I'm all for putting Saddam back in power...

[cynatnite]

yeah, he's a butchering asshole, but he at least had that country running. There was electricity, running water and crime wasn't running rampant.

Iraqi women were envied because of the rights they had under his regime. Here is what's happening to them now...

The Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) recently issued a frightening report documenting the growing practice of public executions of women by Shia Militia. One of the report's more grisly accounts was a story of a young woman dragged by a wire wound around her neck to a close-by football field and then hung to the goal post. They pierced her body with bullets. Her brother came running trying to defend his sister. He was also shot and killed. Sunni extremists are no better: OWFI members estimate that no less than 30 women are executed monthly for honor related reasons.

Almost four years into the Bush Administration's ill fated adventure in Iraq, Iraqi women are worse off than they were under the Baathist regime in a country where, for decades, the freedoms and rights enjoyed by Iraqi women were the envy of women in most other countries of the Middle East.

Before the U.S. invasion, Iraqi women had high levels of education. Their strong and independent women's movement had successfully forced Saddam's government to pass the groundbreaking 1959 Family Law Act which ensured equal rights in matters of personal law. Iraqi women could inherit land and property; they had equal rights to divorce and custody of their children; they were protected from domestic violence within the marriage. In other words, they had achieved real gains in the struggle for equality between women and men. Iraqi women, like all Iraqis, certainly suffered from the political repression and lack of freedom, but the secular -- albeit brutal -- Baathist regime protected women from the religious extremism that denies freedom to a majority of women in the Arab world.

The invasion of Iraq, however, changed the status of Iraqi women for the worse. Iraq's new colonial power, the United States, elevated a new group of leaders, most of who were allied with ultra conservative Shia clerics. Among the Sunni minority, the quick disappearance of their once dominant political power led to a resurgence of religious identity. Consequently, the Kurds, celebrated for their history of resistance to the Iraqi dictator, were able to reclaim traditions like honor killings, putting thousands of women at risk.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45540/

Fuck you very much, George Bush. :grr:

[MrSlayer]

1. It's too late now, even for him.

They should have never done any of this.

[Cleita]

2. That's really going to honor our dead soldiers.

Yes Saddam did a few things right but to put him back in power after the loss of life on both sides would really be a hateful act.

[cynatnite]

3. As if our dead soldiers are being honored by this senseless war?

They were sent in for oil and for the boy king based on lies. How is that honoring them?

[Cleita]

5. What a slap in the face to the families to know that their child

died to rid the world of a "monster" and the monster regains power. Think about it.

However, it could get rid of Bush faster. I think though it would be a mean spirited way of doing it.

[cynatnite]

6. sending my child to war based on lies would be a huge slap in the face...

:eyes:

[Cleita]

8. I'm sure in all of Iraq, there is one man or woman who can make the

place work again. It doesn't have to be Saddam. What they need is for us to get out of the way so they can actually get the people they want into power to do that.

So far the leaders they voted into power weren't acceptable to BushCo, so instead the Sharia loving assholes that Bush likes are being propped up into power and they are basically corrupt and incompetent.

[cynatnite]

11. corrupt, incompetent and giving in to the fundies...

Iraq is Afghanistan Part deux.

The only way Iraq will be one country without the secterian violence is with a Saddam like character who will use brute force to keep everyone in line. Yeah, a dictator.

The only option left now is to split Iraq into three different countries and/or states.

Meanwhile, fundies who go for the honor killing are murdering women for imagined slights.

[Cleita]

17. This is the best option IMHO.

"The only option left now is to split Iraq into three different countries and/or states."

I watched a conference of ME representatives on CSPAN last week. They disagreed on many things but the one thing that they did agree on was that there was going to be bloodshed and human rights violations in Iraq whether we leave or we don't leave. They said there is no difference and it would be best if we get out because then there would be a chance it would end sooner than later if we stay.

Our country's leaders started a bloodbath. I take no part in it because I didn't vote for them and I protested this war of agression both in person, by mail and by telephone. I, like the majority of Americans, were ignored. Yet, I know as an American we will be seen as responsible.

There is no way we can go back to square one and start the game again. A country was destroyed and our country is responsible. Bringing back Saddam would be so cynical I cry to think of it.

[madokie]

19. sorry but it was a mean spirited way for us to be there today

when I say us I mean the bush* regime. The Iraqi didn't do anything to deserve what is happening to them, nothing

[sam sarrha]

7. and W honors them by killing more... sorry but Iraq is/always was a waste, it really wasn't a real

country, they were 3 groups got together to deal with circumstance.. and now they have to separate to survive circumstance.. just F'n get it over with and get out.. they will never quit killing each other.. we need to get out from between them, we should NEVER have intervened. we should respect Islam and all Muslim nations, Allah is merciful and they can work out their own problems with his help..

we should just stay out of their 1200 year old family feud and focus all our time and money we have left to develop alternate Renewable energy to free ourselves from their oil and their bullshit.

there is no honor in war and wasted young lives for corporate profit, only continued tragedy, tears, widows and orphans on both sides, while the few and the connected and privilaged get richer

[Cleita]

9. We are going to have to leave with our collective tails between

our legs when it's all over. Turning power back to Saddam would be the ultimate piss all over us.

[cynatnite]

12. Well, we've pissed all over ourselves several times....

what's one more.

[Cleita]

18. Sorry, that you look upon this as fixable by us. It isn't..

We can't fix this. We have to get out of the way and let them work it out. Unfortunately, it will be bloody. We won't get out of this scot free either. There will be revenge on us.

[sam sarrha]

23. islam is in a 1200 yr old family feud, dont think they will forget this atrocity

[sam sarrha]

22. we will probably have to leave huddled in a circle walking backwards fire'n into the Mobs if W has

way about it..

[talk hard]

4. he was the glue that held it together

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. No Way In Hell.

The fact that we've fucked things up so much there doesn't mean that we should put that brutal piece of shit back in power. It also wouldn't solve a damn thing at this point.

We definitely need to figure out a way to make things right there. That's not the way.

[The Straight Story]

14. It seems that there is something else lurking here in this idea

That Saddam ruled by power and not morality based - ie, he kept things going by being brutal. If that is the case then perhaps people want us to do the same. Go in, kill more and more of anyone we want, and rule by fear.

Yet - we don't like it when troops act this way. On the other hand, some think having someone to rule that way is good (as long as it is not us....).

I dunno, all seems confusing to me :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Ain't Hypocrisy A Bitch? LOL Good Interpretation SS, I Agree.

[Cleita]

20. I think you've got it.

Historically, rule by strong men may keep the peasants quiet for awhile, but it only extends the agony for generations. I thought we were bringing them freedom and democracy, or so the monkey said.

But oops! That didn't work so well. Oh, shit let's bring back the murderous dictator. He ran things so well. The same was said of Pinochet of Chile.

[Az]

13. The Bear Buttplug analogy

When bears are preparing to hibernate they eat a lot of grass and leaves and such. This leads to them creating a pulpy mass that clogs up their sphincter. This keeps them from soiling their nest during the long winter months. In the spring the plug comes out and the resulting torrent of efluence commences.

Saddam was Iraq's butt plug. He was a horrible aweful thing keeping worse things at bay. And we yanked the butt plug out. Cuz we thought the butt plug was a horrible thing. And now we have bear shit all over us. In order to lull the bear back to sleep we have had to become the butt plug ourself. Only we are trying to cram it in the wrong way and as a result we are just making matters worse.

[cynatnite]

15. That's the best analogy I've ever read here at DU

:thumbsup:

[Marr]

21. Why? Every liberal I know was against setting the murderous bastard up in the

first place. I don't see why Reagan's favorite little dictator should be any more deserving of our support now.

That's the thing that pisses me off about this Saddam thing. Right wingers have been suggesting for several years that anyone who disagreed with their plan to invade Iraq somehow supported Hussein. But every opponent of the right was AGAINST Hussein back when the right wing was supporting him openly.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. It won't work... his regime has been completely destroyed, he'd just be assassinated

But you make a good point. Saddam was a vile human being, but sadly there are scenarios that are far worse than having him in power.

Also, it was in the US strategic interest to keep Saddam in power. It just so happens that two of the countries on the Axis of Evil, Iraq and Iran, hated each other just as much as they hate the United States and Israel.

[Porcupine]

25. All the kings horses and all the kings men.....

couldn't put humpty together again.

The wisdom of nursery ryhmes lasts through the ages.

[pettypace]

26. Could it be...

..that Saddam was the closest thing to a "progressive" head of state in the Mideast? It must be noted that Saddam's regime was secular in comparison to the Islamic pillars that surrounded him. He was a US ally against the fundamentalist Iranian regime. He incurred the wrath of the US and the west for invading a fellow arab state - the genesis for his antipathy towards the US. Only hostile act perpetuated against the US was a purported assasination attempt against Bush I, and habitually shooting at US/UK war birds flying over his country's airspace (albeit violating the "no fly zones"). Becoming the center of Bush II's vendetta after scores of Saudis, Pakistanis, Egyptians concocted the Planes Operation of 2001. Yes Mr Bush, I think the lessons of September the 11th did not call for an ill-conceived ousting of the regime that kept Iraq together, and progressive in relative terms.

[Cleita]

28. The Shah of Iran was also considered a progressive head of

state. Bloody totalitarian regimes no matter which side they prop up, secular or religious are still bloody totalitarian regimes. Remember Soviet Russia was Marxist in persecuting religion.

[Igel]

29. He was, for a while.

Despotic, corrupt, but by comparison with many, certainly no worse, at least not for a few minutes. Big into state planning and Arab nationalism. Populace was educated and society was secular; he was working to reduce the power of the clans, not because they were divisive, but because he wanted the power. He was certainly pro-Sunni, and had many Sunnis move to Baghdad; in the mix, clans lost power and he gained power, and helped reinforce the Sunni presence in the capital.

After 1991 he changed. Well, not really; he followed Stalin's route of doing what's necessary, not ideologically correct, to maintain power in the face of an enemy. He got religion: he had a Koran commissioned in his blood; he added "Allahu akbar" to the Iraqi flag; he started on a massive Sunni-mosque construction project, and converted many Shi'a mosques/husseiniyyaat to Sunni mosques, heavily infested with Salafists, his way of bribing the Salafists to ensure lack of animosity, if not out-and-out loyalty. He started currying extensive favor with Sunni tribes, routing money and power to them in exchange for their support. The state planning continued, but poorly; the infrastructure was decaying, and illiteracy was rising--water purification systems declined, sewers weren't fixed, and the electical grid was goosed so that Baghdad, Tikrit, and a few other places had steady power while most places, esp. Shi'ite towns, had little or none. The oil-for-food program gave him a lock on food supplies, and with high unemployment he basically was Saddam the Provider, more than ever; it also gave him an out, instead of spending money on infrastructure and other things, he could count on Arab-Muslim xenophobia and blame the outsider non-Muslims for all their problems.

Iraq's surrounded by 6 countries: Iran, Kuwait, Sa'udi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey. Jordan, Syria, and Turkey aren't exactly "Islamic pillars"; neither's Kuwait. They're all intolerant and repressive in their own ways; by 2003 standards, Saddam was far from the best. Note that all have an Islamist problem, of sorts: Turkey's secular nature's being eroded in the background; Jordan has the same breed of Salafists as Iraq, Syria too. Kuwait shares Sa'udiyya's problem. The region's a nuthouse.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

27. If it gets us out of there ...

then I'm all for it. But we'd have to help him gain control again, suppress the shiites and kurds, ignore the little sunni excesses, just for a little while. When he's got control, we can even let him retake Kuwait. That's what got us into this in the first place.