Assuming that, someday, Iraq gets a constitution (it shouldn't be hurried, Iraq should have nothing to do with the timing of American politics) and becomes some type of nation, the right will begin to take credit for a job well done. Although Iraq didn't go as planned; cost and lasted far longer than expected, it was correct to take Saddam out for the human right violations that he committed. The only thing is this war was about WMD and an 'imminent threat'. But since the build up to war, the reasoning has shifted like sand in a dessert. However, while the numerous abuses of the Baath regime have been removed, issues that accompany an occupying force in a semi-hostile nation remain. In addition the new law may include some laws that
actually degrade women rights!
According to Kurdish and Sunni negotiators, the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, proposed that Islam be named "a primary source" and supported a wording which would give clerics authority in civil matters such as divorce, marriage and inheritance.
If approved, critics say that the proposals would erode women's rights and other freedoms enshrined under existing laws. "We understand the Americans have sided with the Shias. It's shocking. It doesn't fit with American values," an unnamed Kurdish negotiator told Reuters. "They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state."
So the existing law of Saddam would be better than the possible new laws; WRT women. We just won a war in the name of women oppression if you choose to be that critical.
How sad is that?
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/hfiend/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
