Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Western Style Equality
For any of those moonbats who think that any form of Islamic Republic in Iraq (or even one just friendly to Islam) means Iraqi women end up "worse off than under Saddam, follow the link to Jason Van Steenwyk's Iraq Now (Countercolumn) blog.
Read the whole thing; its horrifying, but important in reminding us just how brutal this regime was, and how fortunate the Iraqi people (minus the mugs thugs and wackos) are to be rid of him and his sons.
As Jason follows up in a subsequent post:
Could we have weighed all the reasons he was a threat, and in consideration of risks or self-interest, said, "Not now. It's not worth it"?
Sure, we could have. Would that have been more moral than acting militarily? Only if you would be willing to have many thousands more dead, many thousands more raped, many thousands more tortured, many thousands more ethnically cleansed, and quite possibly many many more thousands of innocent civilians killed in terrorist attacks by the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and God knows how many other shadowy terrorist groups Saddam was supporting, training, paying, and with whom he was plotting.
Please, if you want to answer, "none of that was proven," or there's no evidence of that, you need to slap yourself silly. Really.
Links: Outside the Beltway, Wizbang
Read the whole thing; its horrifying, but important in reminding us just how brutal this regime was, and how fortunate the Iraqi people (minus the mugs thugs and wackos) are to be rid of him and his sons.
As Jason follows up in a subsequent post:
It is not neccessary for me to advance anything more than the fact that Saddam was a brutal, sadistic, murderous, totalitarian dictator, in order to falsify the ridiculous notion that Iraqi women had enjoyed anything like western style equality under Saddam. Really, this argument reminds me of the old saws about Hitler not being so bad -- at least he made the trains run on time.Was Iraq the worst possible, most brutal regime on the face of the earth in 2003, when we invaded to topple him? Arguably, yes.
Don't tell me that in a world in which a woman would be targeted for gang rape for the actions of a relative, or that in a world where a woman could be beheaded on the whim of a Ba'athist with no due process that this idea of the rights and the affirmation of the dignity of Iraqi women have any meaning whatsoever.
Don't you dare.
Could we have weighed all the reasons he was a threat, and in consideration of risks or self-interest, said, "Not now. It's not worth it"?
Sure, we could have. Would that have been more moral than acting militarily? Only if you would be willing to have many thousands more dead, many thousands more raped, many thousands more tortured, many thousands more ethnically cleansed, and quite possibly many many more thousands of innocent civilians killed in terrorist attacks by the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and God knows how many other shadowy terrorist groups Saddam was supporting, training, paying, and with whom he was plotting.
Please, if you want to answer, "none of that was proven," or there's no evidence of that, you need to slap yourself silly. Really.
Links: Outside the Beltway, Wizbang
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
