Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]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.)/B]
Between the 1st gulf war and the 2nd invasion some 290,000 mainly shi'ites were put to death...this comes from mass graves discovered since.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
that was from 1992 to 2003
Iraq body count currently has the death toll from 2003-2009 and 98,000
both sets of figure are disputed both higher and lower by other sources though.
It should be noted on the iraq body count's main page that the most recent death toll for a month is 296...11 of which were killed by allied forces.
In other words Iraqis were killing each other off in much larger numbers long before we got there and they'll be doing it long after we're gone.
I want to know: Why doesn't anyone seem to see anything that's considered to be common sense? I'm a 17 year old kid, and even I see the stupidity in these(and, as said earlier(don't stone me), the presidency). Now why can't the entire world notice it? What is it that's causing Iraq not to understand Democracy?
Originally posted by Toku King
I want to know: Why doesn't anyone seem to see anything that's considered to be common sense? I'm a 17 year old kid, and even I see the stupidity in these(and, as said earlier(don't stone me), the presidency). Now why can't the entire world notice it? What is it that's causing Iraq not to understand Democracy?
How about thousands of years of not having democracy. How do you force policies on a people who's cultural (although not religious as i'm aware of the fact that, by the quran, women should have many more rights than they actually do in Islamic countries) traditions state the exact opposite?
I can see what they're trying to do but forcing such a massive change in a single act is going to cause huge resentment and i can pretty much guarantee that many of the women who are "elected" to parliment seats are killed in assassinations by those who seek to implement Sharia law or simply by men of the opposite side of the sectarian sunni/shia divide.
Originally posted by jaden101
How about thousands of years of not having democracy. How do you force policies on a people who's cultural (although not religious as i'm aware of the fact that, by the quran, women should have many more rights than they actually do in Islamic countries) traditions state the exact opposite?
Indeed, on all accounts.
Originally posted by jaden101
I can see what they're trying to do but forcing such a massive change in a single act is going to cause huge resentment
Indeed. How many African Americans got death or beatings? Change is hard.
Originally posted by jaden101
and i can pretty much guarantee that many of the women who are "elected" to parliment seats are killed in assassinations by those who seek to implement Sharia law or simply by men of the opposite side of the sectarian sunni/shia divide.
There could be a few. Growing pains, really.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
Yet...surely curtailing the selective power of Political Parties (oligarchies) is pro-democratic?
Democracy is a balance, it is not just about the right to vote for a candidate but also the right to be fairly represented.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Yet...surely curtailing the selective power of Political Parties (oligarchies) is pro-democratic?Democracy is a balance, it is not just about the right to vote for a candidate but also the right to be fairly represented.
I fullly agree with your perspective. What you and I are talking about is a deep flaw in this misconceived holy grail of democracy. This is called majoritarianism (it was only a matter of time before I remembered. mwhahahahaaa! evillaugh )
Ideal democracy has to have limitations/constraints/fail safes in place to ensure that maximum liberty and voter power is realized simultaneously. This balance is easier to achieve in tolerant civilizations. What happens, though, when the civilization is so suppressive of a specific people that it is nigh impossible to bring about equality without a paradigm shift? Is that even appropriate? I say it is. Bring on the rapid change and let the casualties of change solidify the resolve of change in the minds of the people.
However, I still don't like how a specific leadership demographic (no matter what the demographic is) is being forced on people. However, it is tolerable considering the reasons.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ideal democracy has to have limitations/constraints/fail safes in place to ensure that maximum liberty and voter power is realized simultaneously. This balance is easier to achieve in tolerant civilizations. What happens, though, when the civilization is so suppressive of a specific people that it is nigh impossible to bring about equality without a paradigm shift? Is that even appropriate? I say it is. Bring on the rapid change and let the casualties of change solidify the resolve of change in the minds of the people.
Sounds like communism to me.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I fullly agree with your perspective. What you and I are talking about is a deep flaw in this misconceived holy grail of democracy. This is called majoritarianism (it was only a matter of time before I remembered. mwhahahahaaa! evillaugh )Ideal democracy has to have limitations/constraints/fail safes in place to ensure that maximum liberty and voter power is realized simultaneously. This balance is easier to achieve in tolerant civilizations. What happens, though, when the civilization is so suppressive of a specific people that it is nigh impossible to bring about equality without a paradigm shift? Is that even appropriate? I say it is. Bring on the rapid change and let the casualties of change solidify the resolve of change in the minds of the people.
However, I still don't like how a specific leadership demographic (no matter what the demographic is) is being forced on people. However, it is tolerable considering the reasons.
So effectively the idea is that if they force change to the fullest degree in one fell swoop they will avoid the many many years of turmoil that small and staggered changes always have (see the US civil rights movement). That after a relatively short period of time, the changes will be accepted and the trouble will stop.
The problem still arises in that what if the vast majority of women in Iraq actually want to vote for men...and very few women actually gained enough votes to allow them a mandate for being in office?...they wouldn't be representative of the people who voted.
Originally posted by jaden101
So effectively the idea is that if they force change to the fullest degree in one fell swoop they will avoid the many many years of turmoil that small and staggered changes always have (see the US civil rights movement). That after a relatively short period of time, the changes will be accepted and the trouble will stop.
True.
Originally posted by jaden101
The problem still arises in that what if the vast majority of women in Iraq actually want to vote for men...and very few women actually gained enough votes to allow them a mandate for being in office?...they wouldn't be representative of the people who voted.
I accept you bet and raise you 4000 women running for Iraqi office. Obviously, your point (which is valid) is far and away from being the case. They obviously want change. I mean, how many parlimentary seats are there? Is there anything like that in all of UK or US history?
There's 275 seats in the Iraq council of representatives...so about 91 or them will be women. We'll only know if they want change if and when there is a huge protest about 91 women being given seats over though they never got the most amount of votes but because it was deemed more "representative" of the people then that's what they get.
Originally posted by jaden101
There's 275 seats in the Iraq council of representatives...so about 91 or them will be women. We'll only know if they want change if and when there is a huge protest about 91 women being given seats over though they never got the most amount of votes but because it was deemed more "representative" of the people then that's what they get.
If I can recall, there were even US women against female suffrage in the US women's rights movement. I suspect that there will be a few women who even oppose their standing. However, with so many women stepping up to the plate, this is bound to be very effective. The opposition will be from a small minority. If that many women stepped up, how many women liked the idea but didn't have the courage? How many liked the idea but didn't want to do that for a job? How many Thought it was a great idea, but thought that they wouldn't have a chance with so many trying for it? You could probably think of tons of this. The point is, it's probably got lots of female support. I don't think this will be like the Race rights the US endured. However, it could be worse. 馃檨
The main problem is that a lot of the people who will be opposed to it will be hard line Sharia law following muslim men...and among them, the kinds of people who would think nothing of walking into the Iraqi council and blowing themselves to pieces, taking many other people with them. You only have to look at Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto to see the effect that even 1 woman in power can have on those who oppose that idea.
Originally posted by jaden101
The main problem is that a lot of the people who will be opposed to it will be hard line Sharia law following muslim men...and among them, the kinds of people who would think nothing of walking into the Iraqi council and blowing themselves to pieces, taking many other people with them. You only have to look at Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto to see the effect that even 1 woman in power can have on those who oppose that idea.
You do have a point. Stupid stupid stupid barbarians. (Stupid stupid stupid invasion, too.)
Was she really killed because she was a women? I thought it was for her political beliefs and associations?
Originally posted by jaden101
Her political beliefs were to increase the role of women in politics and in life in general in Pakistan...So they're related.
馃槅 馃槅 馃槅
I should have paid better attention to that story.
In that case...
Damn, there's no winning for women in Islam*, is there?
*Yes, I know there are sects that allow much more freedom to their women. Give me a break, guys. 馃檨
It'll be a very VERY long re-education for muslim men to accept women having a higher role in life than they currently have. While i applaud the sentiment behind trying to get a higher proportion of representation for women in the council, i just think that the people who've come up with the idea are pretty far removed from the life of an average muslim woman.
typical politicians really.
Originally posted by jaden101
It'll be a very VERY long re-education for muslim men to accept women having a higher role in life than they currently have. While i applaud the sentiment behind trying to get a higher proportion of representation for women in the council, i just think that the people who've come up with the idea are pretty far removed from the life of an average muslim woman.typical politicians really.
not to mention that, based on African and Indian models, the best way to get men to respect women is to financially empower women, not make them figureheads in a patriarchal society.