Women in Occupied Iraq

[redstar2000]

Iraq's Governing Council Puts Family Law Under Islamic Law

The US-backed Iraqi Governing Council has outraged Iraqi women because of its recent vote to cancel current family laws and to place family law under the jurisdiction of Islamic (sharia) law.

Zakia Ismael Hakki, a female judge, stated, "This new law will send Iraqi families back to the Middle Ages. It will allow men to have four or five or six wives. It will take away children from their mothers. It will allow anyone who calls himself a cleric to open an Islamic court in his house and decide who can marry and divorce and have rights."

According to Agence France Presse, Iraq's civil code in 1959 was at one point considered the most progressive in the Middle East.

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswi...ory.asp?id=8247 (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8247)


How "Islamic Law" treats women...

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswi...ory.asp?id=8239 (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8239)

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswi...ory.asp?id=5223 (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=5223)

http://www.suntimes.co.za/2003/01/05/polit...itics/pol04.asp (http://www.suntimes.co.za/2003/01/05/politics/pol04.asp)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977446.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm

The "liberation" of Iraq has different meanings. If you happen to be a large oil corporation with close ties to the Emperor, it means you are now free to loot & plunder.

If you are an Iraqi woman, you may well look back to the despotism of Saddam Hussein as "a golden age".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

That's the one thing that scared me the most about Saddam's collapse. One small step for profits, one giant leap for the dark ages.

[Y2A]

Edit: Is this in effect, it doesn't make it clear?

And btw, if we would have not aided Saddam during that period in the 80's they would have been living under sharia law all along.

And another thing is the fact that many of you are the ones who critize the planned regional caucuses yet it is a fact that if direct democracy was imposed more laws like these could be passed and hurt the minority sunni and kurds in Iraq.

[Loknar]

ok, now we let them go vern them selves now we're assholes? either you want US to run the country or you dont, make up your mind.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 07:57 PM
ok, now we let them go vern them selves now we're assholes? either you want US to run the country or you dont, make up your mind.
Exactly but they still want direct democracy so the shi'ites can rule all, idiots. It's just an excuse like alway to critize the U.S.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 02:43 PM
Iraq's Governing Council Puts Family Law Under Islamic Law

The US-backed Iraqi Governing Council has outraged Iraqi women because of its recent vote to cancel current family laws and to place family law under the jurisdiction of Islamic (sharia) law.

Zakia Ismael Hakki, a female judge, stated, "This new law will send Iraqi families back to the Middle Ages. It will allow men to have four or five or six wives. It will take away children from their mothers. It will allow anyone who calls himself a cleric to open an Islamic court in his house and decide who can marry and divorce and have rights."

According to Agence France Presse, Iraq's civil code in 1959 was at one point considered the most progressive in the Middle East.

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswi...ory.asp?id=8247 (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8247)


How "Islamic Law" treats women...

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswi...ory.asp?id=8239 (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8239)

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswi...ory.asp?id=5223 (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=5223)

http://www.suntimes.co.za/2003/01/05/polit...itics/pol04.asp (http://www.suntimes.co.za/2003/01/05/politics/pol04.asp)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977446.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm

The "liberation" of Iraq has different meanings. If you happen to be a large oil corporation with close ties to the Emperor, it means you are now free to loot & plunder.

If you are an Iraqi woman, you may well look back to the despotism of Saddam Hussein as "a golden age".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Werent you posting against me when i said how women are trated by muslims?
now you just prove my point, I want to see what ihatebush has to say to this. :lol: :lol: :lol:

so everyone wants an islamic palestine state when they know how bad they treat women, but then you get mad when Iraq includes islamic law in there gov.?

Also where the fuck are the feminist on this site, here is a real cause to ***** about, Ihatebush probably supports this action to put family law under islamic law.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 07:47 PM
Edit: Is this in effect, it doesn't make it clear?

And btw, if we would have not aided Saddam during that period in the 80's they would have been living under sharia law all along.

And another thing is the fact that many of you are the ones who critize the planned regional caucuses yet it is a fact that if direct democracy was imposed more laws like these could be passed and hurt the minority sunni and kurds in Iraq.
good point, they support shaira law, but not when the USA is somehow involved.
Once again they contradict themselves, that happens alot in this board. The thing is they ***** about Irq but not about the other islamic countires :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think this is retarded, the USA should not of allowed this, the thing is if the USA would of/or intervenes on this matter, everyone will ***** about the USA not allowing democracy in iraq.
More contradictions from the commies on this board. :lol: :lol:

[Guest1]

If you actually read, you would understand that we're not making an argument for US interference. We're not asking that someone stop them in a democratic Iraq. When a US appointed oligarchy decides this though, they aren't a democratic Iraq, they're imposing this on people, without any debate.

But then again, I guess opposing oligarchies that conspire behind closed doors to create draconian laws makes me un-American.

God bless the American nightmare!

[Intifada]

Ihatebush probably supports this action to put family law under islamic law.

god, you seriously are a stupid fucktard. :rolleyes:

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 06:15 PM

Ihatebush probably supports this action to put family law under islamic law.

god, you seriously are a stupid fucktard. :rolleyes:
so you do want an islamic state with iran, saudi arabia, but not with Iraq, unless of course iraq wan not intervened by the USA, then you wouldnt care. :lol: :lol:

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 02:47 PM
And btw, if we would have not aided Saddam during that period in the 80's they would have been living under sharia law all along.


Why do you say that? Why do you think the United States relations with Iraq caused a secularization in the countries laws?


good point, they support shaira law, but not when the USA is somehow involved.
Once again they contradict themselves, that happens alot in this board. The thing is they ***** about Irq but not about the other islamic countires

This is not completely true, in the Opposing Ideologies forum you will probaly get that impression since there are many discussions about Iraq. If you were to read the other forums, especially Politics you would see that most people here are opposed to religous laws no matter where they're implemented. It just so happenes that since this is an opposing ideology section Iraq gets a lot of attention due to the fact that many here oppose the war and more support it here than anywhere else on the site.

[redstar2000]

I see that the cappies miss the point of this thread...as usual.

So let me "dumb it down" and perhaps they will grasp why I posted it.

1. U.S. imperialism is inherently reactionary--oppressive and exploitative.

2. U.S. imperialism has imposed a quisling regime at gunpoint on Iraq.

3. Therefore, that regime will be reactionary.

Evidence: see my opening post in the thread.

Is that clear now?

Do you understand that even if American politicians were "sincere" about "secular democracy" in the Middle East, it would make no difference?

Had Iraq been left unmolested following its occupation of Kuwait, there's a good chance it would have gone on to occupy Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. It would have continued in a secular direction...harshly repressing Islamic fundamentalists in those countries.

The consequence? No 9/11!

Eventually, "greater Iraq"--the Republic of Arabia?--would have given birth to bourgeois secular democracy...perhaps after Hussein or his immediate successors died.

That's what "should" have happened.

But the reactionary nature of U.S. imperialism makes such outcomes impossible. Much like the Nazis, it feels an insatiable appetite to grab everything.

And also like the Nazis, America's only "friends" are reactionaries...and they are friends of convenience. When they perceive their interests conflicting with the U.S., they will turn on you and "bite the hand that fed them".

Historically, "long-lived" empires learned to restrain their appetite for expansion...they didn't try to conquer "everything".

I suspect the American Empire will not be around for the end of this century...perhaps not even in North America.

If so, people then will have real reason to celebrate the 22nd century.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 11:32 PM
I see that the cappies miss the point of this thread...as usual.

So let me "dumb it down" and perhaps they will grasp why I posted it.

1. U.S. imperialism is inherently reactionary--oppressive and exploitative.

2. U.S. imperialism has imposed a quisling regime at gunpoint on Iraq.

3. Therefore, that regime will be reactionary.

Evidence: see my opening post in the thread.

Is that clear now?

Do you understand that even if American politicians were "sincere" about "secular democracy" in the Middle East, it would make no difference?

Had Iraq been left unmolested following its occupation of Kuwait, there's a good chance it would have gone on to occupy Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. It would have continued in a secular direction...harshly repressing Islamic fundamentalists in those countries.

The consequence? No 9/11!

Eventually, "greater Iraq"--the Republic of Arabia?--would have given birth to bourgeois secular democracy...perhaps after Hussein or his immediate successors died.

That's what "should" have happened.

But the reactionary nature of U.S. imperialism makes such outcomes impossible. Much like the Nazis, it feels an insatiable appetite to grab everything.

And also like the Nazis, America's only "friends" are reactionaries...and they are friends of convenience. When they perceive their interests conflicting with the U.S., they will turn on you and "bite the hand that fed them".

Historically, "long-lived" empires learned to restrain their appetite for expansion...they didn't try to conquer "everything".

I suspect the American Empire will not be around for the end of this century...perhaps not even in North America.

If so, people then will have real reason to celebrate the 22nd century.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
So you where against intervention of Hussein when he invaded kuwait? :blink: :o

Much like the nazis? no the nazis where like Iraq, in the sense that they where invading the countries, where you also against the intervention of the USA in WWII?
And dont forget to point out the USSR they where very imperialistic also.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

god, you seriously are a stupid fucktard

The movement is spreading!More people are using the word 'fucktard'!I won't rest until it is in the English Dictionary!

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Those are very interesting points RedStar.I had not looked at that perspective on the Middle East and the first Gulf War. Also, your point that the U.S. only allies with reactionaries rings true, considering that we went to war with possibly the most progressive government in the Middle East.

[LSD]

The All Knowing Y2A:

You are missing the point here, and it's a point I've seen you miss before

So here we go


The United States should not have supported Iraq in the 1980s. It was a repressive and murderous regime, and supporting it was contrary to its purported principles and entirely hyporcritical.

The United States did not make a "mistake", it chose to support a dictator.

Fine.

They've certainly done that before.


Bush's invasion after the Kuwait incursion did not "make up" for his governments earlier actions.

It was an equally hypocritical act because the US had given Iraq tacit approval for the invasion earlier and because at the end of the war, the US maintained the effective status quo, only with a lot more dead, and the instruments established for even more death (sanctions).

Bush2's final solution to the Iraq question also can not be qualified as "making up" for American support of Hussein. Because of that support, Hussein was able to kill thousands. Bush2's war also killed thousands and replaced a local dictatorship with a foreign one (much like Germany in Poland).


You see it is not contradictory to both critize the support of Hussein and the war.

The way for America to "make up" for supporting the mass-murder of Itaqis would have been to lift the sanctions and let them import medical suplies, filtration equipment, resources.

And America's brutal actions certainly do not give them leave to take preventive action against a sovereign nation (can anyone say Geneva Convention???).


Finally, a rather extreme example but a poignent one,

Britain founded Canada, supported its government, and Canada's current constitution was passed not in Canada but in the British House of Commons. Therefore, if Britain felt that the Canadian government was oppressing its people, does it have the right to invade?

Think about it.

It's the same damn argument.

[Y2A]

The United States should not have supported Iraq in the 1980s. It was a repressive and murderous regime, and supporting it was contrary to its purported principles and entirely hyporcritical.

You are missing my point. What I am saying is that now Redstar is angered because Sharia law may be imposed Iraqi women which was stopped by supporting Iraq against fundamentalist Iran in the 80's. I am not saying I supported it, all I am doing is showing his duplicity.


The way for America to "make up" for supporting the mass-murder of Itaqis would have been to lift the sanctions and let them import medical suplies, filtration equipment, resources.

Agreed, I am also for lifting the embarrgo on Cuba.

[Guest1]

What I am saying is that now Redstar is angered because Sharia law may be imposed Iraqi women which was stopped by supporting Iraq against fundamentalist Iran in the 80's.

See, here you go again, ignoring Iraq's secular tradition. Iraq was secular long before Saddam. It is a trend in the northern Arab states in the Middle East, plus Egypt, that has been around since the 50's. Socialist, and later true Ba'athist revolts across the Arab world lead to it, before Saddam. Arab Socialism has been dead for a long time, but the only thing left from it was the secularism it established in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and even Jordan (which was affected by it despite the lack of a real revolt there).

Saddam played a huge role in the collapse of Arab Socialism, no matter how lacking in Socialism it may have been, it was progressive and secular. Iraq went from the unity of the 50's, where semi-socialist states like Egypt, Syria and Iraq, banded together in a federated nation to further the cause of secular Arab anti-imperialism, to a war amongst two Ba'athist states, with Syria playing a huge part in the first Iraq war.

So no, supporting Saddam did not help secularism, it fueled the right-wing islamists.

Besides, have you forgotten who put the "there is no god but god" on the Iraqi flag?

[Loknar]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 22 2004, 01:07 AM

The United States should not have supported Iraq in the 1980s. It was a repressive and murderous regime, and supporting it was contrary to its purported principles and entirely hyporcritical.

Why not? all you read is, "the US funded Saddam in his war against Iran." Let me show you a bigger picture; Iran was holding Americans hostages, that regime has proven to be hostile against America, therefore we decided to support Iraq "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" each nation follows that motto. Oh, and we weren’t the only ones supporting Iraq, France, W. Germany, Brazil and even more supported both sides.

[Intifada]

so you do want an islamic state with iran, saudi arabia, but not with Iraq, unless of course iraq wan not intervened by the USA, then you wouldnt care.

when the hell did i say that!? :blink:


So you where against intervention of Hussein when he invaded kuwait?

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, it was ordered to withdraw by the United Nations Security Council. When the Iraqis failed to comply, they were attacked with such force that tens of thousands were slaughtered. When Israel seized the West Bank of the Jordan and Gaza, it was ordered to withdraw by the same UN Security council. That was 37 years ago, and the occupation still goes on.

On the contrary, Israel has since been rewarded with billions of dollars worth of aid and armaments, principally by the United States, which has helped it develop nuclear weapons and other so-called weapons of mass destruction.

(just thought i would add that)

[LSD]

Let me show you a bigger picture; Iran was holding Americans hostages, that regime has proven to be hostile against America, therefore we decided to support Iraq

This wasn't exactly world war II.

Iran was never a threat to the United States.

As for hostages, seriously, in the grand scheme of world politics, 300 people???? How many people did Hussein kill?? (hint: a little more than 300) Besides, the US continued to support Iraq well after the embassy hostage crisis, and as for the later hostage takings....well.......we all know what Raegan was thinking...

The point is that you have failed to shows why the US needed to support Iraq.


"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" each nation follows that motto.

really......so then why isn't Iraq still our "friend", they still hate Iran, Iran still hates the US......enemy of my enemy, right???

If only the world were that simple.


Oh, and we weren’t the only ones supporting Iraq, France, W. Germany, Brazil and even more supported both sides.

Most of the foreign support that Saddam Hussein got in the last 20 years is from the US. Still.

But yah, Europe has a bloody past, big surprise there. At least they don't claim to be a "beacon for democracy."

The US isn't just violent, it's a also violently dishonest.
Sort of psychopathic in its way....

[redstar2000]

What I am saying is that now Redstar is angered because Sharia law may be imposed [on] Iraqi women which was stopped by supporting Iraq against fundamentalist Iran in the 80's. I am not saying I supported it, all I am doing is showing his duplicity.

Duplicity my ass, moron!

Iraq began secularization back in 1959 after the British puppet monarchy was overthrown the previous year.

And can you manage to get it through your thick skull that it is not a matter of the United States supporting "good guys" against "bad guys"?

U.S. support turns you into a "bad guy"...the United States is reactionary to the core.

We are not interested in "improving" American foreign policy, making it more "fair" or "just" or "rational".

The United States must be compelled to disgorge its empire...period.

Nothing less will do.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

I love how direct you are redstar :D

Yes, we will continue our opposition to unjust US policy, no matter the situation. We will look at a situation, follow the money and arms trail, and if we find it leads back to the US, we will say so. We can admit that.

We can admit the US is high up on our minds whenever something goes horribly wrong.

Especially if oil is involved.

Regardless, this thread turned from an attack on religion and the new Iraqi council into a Bush-bashing ceremony only when you two idiot Capitalists made it so.