Well, if the new government becomes too oppressive, Howard, we could just invade the place again.

Ace -

Dr. Dean is talking about 'Women' not actual females.

BumperStickerist, I believe that's spelled "womyn."

Let me guess: The new constitution does not specifically state that women have the right to free abortions on demand?

He did NOT say that. Did he? Wow, they're editing the video at the RNC even as we speak.

Well, depending on what type of leadership and government takes over in that country, we don't know how things will turn out. Our government has intervened for regime change in Iraq two times before, so "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was Washington's third regime change in that country. Wilsonian interventionism is based on a left-wing, utopian foreign policy vision, which is why most realists opposed the Iraq war.

I was actually surprised when I saw this recent syndicated column by conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, in my city's newspaper. I was surprised, because the point that she was making is different from the one I expected. This shows that conservatives and supporters of the Iraq war also have grave concerns over the new Iraqi constitution, and about the impact that it could have on the women of that nation.

Aakash:

No, this is our first regime change in Iraq. Words have meanings.

Iraq is not going to do everything perfectly right away. There are a lot of societal problems they need to work out. It's taken us a long time; why should they be any different? But now that have a chance, which they didn't before, and they're not making a bad start at all, all things considered. This is the middle east we're talking about here.

By the way, a quick note about "realists". The term realist in this context comes from the term realpolitik. The term "real" in realpolitik does not come from the english word real, as in reality. It means royalty. As in, the politics of princes. Self-described realists would have opposed the Marshall plan and Ronald Reagan, too, which is why I don't take them seriously at all. There is nothing left-wing or utopian about basic moral values.

I am a realist in the way you define it from your isolationist ideology Mr. Aakash and the reality tells me that we have eliminated a government that was intent on doing harm to the United States, that we have eliminated the continued mass murder of thousands, that we have reestablished our power in the region where we had been thought of as a paper tiger and that we have ignored the isolationist cry to kick the can down the road only to leave the problems to fester for future generations to handle. Thats the reality.

In what year did women in the United States gain the right to own property? The right to vote?

Would you say that before those celebrated days, the US was not really a democratic republic? Of course not. It was, and it was as radical and modern a political invention as the world had ever seen. Then.

If you were to compare Iraqi society to US society, what year is it in Iraq?

Please understand I am not trying to be hard-hearted to the women of Iraq. But for crying out loud, people don't change in a day.

Has anyone seen the movie Blazing Saddles lately?

That thing isn't even very old, and it is an anachronism. And its only a movie.
I don't know about you, but Archie Bunker reminds me of my dad when I was a kid. And dad's only 56 now.
Have patience. This thing is brand new.

For what its worth, there are more politically powerful women in Iraq now than before the invasion.

I love Howard Dean.

I was referring to the philosophy of foreign policy realism. This is in contrast with foreign policy idealism. These are two different schools of thought... This has nothing to with "the way [I] define it"... It is an issue of political science and geopolitical ideology.

Among the major scholars who belong to the realist school of geopolitical thought, just about every single one of them opposed the Iraq war. Check out this, from leading conservative blogger Daniel Drezner (who by the way, supported the war).

Even conservative supporters of the Iraq war have pointed out that it is consistent with liberal internationalism... Democrats should be supporting it (and most did, when a Democrat was in the White House). Despite the fact that a Republican is in the White House right now, some of those on the Left have nonetheless been supportive of our government's policies in Iraq.

This is a Wilsonian vision, and it is based upon a left-wing, utopian philosophy. Most conservatives and Republicans opposed these liberal interventionist policies when they were tried during the 1990s, and a growing number of my fellow Rightists are opposing them now.