Those whingers and revisionists who complain about the US removing Saddam from his golden throne also welcome the recent report by "Global Exchange" and "Code Pink" entitled "Iraqi Women Under Siege" which concludes that "the occupation of Iraq has not resulted in greater equality and freedom for women" than they had under Saddam Hussein.
Published by two radical feminist anti-war groups whose primary activities include protesting military recruiting stations, organizing anti-WTO protests and sympathizing with the regimes in North Korea and Cuba, this report echoes a long line of blatant pronouncements. Hillary Clinton once said that after liberation there were "pullbacks in the rights that [women] were given under Saddam Hussein" and Howard Dean's infamously remarked that "Iraqi women were better off under Saddam Hussein."
These leftists blithely ignore "the systematic rapes, torture, beheadings, honor killings, forced fertility programs, and declining literacy rates" that characterized his regime. One torture technique favored by Saddam's henchman and his sons involved raping a detainee's mother or sister in front of him until he talked. In Saddam's torture chambers women, when not tortured and raped, spent years in dark jails. If lucky, their suckling children were allowed to be with them. In most cases, however, these children were considered a nuisance to be disposed of; mass graves currently being uncovered contain many corpses of children buried alive with their mothers. Read the rest here. Why on earth do feminists not celebrate the removal of such a monster as Saddam? Is their hatred for George W Bush so deep, so profound, that they would rather the rape chambers were still open for business???
You're assuming that what's coming next is going to be better than Saddam.
It's not. It's going to be worse than even Talibanised Afghanistan. Irrespective of whether or not the occupiers remain.
Posted by: Adrian | May 05, 2006 at 07:36 AM
Yes ive been reading that women havent really made inroads into this constitution in terms of fielding sharia. Im not convinced they will be better under a constitution which is all embracing of it if it is? But then again i dont really know how much of it was applied under Saddam?
Posted by: Alison | May 05, 2006 at 10:11 AM
Alison,
According to the BBC interviews etc. the benefits of gender "equality" reached only those who could afford it under Saddam's regime.
That way Iraq was probably in the same boat as Iran and Pakistan but light years ahead of America's allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE.
Posted by: Adrian | May 05, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Islam is the religion of these women, it is a religion of peace and dignity (in their terms) and they have every right to be subject to sharia law, which includes rape for the "deserving". let the Arab define its own society, the only time we should lift a finger is in instances (like Burnely) where non islamic women and young girls are given heroin and forced into degrading sexual subserviance (the "paki shaggers") or where (media ignored) rape of non muslims is quite common.
it is honestly my contention that where sharia appointed behaviour infringes on a dignified society its protagonists should be removed by all means at the societies disposal, that is not to say an Arab in an Arab land imposing himself on Arabs is any of our business, or worth a single British or American life. defence and not the change of state character would be the only dignified reason for such a sacrifice, in which case the hearts and minds program should then cease and all aggressive measures taken.
Posted by: | May 05, 2006 at 11:39 AM
The commentors really need to understand what is happening with the Iraqi government. It's very obvious that most have not a clue. In light of the reality on the ground in Iraq - what is being said is laughable.
As for Code Pink and the feminazi groups the answer to your question David is yes. They don't give a damn about women being harmed - take note of their lack of objection the well publicized abuse of women in Iran - they have their political agenda and that is their priority. They hate Bush, they hate America, they hate capitalism, they hate freedom, they hate the 2nd amendment, they hate the 1ST amendment - oh. And they love abortion on demand.
Posted by: Monica-Philadelphia | May 05, 2006 at 04:26 PM
what about female babies ?
Posted by: j, | May 05, 2006 at 04:57 PM
monica, people who like bush are in the minority in america and the world. if your country doesnt become a one party state in the next 2 decades i will be shocked and awed.
then we will become airstrip one (officially).
Posted by: daytripper | May 06, 2006 at 06:45 AM
Prepare to be shocked and awed.
Posted by: Monica-Philadelphia | May 06, 2006 at 07:38 AM