Skip to main content

View Diary: U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote (NYT 9/4/1967) (274 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  just citing (none)
    But you're still wrong. You know, seeing those pictures of Shiite women in chadors line up to vote in what used to be the most secular Arab state, just don't give me the warm fuzzies.
    •  ah yes, (none)
      I've always preferred it when repression imposed abject fear in a non-gender-specific way.

      Whatever, dude.  How many women were in Saddam's national assembly?

      Or didn't you know that 25% of the seats in this assembly are reserved for women?

      No, of course not.

        •  oh, I see (none)
          so you're opposed to the elections and in favor of pulling our troops out, because that will lead to a restoration of women's rights in a genuinely secular Iraq?

          I think that's very unlikely. I think it's warlordism that leads to repression of women's rights, just as it did in Taliban Afghanistan.  I don't think that the US occupation is the reason for repression of women.  I think  the US occupation has been a disaster in many ways, but I think that stability is likely to lead to respect for a variety of rights. I think stability is likely to come only from 1) a dictator, like Saddam, or 2) a legitimate, relatively democratic govenment.  I think an Iraqi dictator at this point is unlikely to impose a western-style secular regime.  I think a dictator is apt to impose sharia instead.  I think the only hope for women's rights is a democracy in which womens' right to vote is enshrined.

          But maybe you're right.  Who knows?

          •  you may need glasses (none)
            You have no idea what I propose as a solution in Iraq - but you are annoyed that I'm not lining up to cheer for  the officially designated good news.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site