As democracy leads to sharia, women’s equality leads to suppression of women

Over [url=]at VFR[/url]:

[I]As democracy leads to sharia, women’s equality leads to suppression of women

At his wife’s pushy insistence, President Bush made women’s equality a top priority in the democratization of Iraq. I hope Mrs. Bush is really, really happy about the fact that in the sharia-dominated Iraq created under her husband’s democratization policy, women will be far less free than they were under the secular despotism of Saddam Hussein. Now that this disaster has occurred, will Mrs. Bush will be able to grasp, even remotely, the reason it has occurred? Which is, if you want women to have equal rights in a Muslim country, you must suppress Islam, not democratize it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 16, 2005 10:04 AM[/i]

True, so true. In which case, did not Saddam Hussein do a good enough job at suppressing Islam; why did he need to be removed?

(Just like Yugoslavia – wasn’t Tito better than what has happened there since?)

The U.S. government should never have gotten involved with Iraq. Now, with hundreds of dead American soldiers for no discernible purpose (no WMDs ever existed, or would have been used), what with militant Islam on the rise in Iraq (in a way that never happened under Saddam Hussein), will those who argued that Saddam Hussein had to be removed continue to argue such? On what grounds? You don’t have any argument!

7 thoughts on “As democracy leads to sharia, women’s equality leads to suppression of women”

  1. (clarification re: Tito)
    My point being, not to argue in favour of Tito or communism, but simply to recognize, from the point of view of preventing bloodshed and chaos, that while one region, Slovenia, may be doing better economically now than prior to Yugoslavia’s breakup, that for the country of Yugoslavia as a whole, the fall of communism and the end of a strongman to suppress nationalism, led to the rapid growth of movements which tore the country apart.

    Now, the same is happening in Iraq. How long will it take for the pro-war side to wake up and see the futility of keeping American troops in Iraq?

    • The reason why America gets
      The reason why America gets into these insane ‘wars of democracy’ is precisely what you just touched on in the Tito comment. A nation that hasn’t had to deal with internal conflict in 150 years begins to lose sight of the principle of order. ‘Freedom’ – in the vulgar sense of the term- is not possible without order. Anarchy is not freedom; rather, it is the antithesis of it. It’s not much fun being ‘free’ if you’re always sleeping with one eye open. Americans largely don’t understand this, losing their grip on reality in the process.

      Take your man on the street and ask him if WWI was of real benefit to Europe and he’ll say, ‘sure! it gave them their freedom, self-determination,’ etc. Many on this forum know what a disaster that one was…

      Anyone who thinks the average Macedonian or Croat these years of ‘freedom’ have been just enjoying themselves simply because they possess this ‘freedom’ (i.e. the absence of order) has fallen victim to this intellectual trap. These people had fought for centuries, abated (somewhat) only by the presence of the strong hand of order (i.e. the Habsburgs and Tito). Tito, as awful as he was, at least tried to hold the state together and keep things from disintegrating into total madness. Same with Hussein; a ‘war of liberation’ comes, and look at it now.

      One of the most important principles of true conservatism is the understanding that leaving things undone is often better than the results of doing them.

      • Degu, you’ve hit the nail on the head…
        [I]> A nation that hasn’t had to deal with internal conflict in 150 years begins to lose sight of the principle of order.

        Absolutely! Spot on. Though I think it also springs from the fact that America is a nation whose identity is more centred around a creed, an idea, than it is around faith, ethnicity, and race. For most Americans, to be patriotic means to hold to the ideal of freedom which motivated their forefathers to break away from Britain. As such, America was severed from the European ways of thinking once it became independent, whereas Europeans have more historical memory and perspective – regardless of the age of a given European polity, as peoples, the European nations are a lot older, and their identities were, at least in the past if no longer, centred around faith, ethnicity, and race; identification with political ideals was/is secondary to nationality. The conservatism present in Europe is more of an organic conservatism, whereas in America conservatism is about preserving 18th century Enlightenment rationalist-liberal ideals (as well as attempting to paradoxically hold to Christian principles and morality – paradoxically, because the two are in fundamental opposition).

        (And yes, as a Canadian, my nation is younger than America, and to some extent was also founded on a principle – or rather, the negation of a principle (i.e. the United Empire Loyalists, who wouldn’t join the American Revolution, who came north, played a huge role in determining Canadian identity henceforth; even today, when most Canadians, like Westerners everywhere, have lost much of their identity, they cling to the subconscious Loyalist creed of defining oneself as “not American”. Which I find, on its own, pathetically insufficient – we used to know we were British, monarchist, and Christian, in addition to defining ourselves as “not American”.). Nevertheless, in still today being officially ruled by the British monarchy, we have a frame of historical reference that goes back a lot longer than Canada’s 138 years – or America’s 229 years – and so we have a continuity with our European past which, IMO, has been severed by America’s republicanism – we still have an official trans-Atlantic tie, and that maintains a psychological link with Britain and Europe, for good and ill – alas, today, that often means more secularism and socialism. But, it also means less foreign-policy adventurism, and a bit more caution… We do believe in order; order is good. (“Peace, order, and good government” is the Canadian equivalent of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. We’ve rarely had good government – who has – but hey, two out of three ain’t bad…))

        [I]> One of the most important principles of true conservatism is the understanding that leaving things undone is often better than the results of doing them.

        Exactly. Conservatives used to know this; conservatives used to believe that man was a fallen creature, not perfectable in this life, and so realize the folly of liberal utopianism, that we can remake humanity into whatever we please. Conseratives still believe this in terms of rejecting some of liberalism’s most radical ideas, but usually allow the liberals to move the goalposts, and then argue for a new status quo more liberal than before.

        The other problem, though, with American conservatism, is its infection with Puritanism, in the sense not of social conservatism (would that were the case; I mean a secularized version of Puritanism), but in terms of, to borrow a phrase from somewhere (perhaps Thomas Fleming at Chronicles, but I forget): if something is good, it should be mandatory for all; if something is bad, it should be forbidden from all. Hence, social crusades such as led to Prohibition, and, in terms of foreign policy, the desire to make everyone, everywhere, experience the blessings of American-style democracy – the inability to leave others alone, and be pragmatic, recognizing that sometimes, the lesser evil of a dictator like Tito or Hussein (who bring stability) is preferable to the chaos and instability that may result from their overthrow.

        Every patriot, in every country, considers his country to be the greatest one in the world. That’s understandable. But I have found that many Americans have great difficulty in conceiving of the possibility that others may feel as strongly attached to their country as they do to theirs… Bill Bryson, in one of his books on America (I forget which one), talked about The Question which foreigners who are in America for a while always end up getting asked, “So which do you like better: your country, or the United States.” He cited two examples of instances he witnessed, where this was put to a Swedish exchange student in one case, and a Dutch exchange student in another. When I lived and worked for a year in the U.S., it was also put to me… And my questioner was surprised that I said “Canada”. She couldn’t grasp that I love my country as much as she loves hers, despite its faults and shortcomings…

        And neo-cons (and trad-cons who agree with them on foreign-policy) can’t seem to get, that maybe, just maybe, what is right for America may not be right for everyone else… Hence the crusading spirit, to not merely be a “shining city on a hill” blah blah blah, but go forth from that “city”, and reconstruct the rest of the world in its image… (And then they’re surprised, when the rest of the world seems ungrateful, happy to continue in their previous ways. But why would it be otherwise?)

  2. Hussein’s Removal
    Dear Will S. and Fellow Readers,

    As much as I agree with Mr. Auster, I am unable to agree with Will unfortunately and most probably because Will has forgotten some important things.

    Hussein was a menace to the stability of the Middle East. He openly supported terrorism of Israel, the one country every Muslim country hates with a passion and would be willing to obliterate given the chance. What would America have to do to protect its dear Jewish People but to retaliate in due time? Hussein ceaselessly and stupidly defied U.N. inspections of his nuclear and biological weaponry. (What was Bush to smell but a rat?) He had already bullied Kuwait and the Kurds into submission. He was a loose cannon begging to be strapped down for good.

    Oh, and oil, the doppelganger of the Democrats. The Democrats pretend not to associate with oil, but its doppelganger hangs over their every committee. Where would their limousine liberals, school buses, and electrical generators be without their doppelganger?

    All the Best,


    • I dunno…
      … I have trouble believing that Saddam Hussein even had the financial resources to fund Palestinian terror to any great degree (what with the embargo) – yes, he expressed solidarity with the Palestinians, as all Arab leaders have. On the other hand, we know that Osama bin Laden and his family have supported terrorism in Israel and throughout the Middle East; why he has been practically forgotten, when he actually carried out a successful attack on the U.S., and all of America’s efforts have been focused on Iraq instead of bringing bin Laden to justice, I don’t get.

      Certainly, anyway, whatever our disagreements on the merits of Hussein’s removal, we can hopefully agree that it isn’t in the U.S.A.’s best interest to continue to keep its soldiers entrenched in a country which doesn’t want them there any more… How many more soldiers must die, and to what great end?

      • No Argument
        Dear Will and Fellow Readers,

        I do not want to argue, so I won’t. We should not keep our soldiers entrenched in a war that we refuse to win.

        Our forward defense (and I am not trained in military strategy) should consist in maintaining (if possible) a permanent forward base in the Iraqi desert, at least 10,000 miles square in size: that is, a base with 100 miles on each of four square sides. This eliminates the risk of small weaponry and requires advanced weaponry that can be tracked by radar and can be dissected to determine the source such as Russia or China. It also gives us the opportunity to intercept the weapon and prepare a counterattack. We would be close to Israel and able to support one another. We would be close to the nuclear-goofy Iranians in case they dare to use their potential or in case we dare to take them out first.

        Our base would not be entrenched in a war but in the middle of a killing zone, which could be expanded as needed. It would be a destabilizing influence on every Islamic regime now or in the future in the region. We would be hated, but we already are and will always be no matter what we do unless we give up Christendom. Let the Europeans clean up their own problems with Muslims, unless a European nation threatens us with their Muslims.

        The problem is we have a president who cannot think well. He is better than anything the Democrats have to offer, but he relies totally on his advisors unless the advice has to do with domestic matters, where he is a loose cannon. The border is in chaos, for example.

        All the Best,


        • I agree with that…
          [I]> We would be hated, but we already are and will always be no matter what we do unless we give up Christendom.

          Absolutely, we will be hated, no matter what, just for being ourselves, and not them; my hope is that we can affect their response to us – whether they hate us from afar, but just grumble and shake their fists, or whether they get mad enough that they take up arms against us as they are increasingly doing – depending on whether or not we unwittingly provide them with additional grievances, some arguably legit depending on one’s perspective, against us, in addition to those they already feel against us just for us being us… But hey; perhaps I am simply naive; I don’t know… (Nor do I wish to get into any real debate, either.) I certainly have no illusions like a liberal about “the inherent goodness of people” or any such nonsense; I know those people do not bear us any good will…

Comments are closed.