• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Karzai: Afghanistan to review criticized sharia law

A

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Karzai: Afghanistan to review criticized sharia law - CNN.com


Amid mounting pressure from the West, Afghan President Hamid Karzai says his government will review a recently approved version of a law that critics say legalizes marital rape and the U.S. president has called "abhorrent."
Click to expand...



I am going to paraphrase what I got from this article: "We understand the concerns of our allies in the international community," Karzai told reporters Saturday.... [now go **** yourselves. Religion over State]
 
Arch Enemy said:
I am going to paraphrase what I got from this article: "We understand the concerns of our allies in the international community," Karzai told reporters Saturday.... [now go **** yourselves. Religion over State]
Click to expand...

It's almost sick Irony, we send out soldiers in there to fight for the right of the Afghanistan (And I am sure the Iraqi Government) to make laws that allowed Saddam and the Taliban to rise in the first place which they chose originally.

There are some that say we couldn't withdraw because our soldiers would have die invain, but if the new governments simply allow similar dictators to rise doesn't that mean they died invain?
 
TheNextEra said:
It's almost sick Irony, we send out soldiers in there to fight for the right of the Afghanistan (And I am sure the Iraqi Government) to make laws that allowed Saddam and the Taliban to rise in the first place which they chose originally.

There are some that say we couldn't withdraw because our soldiers would have die invain, but if the new governments simply allow similar dictators to rise doesn't that mean they died invain?
Click to expand...

Neither country will have a dictatorship. And the point of the news story is that this new law allows husbands to rape their wives.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
It's almost sick Irony, we send out soldiers in there to fight for the right of the Afghanistan (And I am sure the Iraqi Government) to make laws that allowed Saddam and the Taliban to rise in the first place which they chose originally.
Click to expand...

Saddam and the Taliban rising to power in there region was the result of US meddling.
 
Degreez said:
Saddam and the Taliban rising to power in there region was the result of US meddling.
Click to expand...

Saddam was useful in not only resisting Communism but also preventing the spread of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the Taliban was a creation of the Pakistani ISI.
 
bhkad said:
I don't bet but this is a certainty.
Click to expand...

I know why you don't bet, you are proven wrong too much of the time hehehe.

I mean didn't you say someone like Obama couldn't be president? hehe
 
bhkad said:
Saddam was useful in not only resisting Communism but also preventing the spread of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the Taliban was a creation of the Pakistani ISI.
Click to expand...

Saddam used Chemical weapons on his own people. So you are saying as long as a dictator was against Russia, that oks him killing his own people?
 
bhkad said:
Saddam was useful in not only resisting Communism but also preventing the spread of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the Taliban was a creation of the Pakistani ISI.
Click to expand...

Kinda true, Saddam supported Arab Socialism which was coined as a "third way" sort of speak between Western Capitalism and Soviet Communism.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_socialism]Arab socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
TheNextEra said:
Saddam used Chemical weapons on his own people. So you are saying as long as a dictator was against Russia, that oks him killing his own people?
Click to expand...

No, but I can see why you'd think so.
 
bhkad said:
No, but I can see why you'd think so.
Click to expand...

Funny since I am not the one that supported Saddam your point is moot. You however seemed to see a good in supporting a mass murderer. One would think you would see the good in supporting Hitler killing the Jews if the U.S. got something good out of it.
 
TheNextEra said:
Funny since I am not the one that supported Saddam your point is moot. You however seemed to see a good in supporting a mass murderer. One would think you would see the good in supporting Hitler killing the Jews if the U.S. got something good out of it.
Click to expand...

You have a skewed way of interpreting reality sometimes. Calm down, re-read my posts and you'll see the flaw in your perception I hope.
 
bhkad said:
You have a skewed way of interpreting reality sometimes. Calm down, re-read my posts and you'll see the flaw in your perception I hope.
Click to expand...

You looked into the good of supporting saddam even though he killed his own people because of it. NOTHING you say can escape your comments on that one.
 
TheNextEra said:
You looked into the good of supporting saddam even though he killed his own people because of it. NOTHING you say can escape your comments on that one.
Click to expand...
You're spinning this. bhkad didn't say that Saddam was a benign dictator. He merely provided the geopolitical reasons of why the US at one time supported the Saddam regime.
 
39322opz.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom