Irshad Manji has a solid point.
President Bush, are you reading?
WARNING: Heavy Sarcasm Zone. USA Sucks. Jews Not Welcome. Religion Is Infallible. Reader Discretion Is Advised, and Again, Seriously, Heavy Sarcasm Zone.
|
-
Blog Featured In
-
Drima Elsewhere
-
Network with Drima
-
Nominated Three Times
-
Causes
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree with her.
Unfortunately the belief that “imperialism” in all its forms is bad and that invading a country to remove a dictator and give power to its people is “imperialism” is so strong that implementing change is not so easy.
I disagree with one of her points, though. She was not wrong to think that the invasion would make the human rights situation better. It certainly has. What made it worse again (and I can’t say it’s worse than under Saddam) is what happened after the invasion, the arrival of the terrorists.
(Saddam had a strict policy of supporting terrorists outside Iraq but not letting them operate within Iraq, with the exception of those that attacked Kurds or terrorists on holidays.)
“And how revealing that when it comes to re-building Iraq and Afghanistan, cultural relativism unites the post-modern Left and the neo-conservative Right.”
It unites the left and the mainstream open-for-compromise right. I myself still believe that certain standards should be forced on people if they insist on forcing worse standards on others.
Leftist nitpicking disclaimer: How do I know that “my” standards are _better_ than “theirs”? I count the number of stones used to kill a woman for adultery under each standard. Lower is better.
In Britain women get stoned first, THEN commit adultery.
– Sir Humphrey Appleby
See…I am back to agreeing with AB.
But overall, Manji is certainly onto something and, again, this is why I cannot be a donkey or an elephant…Often two peas in the same pod who insist they are not related.
She’s certainly got her head screwed on right…
And by the way, happy Pesach - lots of joy and freedom and good food to all of you
You to, Raccoon. And same to you, Howie.
AB and Raccoon
Lotsa matzah dudes…
Here’s to leaving Egypt for the land overflowing with milk and honey…well…at least available in the local market.
Awww, look at us all agreeing.
Oh and happy Pesach (whatever the hell that is)!
“Oh and happy Pesach (whatever the hell that is)!”
You would like it. It’s about leaving Egypt.
except they spent 40 years griping at how wonderful Egypt was and on arriving at the promised land said:
“Is it not better for us to return to Egypt?” They said to each other, “Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt!”
Bamidbar 14:3-4
explains why hotel occupancy rates in Taba go UP during passover, due to israelis crossing over.
happy pesach
Dunno if she has a point but what she says is simply not practical. How many feminists are there in Afghanistan? It’s a super conservative society. And if it comes to secularism and feminism then there was no reason to go into Iraq in the first place. Saddam’s regime was one of the the most secular and feminist ones that one could find in the Arab world. And too much of the opposition to him was coming from religious and conservative sectors.
For the US to throw its weight behind the most secular and feminist political forces is a sure recipe for fiasco. It’s impossible to force so much on a society in one go. The idea is to get Iraq and Afghanistan function somehow. As long as some minimum of normalcy is preserved they will be evolving gradually into something better. But such things take time. Never mind that right now it looks as if the whole US project in the region is hopeless.
“Is it not better for us to return to Egypt?” They said to each other, “Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt!”
Damn Zionists!
They promised a land of milk and honey.
“And if it comes to secularism and feminism then there was no reason to go into Iraq in the first place. Saddam’s regime was one of the the most secular and feminist ones that one could find in the Arab world.”
Let’s get back to the basics.
The coalition did not invade Iraq to bring democracy and feminism to a fundamentalist Muslim state.
The coalition invaded Iraq because
1. Iraq was an enemy and chose to be an enemy (which is fairly basic but should be kept in mind).
2. Iraq was suspected to have WMDs and refused to co-operate fully in proving that it did not while Iraq was under obligation to do so.
3. The Iraqi government mistreated Kurds and Shiites.
4. Iraq supported terrorists financially and allowed anti-Kurdish terrorists to operate in Iraq.
5. Iraq violated a cease-fire by firing at British and American aircraft.
But the two things Iraq certainly didn’t do was establish an “Islamic state” or mistreat women (more than any fascist state would).
However, Manji still has a point about neo-conservatives around Bush pandering too much to the religious establishment of Iraq.
Iraqis are scapegoats of U.S. foreign policy.
The Untied States had helped Saddam Hussein into power and supported him, strategically and financially, when he was committing his worst atrocities.
By the way, feminists in Iraq were progressing just fine, way before Saddam came along.
Some people just like to pretend that what is going on in Iraq is a civil war. How can it just be called a civil war when the United States and its allies
#1) bombed the country and destroyed its infrastructure
#2) rounds up thousands of Iraqis and jails them without justification
#3) makes decisions when elections are to take place and whether the results are valid
#4) benefit more from reconstruction projects than the Iraqis
#5)can break into jails to release American and British prisoners who have committed criminal acts, against the Iraqi’s governments wishes.
#6) Use agent provocateurs to fuel the violence amongst the Iraqis
While the reconstruction projects have yet to produce anything that is helpful to the Iraqis, the United States has successfully completed a U.S. embassy in Iraq, the size of 80 football fields.
Maybe if Irshad Manji spent some time studying the history of U.S. military and political interventions, she would have known better than to think the U.S. invading Iraq would improve human rights.
I wonder what Irshad Manji has to say about the fact that while the United States preaches human rights and democracy, it engages in regime change, supporting brutal dictators and kings who do its bidding? This happens not only in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, and South America.
Andrew Brehm on April 20th, 2008 6:30 pm
However, Manji still has a point about neo-conservatives around Bush pandering too much to the religious establishment of Iraq.
Manji point is more that the neocons are practicing some sort of cultural relativism the style of the western Left, which by all measures is exactly what they are not. And she is making this point because she probably does not realize that the neocons have outreached themselves and their options are extremely limited.
But at least the neocons seems to have got by now that nobody is going to come out to greet them with flowers just because Iraq and Afghanistan have elections now. Manji is still waiting for flowers. She does not seem to be getting that Saddam Hussein and Gaddhafi are the closest thing to secular feminism this region has right now. She either does not understand how bad it is or she greatly overestimates the US capabilities. At one point she says:
I assumed the Bush administration would forge ties with Iraq’s most consistent champions of democracy — secularists and feminists.
One can start wondering after reading this about what she is thinking would have happened next. The secularists and feminists would have come to the US rescue with a heavily armed force of tribal militiamen to chase al-Kaida out? Or maybe they could disarm al-Sadr? What these secularists and feminists can do at all? Never mind that I suspect that the majority of people who can be classified as secularists and feminists in Iraq are former Baathists.
Randall, you are uninformed and arrogant.
Please read about the war before you join the discussion.
I recommend http://www.michaeltotten.com/.
Hope to see you back soon.
Andrew Brehm,
You are uninformed and I suggest you read Nir Rosen’s work. He speaks Arabic and can easily mix with the Arabs. So he gets more of the truth. See
http://i2.democracynow.org/2006/11/27/anatomy_of_a_civil_war_writer
and
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge
Randall,
Speaking Arabic and being able to mix with Arabs is not a qualification.
The site I linked to simply shows you what is going on in Iraq.
I don’t care for an analysis done by an Arabic-speaker because I am not talking about that analysis.
But if you want to talk about the war, you should learn about it first.
Randall,
Your author (rollingstone.com article) simply accuses American soldiers of being hateful and Iraqis of being dishonest.
The actual facts (not opinions) he reports suggest that the surge is working. Yet he titles the article “the myth of the surge”. And you call that a helpful article?
Do you have any sources that are not based on somebody’s negative opinions of Americans and Iraqis?
@anna
except they spent 40 years griping at how wonderful Egypt was and on arriving at the promised land said:
“Is it not better for us to return to Egypt?” They said to each other, “Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt!”
Bamidbar 14:3-4
explains why hotel occupancy rates in Taba go UP during passover, due to israelis crossing over.
Indeed, very little has changed over these past 3000 years. So very little… Whining has become a national pastime, I think.
Also… *waves to RandallJones* Glad to see you’re still up and about, and still unchanged. You haven’t mentioned many conspiracy theories yet, though, which I find rather surprising. Perhaps you’re experiencing a turn for the better, although I truly doubt it.
Roman Kalik,
All you know how to do is accuse me of stating conspiracy theories. But you don’t get specific about why you call them conspiracy theories? I use many mainstream sources. For example see this documentary by Barry Lando, former 60 Minutes producer about Saddam Hussein and his relationship with the West.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeY05iS5iv0
Andrew Brehm wrote, “Your author (rollingstone.com article) simply accuses American soldiers of being hateful and Iraqis of being dishonest.”
It is a little bit more complicated than that, Nir Rosen presents a more realistic picture of what is going on in Iraq. Michael J. Totten presents it as the Americans are all doing good things and oh, by the way, not all Iraqis are bad.
Totten leaves out the death and destruction that the United States has caused.
Here is another article about this. Iraqi-American professor is interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez and he says,
“Let’s talk about the surge. The success is nothing but a camouflage, nothing but a mirage. Baghdad, for example, was a mixed city, where Shia Muslim, Sunni Muslim and Kurdish, they lived together. And I give you an example of that. My family, I come from a family, my mother was Kurdish, my ex-wife happened to be a Christian Catholic from Baghdad, my brother married to a Shia Muslim, my sister married to a Shia Muslim. And right now, the ethnic cleansing is completely—has been completed in Iraq as a result of the surge in this year. Today, if you go and visit Baghdad, you see a few Sunni communities surrounded by walls or concrete blocks or many, many checks. They try to protect themselves from the other communities in that city. Baghdad, before the invasion, was 65 percent Sunni Muslim. Today, they are 75 [percent] Muslim Shia in Baghdad.
The second point about the surge—I already told you about four-and-a-half million Iraqis have been displaced—two-and-a-half million left the country, and two [million] others are displaced within their own country. And the only reason why no more people are leaving the country, because both Syria and Jordan practically closed their border to the Iraqi refugees.
And the third thing is that the US established a Sunni militia in the Anbar area and other places, and the purpose of that militia is basically to protect the American Army from the resistance movement. So, in a sense, they are doing the dirty work for the Americans in that neighborhood. The US, when they invaded Iraq, they had many, many objectives to achieve, and one of that objective is to divide the country into semi- three independent states, and these three semi-independent states will fight with each other about resources, about territory, and then they will ask the Americans to establish bases in their own respective territories.”
from http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/20/iraqi_american_reflects_on_five_years
And another lot of accusations.
What’s the point Randall? Do you actually believe that stuff?
America’s intentions might be that or something else, but whenever someone writes about somebody else’s bad intentions, I suspect an agenda.
Do you have anything _anything at all_ about actual events or things the US did?
Or is everything just assumptions about how evil the US are?
Andrew Brehm,
What are you talking about? Nir Rosen, Barry Lando, and the Iraqi-American professor have all been to Iraq and are knowledgeable of U.S. foreign policy.
Randall,
It’s nevertheless opinions and accusations. You can observe all you like, but to know someone’s intentions is different.
If they claim to know the US’ intentions, they are lying. How can I believe anything else they say?
Randell you’re dead on in all your posts and arguing with a zionist is pointless, he does not engage you on any substance.
————-
AB Says,
Randall,
Speaking Arabic and being able to mix with Arabs is not a qualification.
———–
What’s a better qualification? Being a Somali, proven liar and run out of Europe while sitting in a think tank in DC or wherever she is?
“arguing with a zionist is pointless, he does not engage you on any substance”
Plus they shoot back when you try to kill them.
Nasty people, Zionists!
Leave a Comment