Please, someone help me understand this.

[Tim4319]

Not saying I am a Saddam supporter but, under Saddam's reign, women where permitted to work, vote, drive, didn't have to wear Burka's, go to school, and many other things women living in Middle Eastern Countries are not permitted to do. Now, with this new government coming in, they will utilize the standard Islamic laws in Iraq. Women will be treated like second hand citizens in Iraq. How will things be better?

[nookiemonster]

1. That's the whole point.

No one is denying that Saddam was a brutal bastard, but he was a secular ruler. Not a theocrat.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. because.

Condi, Donny and Dicky said so.

And that should be enough for you, you unpatriotic bum. How DARE you question our fearless leader?

It is because they say it is. Period.


Speaking of periods, women cannot go out in public during certain times under the Sharia.

[unblock]

3. considering the standards of the region, saddam was NOT THAT evil

i would place syria, iran, and saudi arabia as more repressive than saddam.

don't get me wrong, saddam was hardly a saint. he was indeed brutal in preserving his power and certainly cavalier about putting his troops in harm's way. but his brand of brutality usually extended only to those who specifically threatened his power, whereas the other regimes foster brutality throughout their countries for religious and/or generally oppressive reasons.

furthermore, iraq was one of the most secular and advanced countries in the region as well.

could iraq's situation have been improved? undoubtably, but there was always far more downside risk.

not that king george gave a monkey's....

[Brotherjohn]

4. But under Saddam, people were dragged off to prison, based on their...

...opposition to the government, held without legal recourse, indefinitely, tortured, raped, murdered...

Oh. Nevermind.

[BurtWorm]

6. Yes, but they did all that at Abu Ghraib, making it synonymous with...

Um... Never mind.

[seabeyond]

5. from a freeper thread i read i was shocked to find out, this is a good

thing. firstly we should do more of that with our women here in the u.s. but secondly, ...... this is iraq having freedoms. and if this is what they chose, they have elections after all,....so it is good. women can vote this crowd out, since they now have free elections if they want. and how silly for women congress people insist bush inter fer with a sovereign country.

[melissinha]

7. I'll go one better...

Its about the logical assumptions..

Why does Bush hate Chavez so much? Cause he has no control, interest in Venezuelan oil (as far as I know). THis occured to me when I read that Citgo is a branch of the PDVSA State OIl Company of Venezuela. Going to have to go a different way home to get my gas there from now on.

Now I have read a little on this... it appears that Chavez is criticizing Citgo for not providing more jobs for Venezuelans and for moving to privitazation (this the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, whose branch is CITGO).

But hey, we know about privitazation and money-hoarding.. I would just rather not feed the middle-east oil beast.

Furthermore, I don't care that my brother-in-law is a contract attorney for Exxon... well I am not happy about it but it won't make me buy gas from there.