. Egypt is a "budding democracy" (though they've been trapped at that stage for a long time and aren't making much progress), but it does not have freedom of speach.


Your attempt to restrict this to the Arab world makes no sense unless you can explain why Arabs would be better equipped to handle the situation than Africans. Come to think of it, if the Iraqi government introduced Communism, that too would be without precedent in the Arab world, so there's no reason that shouldn't work -- right?

What a stupid and pointless argument. I'm not saying Sharia law is a good thing, or that it will "work". What I'm saying is that there's something more important going on than this introduction of Sharia law (which, BTW, is far from complete Sharia), namely democratic reforms and free speach. And truly free speach DOES work.

As a side note, actually, for most purposes, the Arab world pretty much has tried Communism, or at least the major aspects that real states actually implement (as opposed to utopian Marxist concepts that never materialise), such as one-party rule, state control of the economy, and malignant and invasive secret police who stifle any opposition or criticism.

[karl]

Originally posted by hammegk


This analogy equating 3rd world Africa with Iraq is a poor one.

Furthermore, neither Sudan nor Nigeria ever had even a semblance of "freedom".
[...]

Technically Nigerian GDP per capita is above the third world limit. As for your claim that these countries never had freedom:

Nigeria History (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/africa/nigeria/history.htm)

"Upon the election of Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigerians were euphoric, as it seemed they were finally free from military rule. It was not long before things deteriorated as several rival groups (religious and tribal), no longer threatened by army intervention, settled down to protracted conflict."

Sudan history (http://gbgm-umc.org/country_profiles/country_history.cfm?Id=154)

"A self-governing statute obtained by Sudan in 1953 was followed by the election of an all-Sudanese parliament in 1955 and the declaration of independence on January 1 1956. However, southerners charged that they had been politically marginalized, and five months before independence a civil war broke out and lasted for 16 years."

Both situations seem very similar to present-day Iraq.

[karl]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

What a stupid and pointless argument. I'm not saying Sharia law is a good thing, or that it will "work". What I'm saying is that there's something more important going on than this introduction of Sharia law (which, BTW, is far from complete Sharia), namely democratic reforms and free speach. And truly free speach DOES work.


Since you are apparently so stupid you can't even spell free speech, I see no point in trying to explain things to you any further. And with that ad hominem I take my leave. :p