4,000 women run for office in Iraq

Originally posted by dadudemon
You certainly have not shown a very thorough understanding of this policy's existence, now have you? Behold, the reason for my comment. (Which, obviously was jest. Surely you're not THAT much of a dumbass?)

Ahhh. One of "those." Says the person who couldn't spell "exaggeration" correctly after many correct uses. For shame. For shame. At least I can blame mine on retardation.

Seriously, you truly lack the ability of insight. I take back what I said earlier about it being jest. You really do lack the ability to think from multiple perspectives. You're just as much of a closed minded conservative as the Arabs, aren't you?

I seriously did not know that about you. 😐

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It tends to have a couple of advantages over dictatorship by the few. Mainly that those idiots get exactly what they deserve.

Touche

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, since there's nothing "on topic" in this anymore, I guess we move on, as I am not into that whole insulting people thing that much nowadays.

Note to GDF readers:

Bards and I worked it out via IM. It turns out that we are not that far off in our perspectives. It's just that he doesn't particular care for forcing a specific form leadership on the people, even if it is for the greater good. This stems from his anarchist ideals. I feel that it is all but impossible (highly highly improbable) that legitimate change can occur in favor of Iraqi females without some "affirmative action" type of laws. I am just more tolerable of where this "affirmative action" has its "influence."

Originally posted by KidRock
We are terrible, we should have never done this. These people get the right to vote for their leader? We are losing this war completely.

they would be much happier getting gassed and murdered by a dictator.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Yes, they may have semi-democratic elections now but then again, they did have like a million more people pre-2003... It all depends on what your priorities are.

I guess. Either you can live in fear and have your kids live in fear. Or you might die and know your kids, or grandkids or the future of the country will be able to live in peace and prosper.

Originally posted by KidRock
I guess. Either you can live in fear and have your kids live in fear. Or you might die and know your kids, or grandkids or the future of the country will be able to live in peace and prosper.

Originally posted by KidRock
I guess. Either you can live in fear and have your kids live in fear. Or you might die and know your kids, or grandkids or the future of the country will be able to live in peace and prosper.

What a happy world the Iraqis have been given. They can either live in fear or they can die. How is that helping again?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What a happy world the Iraqis have been given. They can either live in fear or they can die. How is that helping again?

Do we have numbers here to be able to argue with?

If less Iraqis are dying today than they were pre-invasion...

If more Iraqis are dying today than they were pre-invasion, that only adds fuel to the ever growing anti-Iraqi invasion rhetoric.

Edit-It makes me a bastard to reduce human lives down to mere numbers, I know. But that would help the argument sway one way or another, imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do we have numbers here to be able to argue with?

If less Iraqis are dying today than they were pre-invasion...

If more Iraqis are dying today than they were pre-invasion, that only adds fuel to the ever growing anti-Iraqi invasion rhetoric.

Edit-It makes me a bastard to reduce human lives down to mere numbers, I know. But that would help the argument sway one way or another, imo.

I'm not sure how you'd express numbers of people dying without resorting to numbers at some point. And yes I'm aware of what the numbers would mean in either direction, what I thought was funny was kidrock saying that we've done so much good that Iraqis now get a choice between a life of terror or dying as opposed to the rule of Saddam where they got to die or live in fear.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What a happy world the Iraqis have been given. They can either live in fear or they can die. How is that helping again?

We are all gonna die. Either you can die in fear or you can die knowing your kids wont live under a dictator that will kill them.

Do you even feel the least bit happy that these people have a chance at a brighter future? Or is everything just angry politics?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure how you'd express numbers of people dying without resorting to numbers at some point. And yes I'm aware of what the numbers would mean in either direction, what I thought was funny was kidrock saying that we've done so much good that Iraqis now get a choice between a life of terror or dying as opposed to the rule of Saddam where they got to die or live in fear.

If you're fully aware of what the numbers mean, put up some numbers. There might even bee a "fear" survey done as well. (Such as, the majoriy say that they feel safer, now, than they did pre-Iraq war invasion.)

Originally posted by KidRock
We are all gonna die. Either you can die in fear or you can die knowing your kids wont live under a dictator that will kill them.

Do you even feel the least bit happy that these people have a chance at a brighter future? Or is everything just angry politics?

While I agree with the sentiments, we should never have been there.

We did not have the resources (insert dozens of "we did not have" or "we couldn't/shouldn't/wouldn't" here.) for this in the first place.

If we had the money and didn't have our own domestic problems, I would be much more gung ho about saving the world. Even then, I still don't like interfering with places other than our own Shi'ite. (A virtual pun on a bad word. 😐 )

Originally posted by KidRock
We are all gonna die. Either you can die in fear or you can die knowing your kids wont live under a dictator that will kill them.

Do you even feel the least bit happy that these people have a chance at a brighter future? Or is everything just angry politics?

Their future is anything but certain. Just as it wasn't certain before...

Originally posted by jaden101
Not quite grasping the concept of democracy with that are they?

Actually...I kinda think they are.

In the limited democracy that is now run across the world, forcing the system to allow the representation of minorities is kinda democratic...(Are women even a minority?)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Actually...I kinda think they are.

In the limited democracy that is now run across the world, forcing the system to allow the representation of minorities is kinda democratic...(Are women even a minority?)

It's not actually democratic.

It's not that uncommon though, I guess. Still sucky. Not as sucky as having a dictator, I guess...depending on the dictator.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Actually...I kinda think they are.

In the limited democracy that is now run across the world, forcing the system to allow the representation of minorities is kinda democratic...(Are women even a minority?)

There are many interpretations of minorities. In this situation, the women had a minority voice in politics. Even the new law still leaves them with that.

If you wanted to do a minority as a population, it would be males.

If women are allowed to vote over there and it is genuinely anonymous, then they deserve every last bit of gender oppression they get.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not actually democratic.

It's not that uncommon though, I guess. Still sucky. Not as sucky as having a dictator, I guess...depending on the dictator.

Sure, by the definition, it's not democratic. But, as you said, dictatorship by the majority still sucks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, by the definition, it's not democratic. But, as you said, dictatorship by the majority still sucks.

Unless you're in the majority (which is most people), then it's cool.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless you're in the majority (which is most people), then it's cool.

Maybe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not actually democratic.

It's not that uncommon though, I guess. Still sucky. Not as sucky as having a dictator, I guess...depending on the dictator.

What is undemocratic about it?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What is undemocratic about it?

If a choice is forced on a group of voters, it restricts their ability to vote democractically, based on a pure definition of a "democratic voting" system.

To make it easier, You have 16 citizens in your country. There are 3 positions open. Leader, vice-leader, secretary of state. Two candidates run for each office.

If 13 votes are cast for leader choice "a" and only 3 are cast for "b" and "b" is given the office, it is a basic violation of democracy philosphy.

You can continue to use my example to further illustrate your points.

congratulations to those women?

Or are we supposed to think this is some kind of notable milestone in Arab politics or the reconstruction of the Iraqi state?

Originally posted by inimalist
congratulations to those women?

Or are we supposed to think this is some kind of notable milestone in Arab politics or the reconstruction of the Iraqi state?

Yes on all three accounts.