A woman would have to be pretty dumb not to wear a headscarf in Iran.
If anyone taking action, it should be Iraqi feminists. Our interest groups and whatnot can't accomplish much over there. It's the Iraqi custom, and nobody from the outside should try to change that.
Wow, do you understand the word sovereign?David.P wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3018766.ece
Come on feminists where are you?
People should be learning the lesson that they should stay well clear of them sorts of country's. Just stay clear and you don't have to do some shit that isn't even your own religion.
why do you give a shit?David.P wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3018766.ece
Come on feminists where are you?
It's not like it's official policy. It's militias enforcing no existent rules.
This sort of religious anarchic lawlessness would never have been allowed under Saddam.....
This sort of religious anarchic lawlessness would never have been allowed under Saddam.....
Also try to avoid being born there.jord wrote:
People should be learning the lesson that they should stay well clear of them sorts of country's. Just stay clear and you don't have to do some shit that isn't even your own religion.
Do you understand that this is a jab against Feminist groups in this country who keep saying how oppressed they are but shut up when pressed with hard facts?golgoj4 wrote:
Wow, do you understand the word sovereign?
Do you understand that i hate hypocrisy from anyone one person or group?
Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?
I've mentioned before that I'm no longer an isolationist. I'm not quite an interventionist either, but anyway, let me just say that, if it weren't so expensive to continue staying in Iraq, I would have absolutely no problem with forcing Iraq's culture to modernize.
If we had the balls to conquer them Ancient Roman style, we could force them to modernize, but that wouldn't be politically correct.
If we had the balls to conquer them Ancient Roman style, we could force them to modernize, but that wouldn't be politically correct.
I totally understand what you're getting at, which is why whenever I'm approached by a feminist about some thing or another, I tell them, "Go bitch to the Middle Easterners."David.P wrote:
Do you understand that this is a jab against Feminist groups in this country who keep saying how oppressed they are but shut up when pressed with hard facts?golgoj4 wrote:
Wow, do you understand the word sovereign?
Do you understand that i hate hypocrisy from anyone one person or group?
Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?
If people are forced to respect American or English culture, by adapting to the country, I don't see why foreigners shouldn't have to adapt to the Iraqi culture...
They're hypocrites, but then, so is the USA. They're all over...
-konfusion
They're hypocrites, but then, so is the USA. They're all over...
-konfusion
Erm, isn't that regulation/good practice in almost every Muslim country??? Including the likes of Saudi Arabia?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-09 10:33:51)
news flash, women in the west forced to wear clothes. that makes me a sad panda
Good point. But then again, we currently manage Iraq. If we had the power to do so, I think forcing them to end this practice wouldn't be such a bad idea.konfusion wrote:
If people are forced to respect American or English culture, by adapting to the country, I don't see why foreigners shouldn't have to adapt to the Iraqi culture...
They're hypocrites, but then, so is the USA. They're all over...
-konfusion
Turquoise please - not you! You CANNOT impose a value system on anyone. It comes from within, not from without. The hijab is part of Muslim culture, people need to get the fuck over that.Turquoise wrote:
Good point. But then again, we currently manage Iraq. If we had the power to do so, I think forcing them to end this practice wouldn't be such a bad idea.konfusion wrote:
If people are forced to respect American or English culture, by adapting to the country, I don't see why foreigners shouldn't have to adapt to the Iraqi culture...
They're hypocrites, but then, so is the USA. They're all over...
-konfusion
Yeah, I know... I'm a bit more imperialistic than I used to be, but I try to moderate it with my small government ideals.CameronPoe wrote:
Turquoise please - not you! You CANNOT impose a value system on anyone. It comes from within, not from without. The hijab is part of Muslim culture, people need to get the fuck over that.Turquoise wrote:
Good point. But then again, we currently manage Iraq. If we had the power to do so, I think forcing them to end this practice wouldn't be such a bad idea.konfusion wrote:
If people are forced to respect American or English culture, by adapting to the country, I don't see why foreigners shouldn't have to adapt to the Iraqi culture...
They're hypocrites, but then, so is the USA. They're all over...
-konfusion
Whatever the case, I'm just saying that I think it's wrong for them to force it on non-Muslim women. While some social changes need to happen from within, others must be done from the outside.
My support for this idea comes from historical examples like how Mohammed's followers were an invading force against many cultures in order to spread Islam. They successfully changed many cultures as an outside force. So did Catholicism. It may not be the most moral thing to do, but sometimes, it is practical.
You aren't talking about making people fond of fast food - you're talking about steam rolling over a central tenet of Islam, a religion currently practiced by over 1 billion people for the past 1400 years.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, I know... I'm a bit more imperialistic than I used to be, but I try to moderate it with my small government ideals.
Whatever the case, I'm just saying that I think it's wrong for them to force it on non-Muslim women. While some social changes need to happen from within, others must be done from the outside.
My support for this idea comes from historical examples like how Mohammed's followers were an invading force against many cultures in order to spread Islam. They successfully changed many cultures as an outside force. So did Catholicism. It may not be the most moral thing to do, but sometimes, it is practical.
Hey, I didn't say it would be easy.CameronPoe wrote:
You aren't talking about making people fond of fast food - you're talking about steam rolling over a central tenet of Islam, a religion currently practiced by over 1 billion people for the past 1400 years.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, I know... I'm a bit more imperialistic than I used to be, but I try to moderate it with my small government ideals.
Whatever the case, I'm just saying that I think it's wrong for them to force it on non-Muslim women. While some social changes need to happen from within, others must be done from the outside.
My support for this idea comes from historical examples like how Mohammed's followers were an invading force against many cultures in order to spread Islam. They successfully changed many cultures as an outside force. So did Catholicism. It may not be the most moral thing to do, but sometimes, it is practical.
Still, there is proof that it can be done. Many of the more modernized Muslim nations (like Turkey), don't force all women to wear these things. So basically, these other countries will need to catch up with the rest of the world. Someone's got to do it, and we might as well be the ones for Iraq since we're already there.
I don't know where to even begin.
LOL @ Bush.
LOL @ Bush.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
The someone that's 'got to do it' is them. Any imposed or coerced 'advancement' will be shunned as imperialism and interference. Ataturk did it for the Turks and it's still an incredibly contentious issue there.Turquoise wrote:
Hey, I didn't say it would be easy.CameronPoe wrote:
You aren't talking about making people fond of fast food - you're talking about steam rolling over a central tenet of Islam, a religion currently practiced by over 1 billion people for the past 1400 years.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, I know... I'm a bit more imperialistic than I used to be, but I try to moderate it with my small government ideals.
Whatever the case, I'm just saying that I think it's wrong for them to force it on non-Muslim women. While some social changes need to happen from within, others must be done from the outside.
My support for this idea comes from historical examples like how Mohammed's followers were an invading force against many cultures in order to spread Islam. They successfully changed many cultures as an outside force. So did Catholicism. It may not be the most moral thing to do, but sometimes, it is practical.
Still, there is proof that it can be done. Many of the more modernized Muslim nations (like Turkey), don't force all women to wear these things. So basically, these other countries will need to catch up with the rest of the world. Someone's got to do it, and we might as well be the ones for Iraq since we're already there.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-09 11:02:10)
I'm sure it will be, just like Islam was probably shunned by the people who lived in Iraq before Islam conquered them. This all comes down to one culture conquering another, and I'd rather be the conqueror than the conquered.CameronPoe wrote:
The someone that's 'got to do it' is them. Any imposed or coerced 'advancement' will be shunned as imperialism and interference.Turquoise wrote:
Hey, I didn't say it would be easy.CameronPoe wrote:
You aren't talking about making people fond of fast food - you're talking about steam rolling over a central tenet of Islam, a religion currently practiced by over 1 billion people for the past 1400 years.
Still, there is proof that it can be done. Many of the more modernized Muslim nations (like Turkey), don't force all women to wear these things. So basically, these other countries will need to catch up with the rest of the world. Someone's got to do it, and we might as well be the ones for Iraq since we're already there.
Areas like Iraq and Sudan have shown themselves to be incapable of properly governing themselves, so I believe it is our duty to impose our own systems and rules on them. Order must be maintained even if it means lots of bloodshed.
Granted, I realize that Iraq used to have a functioning government. We should have left Saddam in power, but now we have to be the next Saddam, scarily enough. Democracy is a pipe dream in Iraq, so a powerful government of our own design must be created to protect our interests in Iraq.
Of course, the other option is withdrawal, which I'd happily support. It doesn't look like withdrawal is going to happen anytime soon though.
Begin with addressing the OP?m3thod wrote:
I don't know where to even begin.
LOL @ Bush.
You seem to have become incredibly imperialistic. Let me point out some things:Turquoise wrote:
I'm sure it will be, just like Islam was probably shunned by the people who lived in Iraq before Islam conquered them. This all comes down to one culture conquering another, and I'd rather be the conqueror than the conquered.
Areas like Iraq and Sudan have shown themselves to be incapable of properly governing themselves, so I believe it is our duty to impose our own systems and rules on them. Order must be maintained even if it means lots of bloodshed.
Granted, I realize that Iraq used to have a functioning government. We should have left Saddam in power, but now we have to be the next Saddam, scarily enough. Democracy is a pipe dream in Iraq, so a powerful government of our own design must be created to protect our interests in Iraq.
Of course, the other option is withdrawal, which I'd happily support. It doesn't look like withdrawal is going to happen anytime soon though.
a) There is no 'conquer or be conquered' - that is patent nonsense. If you really think there is some risk of the globe being dominated by any one power or creed then you have lost it, I'm sorry.
b) All nations are at a different stage of evolution/maturity from the artic to the antartic. There is no 'fast forward' button. Irish resistance to the British occupation, which in the 26 counties lasted some 800 years, never ceased or diminished.
c) Installation of ones own 'hardline' regime in Iraq copper-fastens the US' position as 'global bad-boy and imperialist shitheads'. It's as simple as that.
d) Sudan is no concern of yours, mine, my government or your government.
Well that's a relief. Thank god we have you to determine what is important. Come to think of it, you should be who everyone asks about everything since you have all the answers on what is important and what is not. I am glad you see all the intelligence reports on other countries also.CameronPoe wrote:
d) Sudan is no concern of yours, mine, my government or your government.