Iraqi women maybe the ultimate victims of the war.

[rn79870]

I've also got a very rare book edited in 1965. Printed July 1966. Viet Nam, History, Documents and Opinions on a Major World Crisis Fawcett.

November 1965 was the first major battle in the Vietnam way, a battle made famous by the "We were Soldiers" movie. This book was compiled about the time that battle was being fought. That was early in the conflict.From a historical standpoint, this book lays out a strong warning the US failed to heed. The final chapters are Johnson's speeches, including the one at John Hopkins Univ. Also, one of the last parts is entitled"Johnson's swindle will Certainly Fail, by Hoang Quoc Viet. Interesting to say the least.

I've got something in the neighborhood of 100 books on that war.

Perhaps this sheds some light on my views of the Iraq war.

[Eikon]

Holy hell.. I was hoping for something like 75 words rather than 750 pages. lol

[AZhitman]

Tariq, nothing you've said was lost on me.

However, to blame the current administration for the conditions for women in Iraq is patently absurd.

NO one accused you of behaving as such. My point was that Bob will find a way to blame his next bout of diarrhea on the current administration.

And telco has (once again) lost his tin foil hat.

"We're only there to rip off their oil"...

Sounds like a character from "King of the Hill".

[rn79870]

However, to blame the current administration for the conditions for women in Iraq is patently absurd.

To deny that the current admin isn't 100% responsible more absurd. Seriously, but for GW's stragetic/political/moral disaster in Iraq, they (the women) wouldn't be in worse shape, at the present time, than they were under Sadam. That's simple math right there.

[heliochrome85]

I know it wasnt a personal attack. Im not 10 and neither are any of you guys. My main point is that the mentality of the war, the "we are bringing them civilization" mentality is just plain wrong. Do you know that women have more rights in the middle east (Sans Saudi Arabia cause theye are just retarted), than in the US. Did you know that in Iraq, under saddam, women could go out of their homes, they could get an education, they could work, they could live independent lives? Guess what, our little sojourn has ended that. AND on top of that, they are backwards for their previous lives! i honestly expected different from you. The sad state is that most of america believes the same rhetoric, which was spoon fed by the GOP. keep drinkin that Kool-aid, since up til now it hasnt hurt anyone, not 4k troops, not thousands of American families, not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis,.

I know its tough to understand the difference between cultural identity and religious identity. based on the US, my picture of christians should be either wildly a-moral, hedonists, who are much like the residents of Soddom and Gomorrah, OR, people who are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to express their hatred for peoples of different beliefs or lifestyles.

You honestly cant understand the beauty of a woman who isnt completly naked. Wearing a headscarf is mandated by Islam. Wearing a burka is mandated by persian/shiite beliefs. The reality is that we are to blame for the dire situation in Iraq and any positive changes have come at a high price. Some say too high a price. I don't necessarily believe that is the case. It is just naieve to think that its the Iraqi's fault for their country falling into chaos. Its tough for Iraqis to have nationalistic pride when the US has sent in Blackwater and their Hessian militia of "contractors."

[rn79870]

Helio, that was well said. One of the things I've learned from you in the past few months is that understanding would be a better weapon than a b0mber.

[Jager]

teleco before you begin the we went for oil and we should have listened to the rest of the world, please tell me where you were when the USA found weapons made in france and in germany that were being sold for oil, after both countries signed the no arms for oil treaty.

countries did not want us invading Iraq because they had back door deals and they got caught with their pants down when we found those exocet anti ship cruise missiles, h&K arms, and various military weapons. so saying we went for oil and the rest of the world is righteous is patent bull****.

the way women are being treated or how that is our fault or the fault of the Iraq's ,I will NOT get into, that in my eyes falls under the no discussing religion clauses. while I agree that women seemed to be better under saddam, im sure that the many women and children he gassed or his sons had their way with would disagree if they could.

we do owe those people though, and we should try our best to ensure that those women are treated fairly, how we should do that, whether by US standards or the religious standards IDK, Imams like priests here are not all men of god as much as political /socioeconomic forces, so I cannot find any "right" way to proceed differently then what we are doing now.

thats rather sad in retrospect.

[szh]

Please allow me to pontificate at length, because I am finding this thread frustrating to read ... and I am going to change the topic a bit (not totally off-topic from the original post)....You know what, guys? America could learn from some of the other "backward" countries about women's rights ... (of course, with some exceptions).

Here is an interesting point about women rights in "backward" Islamic nations. Three Islamic countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh, and (to a lesser Islamic degree) Turkey - have had strong women leaders running the country. Voted into office, by the way - by popular demand and popular elections. If women are down-trodden and second-class citizens, with no rights, in Islamic/Muslim countries, how could this possibly be true?!?

We cannot say the same in the US now, can we? Have we ever had a woman President? Only recently did we find ourselves with our first woman Speaker. (Sidebar: Well, I don't like her, but not because she is a woman - I just happen to dislike her left-wing politics! )

Does anyone know about Queen Noor of Jordan? Yes, she was born and brought up in the U.S., and married the King of Jordan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Noor. She is well-known (except in the US, I guess) for her tireless efforts working on behalf of the United Nations ... while she was still reigning Queen of Jordan - all blessed by King Hussein!

Does she strike you as a person who would consider herself subjugated and mistreated in an Islamic country because she is a woman?

Closer to home for me (and less privileged than Queen Noor ), since I have the personal knowledge to talk about these women:

1. My wife's aunt, Nasreen Jalil, is currently the Assistant Mayor of Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasreen_Jalil. More than forty years ago, she earned her Commercial Pilot's License in 1966 and taught flying at the Hong Kong Aero Club. She has been a Senator in the National Assembly (Pakistan's equivalent of the U.S. Senate) and was Chairperson on the Committee on Human Rights.

Does she strike you as a person who would consider herself subjugated and mistreated in an Islamic country because she is a woman?

2. My mother-in-law, Yasmeen Lari, was the first woman architect in Pakistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasmeen_Lari, was the President of the Institute of Architects in Pakistan at one time, has lectured at MIT, Harvard and other colleges in the US, UK and Japan (among other countries). She has achieved international acknowledgment for her work in Pakistan, and recently received the highest Civilian award in Pakistan for her tireless work - at an age of 67 or 68 - in the earthquake devastated areas in Northern Pakistan marshaling resources to build thousands of homes for families who lost everything.

Does she strike you as a person who would consider herself subjugated and mistreated in an Islamic country because she is a woman?

3. My sister, Quatrina Hosain, is a pre-eminent journalist in the television news industry in Pakistan. Currently, she is the CCO (Chief Content Officer) and Nightly News Anchor for one of the new television stations in the country. While in another job at another station (government-run television station), she had a program where she interviewed many prominent political figures, including Condoleeza Rice: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/43604.htm and Richard Armitage: http://www.state.gov/s/d/forme...3.htm, among others. She has also been the Foreign Editor for the largest English newspaper in Pakistan and is well-known in the country.

Does she strike you as a person who would consider herself subjugated and mistreated in an Islamic country because she is a woman?

What I find distressing are the generalizations that are thrown about so easily - with little knowledge to make such sweeping statements. We see women with covered heads, or burkhas and immediately assume that they must be treated like chattel in these nations! And, that their rights must lower than those of dogs ... huhn?!?

Why?

It is not true (of course, there are exceptions)! It is a tradition - by custom and religion, and, more often than not, certainly among the educated women in most Islamic countries who wear them, it is usually by choice and custom - not because some man has forced it on them!

This unfortunate image has become engrained and tossed about too readily - is it because that is the stereotype portrayed in the media? Or old movies or something? That image is often wrong, and it is changing. And, it is changing even in the most conservative Islamic nations too (Saudi Arabia is probably the canonical example) - albeit slower than many people might like.

Here is an example: http://www.newsweek.com/id/33637 of a Muslim nation (Egypt) that finds itself on "the opposite side", with a story that has parallels in similar stories in France, UK and the US. The Egyptian government is trying to eliminate the burkha in certain places and yet, there are women who want to wear it ... weird, imho, but true! And, while I would never consider the veil as something that Muslim women have to wear, I find myself agreeing with the women in this story - they have the right to choose it, if they truly want to!

We talk about the backward-ness of the Middle East Muslim nations, and don't realize that countries like the United Arab Emirates have beaches where bikini-clad women are present () in droves. In an Islamic country?!? Ruled by a Shaikh?!? ZOMG!

Sure, there are some folks - men and women - who are not happy by the presence of bikini-clad women on those beaches, but, is that really surprising? Don't we have groups in this country where the women would be horrified to wear a bikini publicly? No? I can name a few groups and places if you want!

All countries have their people on both sides of an issue!

And, yes, sure, abso-effing-lutely, there are still problems with the treatment of women in certain parts of many Islamic nations - particularly in the rural countryside - but, there are many intelligent, educated men and women in all of them who are working hard to make a change for the better. And making tremendous progress - step by step! But, you rarely hear about that in the mainstream media.

Is this any different from how it was in the U.S. relatively not too long ago? When did women get the right to vote here, by the way ?

There are folks, btw, who seem to think that Islam states the rights of women to be lower than those of men. That is inaccurate, by the way, and if you want, I can point you to the correct references for that. The problem is that, as usual, people (usually men, of course) in many of those countries chose to interpret matter unfairly towards women. In extreme situations, like the Taliban "ideals" pushed in Afghanistan, this was truly a challenge for educated women. My family and other women in Pakistan were horrified at what was going on in Afghanistan during the Taliban ... reign, for lack of a better word.

So, all I can say is: please study, research, and educate yourself about what is happening in those so-called "backward" countries before pontificating at large. For those of us who have lived there, it is annoying, and frustrating, to hear these generalizations.

Having lived here in the U.S. as long as I have (longer than some of you have been alive, by the way!), I consider myself completely American. But, sometimes, I find the lack of knowledge beyond our borders, and yet, the complete ease with which we consider ourselves the experts on everything - and thereby justify our meddling because "we know better" - very, very sad!

Sometimes, I want to shake people into thinking properly, more globally, more with their own minds than what has been indoctrinated by media and their filtered images!...To get back to the topic a bit - well, sorta :

Yes, Iraqi women may have been "safer" under Saddam than now (of course, the Kurdish women and girls - among others - who were gassed by Saddam's armies might differ strongly ... if they were alive to do so!).

That is not because women were more protected per se, but because the general crime rate in that country was simply far lower at the time. The war has caused the police forces in Iraq to be stretched too thin to be an effective force to deal with the law and order problems ... hence, the criminal element (exists in any country) find themselves freer to commit all crimes. Not just those against women.

Will this change? I hope so. Once, the internal infrastructure of the country recovers from the battles and war mentality, then it will, I sincerely hope, find itself heading back to normalcy. This will reduce all crime too, not just the crimes against women.

Is this situation in Iraq the U.S.'s "fault"? That is a stretch ... I have to say no! The consequences of war are always hurtful to the average person who is in the war zone - during the skirmish, and in the aftermath.

Yeah, I truly wish we had not gone in at all - our push for this was flawed, IMHO. But, we did it, for better or worse and not because we wanted to hurt Iraqi women. A sad side-effect outcome.

So, now, I truly do hope that we can, somehow, make it work out in that country for the average person. If not, then the effort will have been in vain.

Thanks for listening to me go on too long!

Z

[szh]

That's their religion Greg, and we have little room to fault them for what they've practiced for what, 1400 years?

Nope! Actually, that is not what the religion says. It is, unfortunately, the manifestly un-Islamic practices that the men forced on the women.

That is changing ... in even the most conservative countries.

Z

[szh]

Jeez, I just read through my long-winded post above.

Now you know why I should not hang around this forum ... on some topics, I pontificate at the drop of a hat. Way too much.

Sorry!

Z

[audtatious]

While I don't intend to post here often I thought this was a good time.

Here's a good overview based on Iraq:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

Per the above, womens rights in Iraq grew up until the 1991 Iraq war and the start of the UN sanctions due to Saddams actions. It was after this point that Saddam made the "decision to embrace Islamic and tribal traditions as a political tool in order to consolidate power" which, along with the sanctions, was a downturn of rights for Iraqi women. Since this downturn started after '91 I do not fully understand how the US can have the blame put solely on their shoulders based upon the current actions which started 12 years later.

While I'm sure there are Americans who have issues with Muslims in this country (and other countries as well) and have knee-jerk reactions to seeing women here wearing traditional dress and head scarves, It's not the norm. While in "little" Louisville we don't have a large Muslim community I do run across Muslim women all the time wearing scarves and such and I have no issue with it nor do I know others who do either. Hell, one of my doctors is from Iran and she wears "traditional style" dress. My point is you can't believe everything you read in the papers and assume it is gospel. Hell, if you did that then you would believe that Americans all carry guns, shoot each other for sport and you can't walk around downtown areas without getting mugged or shot. That is far from the truth.

Regardless, Iraqi womens rights ARE deminished from what they once were but it is NOT solely because of the current military actions of the US in Iraq.

[szh]

My point is you can't believe everything you read in the papers and assume it is gospel.

Absolutely accurate.

Z

[audtatious]

I just wonder how things are going to be spun based upon my post. The article I linked to seemed pretty bipartisan. I guess if the agenda is to blame everything on Bush then where there's a will there's a way. Then again, I'm a liar on here so anything I post is easy to dismiss.

[szh]

It is a bit dated ... Nov 2003. Things have probably changed since then, but I do not know that for a fact.

Z

[szh]

While I'm sure there are Americans who have issues with Muslims in this country (and other countries as well) and have knee-jerk reactions to seeing women here wearing traditional dress and head scarves, It's not the norm. While in "little" Louisville we don't have a large Muslim community I do run across Muslim women all the time wearing scarves and such and I have no issue with it nor do I know others who do either. Hell, one of my doctors is from Iran and she wears "traditional style" dress.

Okay, so, here is the big question: if we see images (media video and pictures) of women in other countries wearing scarfs, or more likely, burkhas, why does it seem to be more common to assume that the women in those countries must be oppressed? I have seen too people make that generalization unfortunately!

Z

[audtatious]

Shows the downturn was already present before our "illegal invasion".

[audtatious]

Okay, so, here is the big question: if we see images (media video and pictures) of women in other countries wearing scarfs, or more likely, burkhas, why does it seem to be more common to assume that the women in those countries must be oppressed? I have seen too people make that generalization unfortunately!

Z

IMO, when any group who is used to "X" see's a group who does "Y" they wonder why. In the case of full burkhas I'm sure those who are not familiar would make an assumption that they must be forced to wear them as they find it rediculous based upon their own life style. Throw in the media reports of abuse and lack of rights and you have the 1+2=5 mentality of assumption. This happens quite often in the world and is not limited to women wearing Burkhas.

[szh]

Shows the downturn was already present before our "illegal invasion".

Ah! I get your point ...

Z

[rn79870]

The title of the OP was “Iraqi women may be the ultimate victim of the war.” The article quoted was from the English language Aljazeera news agency. I don’t believe it spun anything. It presented the fact that women in Iraq, in general, now have a much more dangerous life 7 years after the US invasion.

Is it the US fault? Did the US cause it? Is the US responsible for their conditions? That question isn’t answered, and everyone is free to make up their own mind. To say the very least, the invasion has exchanged one set of evils for another, and if the latter set of evils is far worse than the former, then maybe we didn’t think this thing through. I don’t blame the US for the act of a criminal element, but I blame the US for not foreseeing that the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure would lead to civil chaos. I don’t think GW lied to us, or deliberately set out to do this, but he was driving the bus when it crashed, and crash it did. Therefore it’s fair, in my opinion, to hold GW either directly or indirectly responsible for the current conditions in Iraq.

Didn’t Harry Truman have a sign on his desk about the buck stopping right there, on that desk in the Oval office?

[AZhitman]

Is it the US fault? Did the US cause it? Is the US responsible for their conditions? That question isn’t answered, and everyone is free to make up their own mind. To say the very least, the invasion has exchanged one set of evils for another, and if the latter set of evils is far worse than the former, then maybe we didn’t think this thing through. I don’t blame the US for the act of a criminal element, but I blame the US for not foreseeing that the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure would lead to civil chaos. I don’t think GW lied to us, or deliberately set out to do this, but he was driving the bus when it crashed, and crash it did. Therefore it’s fair, in my opinion, to hold GW either directly or indirectly responsible for the current conditions in Iraq.

Didn’t Harry Truman have a sign on his desk about the buck stopping right there, on that desk in the Oval office?

In that light, and after reading Z's brilliant and informative post, I am inclined to concur.

Well-done.

Don't get used to it.

Also, I feel I owe Z and Tariq (and many others who know ME culture better than I) an apology. It seems we HAVE been misled, and I was not aware of the conditions in those nations.

Z, any chance you have a relative that might perhaps look like Queen Noor? Because I think she could TOTALLY change my POV...

[Eikon]

Wow.. i missed a lot in the last day..

I heart Z.

I hope I didn't say anything offended Helio or Z or any of the others who've read this thread.

[heliochrome85]

no hard feelings here. i just didnt expect that sort of ideology from you. ill just mark it up to a bad day at the office.

also, i heart queen noor and her sucessor, queen rania quite a lot. pure class.

[AZhitman]

no hard feelings here. i just didnt expect that sort of ideology from you. ill just mark it up to a bad day at the office.

I don't have bad days - Every day above ground is a good day in my world.

However, I guess I can only believe what I'm fed, just like most of us here in the US. It's regrettable, and I (as always) appreciate your clarification.

On a side note, Tariq - Why do you think it is that we have such a negative view of womens' rights in ME countries? Is it a matter of a few fundamental wackos making the rest of the bunch look bad? I'm just curious... Thanks man!

[heliochrome85]

i think its a combination of two issues. 1, the middle east has its fair share of fundamental wackos, and by fundamental, i mean tribal. Islam does not mandate the complete covering of a womans body from head to toe. It requires women wear loose fitting clothing and cover their hair, as to appear modest and prevent bad thoughts in the minds of the men around them. For the most part, i can attest to this, it works. Its refreshing to walk and not be distracted by some WT woman waering a bra 45 sizes too small, and micro shorts. That is just wrong. Some cultures, Iran and Saudi Arabia, have had more influence from their tribal/cultural heritage than other countries. In SA for example, the tribal culture that existed for thousands of years, mandated the woman be covered head to toe, with the face coverd. Its a remnant of when they were all nomads that followed their flock/caravan. Since all we hear about in this country are stories about how women in SA dont drive, etc, we get the perception that its that way throughout the ME. That simply isnt the case. The same is for Iran.

In addition to this, we live in a culture and country that has fringe elements (mhm Gloria Steinham, for example) that believe that if a woman doesnt burn her bra, she is oppressed. Trust me when I say, for the most part, women in the middle east have it easier than their american counterparts. There isnt GAWKING as there is here. Women are treated much better, and in many cases, better than men. They get preferential treatment in government offices and cultures tend to have higher status for women, allowing them to divorce their husband at their own whim. Unfortunatly, femnazis here in the US make us all believe that this isnt the case in the middle east, that poor fatima goes home every day to get raped and beaten by her husband. she cant leave the house, or she will be stoned to death. its disgusting. my wife, when i ultimately do get married, will hopefully waer a head scarf, because thats what I want. Trust me when i say, there is often more beauty in the unknown, than in the known.

[ishkabibble]

I still believe the reason we went in was to mitigate a threat against our own country and people. It was a response to the 9/11 tragedy.

It was sold to the public as a response to the 9/11 tragedy. It had nothing to do with 9/11. The perception of a threat was manufactured by selectively culling out intelligence reports which pushed the administration's plan to invade. Read up on the Office of Special Plans.

What I don't get is how people use the altruism defense for our invasion of Iraq. If we are oh-so-altruistic, why aren't we policing the rest of the world as well? Better yet, why aren't we using some of those billions to address some of the problems at home?

<gregvoice> Live and let live or world police. You can't have it both ways, righties. </gregvoice>

[AZhitman]

<gregvoice> Live and let live or world police. You can't have it both ways, righties. </gregvoice>

Man, I thought there was an echo, except my voice is much deeper than yours.



JFWY Ish.

Tariq, thx for that. More later?

[heliochrome85]

sure why not. you just let me know. Like Z, i love to pontificate at length. for some reason, the first time i read that post, i thought it was Jesda.

[szh]

Wow.. i missed a lot in the last day..

I heart Z.

I hope I didn't say anything offended Helio or Z or any of the others who've read this thread.

NOT AT ALL!!!

Believe me, you all have not offended me in the slightest. Keep in mind that it is all too dang easy to look at information that is made available - in the news, in the media, etc. - and get misled into believing that what you see is the only correct information! I only tend to get frustrated when I see the misinformation repeated, without the nominal homework to understand better!

Sound bites and news snippets, that can be completed in short segments between ads, are what rule the day in the news media - everywhere, not just in the US!

So ... I just ask that you all do the research - the Internet is a wonderful thing - to dive in a bit more than the sound bites information if you want to discuss a hot topic. It does not take a lot of time to do this - Google it!

And, I will also be the first to say that there is still quite a long ways to go in those countries - some more than others - with regard to womens rights! Particularly when I see what is being achieved in some countries in the region. I just want folks to understand that many people there do care about making change happen!

For example, I find the restrictive women policies of Saudi Arabia more than unacceptable, so I would not willingly take my wife to live there (unlike Kuwait or UAE or Pakistan, which would be fine)! Not because she would be in danger in Saudi Arabia, but because she would have some restrictions, that we do not see here and in countries like Pakistan or the UAE or Turkey for example.

And, even in the rural regions of Pakistan, women still do not have the complete rights they should. This is farm country - most of the women look after the houses while the "men-folk" work. But there are women working in the fields too. And they don't wear burkhas in the fields.

Regardless, the justice system in those regions is biased against women for sure. Again, not because the government or the religion says to do it that way - it is because it is in the best interests of the men who rule those regions to keep it that way.

But, there are organizations that are making a difference. For example, lots of women and men lawyers who do extensive pro-bono work to assist the women there, to get them the fundamental rights that the government says they have!

Yes, there are setbacks, but the trend is mostly in the right direction. For example, the Taliban in Afghanistan were a major indirect setback in Pakistan, since they created a visible precedent for folks to point to, to justify their actions. In that sense, the US effort to remove the Taliban was a Good Thing.

BTW, I would highly recommend watching "Charlie Wilson's War" with Tom Hanks. It shows US foreign policy in both a good and a bad light and this is what tends to frustrate people outside the country. We tend to want easy solutions - "arm the Mujaheddin to fight the evil Red communists" - without the follow-through that makes the effort sustainable.

If we had followed up the $1billion dollars spent on supporting the arming, with just 2% or 3% extra funds to get the post-Russian infrastructure going in the right direction, the Taliban would never have gained the ground that they did!

Z

[heliochrome85]

Z speaks truth. CWW is a great movie. Particularly Philip Seymour Hoffman's role. watch and you will understand why.

[szh]

Since all we hear about in this country are stories about how women in SA dont drive, etc, we get the perception that its that way throughout the ME. That simply isnt the case. The same is for Iran.

Yes - a good example! And same for other countries in the region too. The thought that a woman would not be allowed to drive a car in Pakistan or Turkey or (today's) Iran or Indonesia or Egypt would cause the women there to take to the streets in mass protest! The governments would fall!

Women are treated much better, and in many cases, better than men. They get preferential treatment in government offices and cultures tend to have higher status for women

Yup! Some factoids from Pakistan:

1. There are now more women enrolled in colleges and universities than men. They are getting the education that they need to be successful ... the pay equality has not caught up yet (hasn't here either, for that matter), but that will happen someday.

2. The number of women doctors and lawyers is growing more rapidly than men. Such professions were very male-dominated for a long while, but that is changing. Recently, one of wife's school friends lost her husband to an unexpected heart problem. Both husband and wife were lawyers ... the new owner of the firm is now the wife! She manages all the male lawyers who are part of the company perfectly well.

3. Queues do not exist for women. If my wife and I went to a place where we had to stay in a line to get some work done, I would quietly hand everything to her and let her get escorted to the front of the line with the other women - I would have had to stay in the back and wait my dang turn! If she had to stand, somebody (male) might rush to get her a chair to sit in instead of "standing" in the queue.

4. Old-school chivalry (which feminists might not like, perhaps ) still exists. In social situations, no man would sit in a chair and let a woman stand if another chair were not available. Doors are still opened for women, etc., etc., etc.

my wife, when i ultimately do get married, will hopefully wear a head scarf, because thats what I want.

But, importantly, it will be her choice, Tariq! If she does not decide to wear one (my wife does not, for example), no one in most of the countries in the ME will force her to do so (like I said, the Taliban were an aberration that I hope has gone away for good).

Z