Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:55:30PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > Actually, if you're a woman, there are *much* suckier rulers to
> > live under. (Or die under.) Saudi Arabia, for a biggie. Iraqi
> > women enjoy greater freedoms than women in almost all other Mideast
> > countries.
>
> So is your point that we shouldn't spend resources on Iraq; rather we
> should attack Saudi Arabia?
No, that "suckiness" is all relative, depending on who you are. If
"suckiness of life" is the criteria by which we pick countries to
attack, then Iraq maybe shouldn't be at the top of the list, but that's
*not* the criteria by which we pick countries to attack.
The article I was remembering, and that David found and posted, said it
a lot better. This paragraph in particular:
> Still, we shouldn't demonize all of Iraq - just its demon
> of a ruler - and it's worth pondering this contrast between
> an enemy that empowers women and allies that repress them.
> This gap should shame us as well as these allies, reminding
> us to use our political capital to nudge Arab countries to
> respect the human rights not just of Kurds or Shiites, but
> also of women.
I don't know how far we'll get with "using political capital" to help
the women of Saudi Arabia, but anything we *can* do in that regard that
might improve their lives would be helpful. We won't have to worry
about *that* aspect of society-building afterwards if we invade Iraq.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
