• shaserlark@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I quickly googled this and mostly found sources like Fox News or Times of India that follow some agenda.

    So here’s a Guardian article on the topic in case anyone was wondering about a commonly known source: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/aug/09/proposed-iraqi-law-change-would-legalise-child-say-activists

    Basically there are some religious hardliners that are in the pocket of Iran that want to reduce the marriage age to 9 which would effectively end up in legalizing child rape. Opponents of this are being accused of „western decadence“. So basically after the destabilization liberation of Iraq politics are dominated by the same people that run Iran.

    The people suffering enjoying their liberation are the normal people as usual.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Opponents of this are being accused of „western decadence“

      Those damned hedonists indulging in the luxury of… checks notes… keeping their dicks out of kids.

      So basically after the destabilization liberation of Iraq politics are dominated by the same people that run Iran.

      I mean, they were destabilized liberated by the same people…

    • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure the west and their settler colonialism massive resource extraction and so on is great. And its not like the many religious problems against say homosexuality in christian Africa can’t be directly be blamed on christian missionaries. And its also not like poverty and brutal attacks on secular nationalists in the middle east in the name of fighting communism has anything to do with modern political Islam. No sir.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          You could have left colonialism out of it. You brought the western shit into the discussion. If you just said the west has better age of consent, everyone would agree.

          • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            No, I was making the point that it’s currently popular to shit on the West exporting its ideals, but when it’s something as blindingly obvious as “maybe 9 year old girls shouldn’t be forced into marriage” then maybe on this one occasion that sense of superiority is well placed and necessary

        • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          That is clearly a reach given the statement “thinking the west has a better way is colonialism” is a massively ahistorical racist take.

      • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        [citation needed]

        State a single mainstream western political movement in which marriage at 9 is not complete insanity

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Age of consent to sex, not marriage.

          https://www.ageofconsent.net/world

          According to this, it looks like the closest country to this age of consent is Nigeria, at 11.

          If you want age of marriage, in the US, looks like four states will let you marry at any age, but require special conditions like parental approval or court approval:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States

          California, Utah, Oklahoma, and Mississippi.

          • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Nigeria is not “the West”

            Child marriage in the US is rare, in sharp decline and is heavily skewed towards poverty and Native Americans. Numerous political movements exist to raise minimum marriage age to 16-18.

            So again, name a mainstream Western political movement where marriage at 9 is not insanity

            • tal@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Nigeria is not “the West”

              I didn’t say it was. I’m just indicating wherevthe floor is.

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      If they can consent to extra sprinkles on their ice cream, they can be child sex slaves.

      (Edit: I just wanna say I’m so glad I didn’t need the /s for people to… Wait, I hope people aren’t actually agreeing with this)

  • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s The Religion of Peace, you see, which in looking the other way, in no way infantilizes the entire culture, which is good, because they’re marrying the girl infants away

  • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I understand that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man. But it sucks that support from his opposition is what helped push this. They’re not bad because they are Shia; they are simply the worst of the people that opposed Hussein. This is what happens when you prop up puppet governments. The rights of the people aren’t important to the puppeteer.

    Tl:dr: Even with Saddam Hussein’s death, Iraq never got its freedom.

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 hours ago

      At the time when we launched the aggressive and illegal invasion of a sovereign county, we were doing it for Democracy™ and Human Rights™

      At the time, you would have been called a traitor, shill, or insane to suggest otherwise.

      After some years, it becomes absolutely clear none of it was true. It was all for imperialist motives. It seems that the propaganda is strong, but it has a short half life. Today you’ll have trouble finding someone defending the US invasion of Iraq.

      I think we are seeing the same thing with Ukraine war. In 10, 15 years people will see the war for what it is- a progressive destabilization of Eastern Europe and intentional proxy war.

      But right now- it’s Sovereignty™, International Law™, and Democracy™

      We destroyed Iraq. We doomed millions of people for generations. And we are participating right now in the destruction of another country.

      It’s just that we do. We destroy.

      • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I think we are seeing the same thing with Ukraine war. In 10, 15 years people will see the war for what it is- a progressive destabilization of Eastern Europe and intentional proxy war.

        I was wondering what you meant by this but now I think I get it. We created a puppet state in Iraq to get a “buffer” against Iran. The same way Putin wants Ukraine to be its buffer against the rest of Europe. Did I get that right?

        I agree with the rest of what you said.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          we’ve been pumping money into regime change in Ukraine since the early 90s. NED (National Endowment for Democracy) used to show the dollar figures and specific organizations on their website but deleted that information a while back. You can still find it with Wayback Machine

          Essentially we’ve been funding and supporting organizations in Ukraine under the guise of “pro-Democracy™” “pro-Liberty™” with the goal of supporting any potential chances for regime change. Some of those organizations just happen to be associated with the far-right groups that were part of the initial government that was unconstitutionally appointed In 2014 after Euromaidan- a series of violent protests that forced the pro-Russian president to flee the country.

          tldr: we’ve been destabilizing Ukraine for a long time. the idea was to peel off Ukraine from Russia’s orbit and throw it into the US orbit. And it worked. Which is why Russia invaded in 2014

          Note before I get the inevitable Russian shill comments - I’m not justifying any aggressive invasion by Russia. I’m saying this is a proxy war - a game of tug of war between two larger powers. Neither care in the slightest about what actually happens to the Ukrainians.

          They will not recover from this war for a hundred years. But Lockheed Martin stock will perform nicely

          edit: and remember this comment in 15 years. people will be talking as if what I’m saying is obvious. but right now the propaganda is strong- just like in 2003 with invasion of Iraq

          • Laser@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            How was Ukraine “destabilized” compared to other comparable ex-USSR states until 2014?

            And it worked. Which is why Russia invaded in 2014

            If a country being in US orbit is a reason for Russia to attack it, why didn’t they attack Finland? Or the US directly in Alaska? What’s the significance with Ukraine?

            There’s none other that Russia thought it was an easy target, breaking the Budapest Memorandum (and later other agreements). The same memorandum btw granted Ukraine non-military aid from the US and France, so the argument that this was somehow a dirty play makes no sense.

      • chuymatt@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Ok. That is until the Ukraine bit. Russia chose to invade. It was made very clear in the press that the US knew what was happening on the border and gave Putin every chance to stop it Ukraine is a sovereign country and did not want more Russian influence and was courting EU membership.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Ukraine is getting destroyed because they happen to be a small country in between two great powers having a proxy war. Russia is the invader, the aggressor, the one who broke international law.

          But US is not naive here. This was expected and planned for a long time before 2022 and a long time before 2014. Proxy war takes two sides to tango. We’re not supporting Ukraine because of democracy and sovereignty and human rights, we’re doing it for geopolitical motives. A sort of modern Spanish Civil War. Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.

          Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don’t necessarily align with their interests. Like Chomsky says “we will fight them to the last Ukrainian”

          • Laser@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The fact that this wasn’t a three day operation is in large part sure to the US. But your portrayal of the facts makes no sense. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to ask the US for help (except Russia). The US obliges because it does align with their interest. But in the end, all international help at scale is motivated by national interest.

            Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.

            Should a nation only fight with pre-agreed equipment that is at least of a certain age?

            Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don’t necessarily align with their interests.

            Well, they for sure don’t align with Russia’s.

            Like Chomsky says “we will fight them to the last Ukrainian”

            Or was it North Korean?