life gets worse for Iraqi women

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
SO do you "liberals" really give a shite about women in Iraq. Is it too much to ask to have "intelligent" dialogue. I for one see nothing but glee in some of your posts, as if it gives you great joy to have something to thump on your liberal drums about.

Maybe when there is someone seeking honest dialogue posting from the left, someone on the right will respond in kind.

Yes I do care about what's happening to these Iraqi women. I care about human rights for every person on the planet, and I plan on spending my future in a career where I can help make that happen. What I am happy about is the fact that more and more people are coming to the conclusion that our going to war was a disaster that has only led to the death and destruction of thousands of innocent lives from our troops to Iraqi civilians. I am not happy about the circumstances at all, but I am glad that the lies, paranoia, and hatred of this administration's policies are finally being exposed for the destructive forces they are.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
SO do you "liberals" really give a shite about women in Iraq. Is it too much to ask to have "intelligent" dialogue. I for one see nothing but glee in some of your posts, as if it gives you great joy to have something to thump on your liberal drums about.

Maybe when there is someone seeking honest dialogue posting from the left, someone on the right will respond in kind.

the reason i posted this is because i do give a shite about women in iraq and this article details what has happened as a result of the failure of Bush to have any sort of war plan or to foresee what is a very logical consequence of toppling a secular dictator in a country who used an iron fist to keep a lid on this cauldron of ethnic hatred. it also warns of one of the many dangers of nation building, which is that "freedom" enables religious fanatics to rise to power and to impose their draconian laws on women, gays, whomever.

as deplorable as Saddam's regime was, it is not beyond the pale to state, in terms of general security and freedom, both gays and women were better off under Saddam.

this isn't to say that life was good under Saddam. i know some try to box any sort of criticism of the invasion/occupation as support for Saddam. far from it. this is to say that the illegal invasion and piss-poor occupation of Iraq has made life for these two groups even worse than it already was.

it is also to say that people who trumpet on and on and on about the "risk" that Saddam posed to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia are so fixated on a singular issue in an extraordinarily complex region that they've failed to see the larger consequences of this action, one consequence being the rise of religious fanaticism in a country where it was previously kept in check.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by Irvine511




the reason i posted this is because i do give a shite about women in iraq and this article details what has happened as a result of the failure of Bush to have any sort of war plan or to foresee what is a very logical consequence of toppling a secular dictator in a country who used an iron fist to keep a lid on this cauldron of ethnic hatred. it also warns of one of the many dangers of nation building, which is that "freedom" enables religious fanatics to rise to power and to impose their draconian laws on women, gays, whomever.

as deplorable as Saddam's regime was, it is not beyond the pale to state, in terms of general security and freedom, both gays and women were better off under Saddam.

this isn't to say that life was good under Saddam. i know some try to box any sort of criticism of the invasion/occupation as support for Saddam. far from it. this is to say that the illegal invasion and piss-poor occupation of Iraq has made life for these two groups even worse than it already was.

it is also to say that people who trumpet on and on and on about the "risk" that Saddam posed to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia are so fixated on a singular issue in an extraordinarily complex region that they've failed to see the larger consequences of this action, one consequence being the rise of religious fanaticism in a country where it was previously kept in check.

Thanks - and for what its worth, I do not disagree with a lot of your post.

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/med...ex20071221.pdf

This would indicate that a potential corner has turned.

I think the Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam, differently than they are suffering now. I am not sure which suffering is better than the other. Suffering is suffering. The one thing that I am holding onto is my belief that in the last year we have turned a corner in Iraq, potentially giving them a better opportunity to end suffering.

[Irvine511]

unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that we've turned a lot of corners so far.

yes, the country is more secure than it was. no, there has been no political progress.

this might be the calm before the storm.

i hope not. but that's what it looks like. i don't support the continuation of pouring blood and treasure into the construction of some kind of American Empire in Mesopotamia. it will destroy us just as surely as Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union.

we do need to get out. smartly, sanely, effectively. but staying for another decade, or another 10 decades, is nonsense.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


Thanks - and for what its worth, I do not disagree with a lot of your post.

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/med...ex20071221.pdf

This would indicate that a potential corner has turned.

I think the Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam, differently than they are suffering now. I am not sure which suffering is better than the other. Suffering is suffering. The one thing that I am holding onto is my belief that in the last year we have turned a corner in Iraq, potentially giving them a better opportunity to end suffering.

In regards to your last paragraph, I would love for that to be the case. I wish there was a way we could've helped the Iraqi people and brought them out from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein without going to war. There is nothing wrong with wanting to liberate a people from that type of situation. However, our government was hell-bent on war against Iraq from the beginning of the Bush administration. I think it would be foolish of us as intelligent citizens to think the real reason we went to Iraq was to be the great freedom givers. We went to protect our interests there and because of our president's obsession with finishing the job his father started. There is evidence that Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before the original reason of Al-Queda connections post 9-11 as referenced in this article. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml

I don't have the answer as to what we could've done to help the Iraqi people, but if that was really our goal I believe the administration could've come with a diplomatic solution that would've have aided the Iraqis and kept us from starting this disaster of a war that has caused nothing but pain and suffering from all involved.

[Irvine511]

if i could be so succinct ... toppling Saddam has been around as an idea since 1998, and it was a pretty fringe idea as most thought it would create more problems than it would solve. then 9-11 happened. and certain people who had the ear of a new administration saw an opportunity, and they saw that Saddam's fabled WMDs could be spun to present a danger to the American people that could be used to rally enough political support for the invasion. and it worked.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by Irvine511
if i could be so succinct ... toppling Saddam has been around as an idea since 1998, and it was a pretty fringe idea as most thought it would create more problems than it would solve. then 9-11 happened. and certain people who had the ear of a new administration saw an opportunity, and they saw that Saddam's fabled WMDs could be spun to present a danger to the American people that could be used to rally enough political support for the invasion. and it worked.

I was aware of that, and I think it's absolutely immoral (and I know you do also, so I hope this post doesn't come off as anger directed towards you, Irvine) to use the American people's fears and confusion after 9-11 to promote a war that had more to do with their personal desire for power and control, especially over their sainted oil, than it did with any real, credible thread that Hussein posed to our country.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Irvine511
if i could be so succinct ... toppling Saddam has been around as an idea since 1998, and it was a pretty fringe idea as most thought it would create more problems than it would solve. then 9-11 happened. and certain people who had the ear of a new administration saw an opportunity, and they saw that Saddam's fabled WMDs could be spun to present a danger to the American people that could be used to rally enough political support for the invasion. and it worked.

As an idea it was stated policy from the Iraq Liberation Act (which did not justify war to those ends). Regime change was apparently the desired end of US soft power, regime change was not sequestered away in the vault of a right-wing think tank until Bush came in. Policy does not become a blank slate as soon as some sinister neo-cons sieze control and trick the entire nation into believing Saddam had WMD, there were ten years of WMD justified sanctions, bombings and attempted coups that simply don't go away because of Bush or the war.

Do I support theofascist militiamen violently opressing women and gays? Absolutely not, but life under Saddam while relatively progressive in good times (he was only hurting enemies of the state) was ruined by the Gulf War (Iraq - Iran) and the subsequent war and sanctions. The destruction of Iraqs civil society took decades.

This little piece on Human Rights Watch on the status of women in Iraq declares that as a consequence of the pressures put on the Iraqi people and the state that many womens rights that were enshrined in the 70's and early 80's were stripped away in the 90's. Saddam was not averse to courting religious tribal leaders to stay onto power, the Koran in somebodies blood being a neat example of this. The Fedayeen Saddam going after prostitutes by murdering them would be another.

[A_Wanderer]

Uday Hussein's fashion of visiting his charm upon women was also a great thing about Baathist Iraq.

[Infinity]

Originally posted by Irvine511
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN)

How can you post this????? You clearly don't want out troops to win. Let them win.

[Billy Rotten]

War
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.

Say it again.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
As an idea it was stated policy from the Iraq Liberation Act (which did not justify war to those ends). Regime change was apparently the desired end of US soft power, regime change was not sequestered away in the vault of a right-wing think tank until Bush came in. Policy does not become a blank slate as soon as some sinister neo-cons sieze control and trick the entire nation into believing Saddam had WMD, there were ten years of WMD justified sanctions, bombings and attempted coups that simply don't go away because of Bush or the war.

regime change does not equal invasion and occupation. everyone wanted regime change. the discussion was about how to do so, and it was only in the far right/neocon closet that the actual overthrow via military might was discussed. assassination, working with Iraqi dissidents on the ground, etc., all this was on the table. only a few thought that it was worth any time or effort.