Iraqi women maybe the ultimate victims of the war.

[rn79870]

This is probably something the average American never hears of, or for that matter considers. I'm very interested in the Iraqi side of the war. I want to hear what the Iraqi people, from all three provinces have to say about life pre and post US occupation.

To that end, I've found this article dated Aug 02, 2008

Although brutal and violent, a study has shown that Iraqi women were more protected under Saddam's reign compared to the situation after the US-led invasion in 2003.

Iraqi women today are subjected to random violence, assault, rape, kidnapping or death at the hands of suicide bombers, US troops, Iraqi police, even radical religious groups and local thugs.

The report by an international women's group warned that the situation for women in Iraq has now become a "national crisis".

Women's lobby groups say the main reason is the rise in power of conservative Islamist groups in post-invasion Iraq.

They point to the Iraqi constitution which guarantees that women must fill 25 per cent of the national assembly.

However, at the same time, it also maintains that no law may be passed which contradicts Islamic rulings.

But critics argue that using the term "Islamist" to describe the prejudices and violence against women in Iraq is misleading and serves to deliberately cover up the real conflict. They say politics, rather than religion, is the main source of the problem.

Inside Iraq this week looks at the political and religious conflicts faced by Iraqi women after the US-led invasion.

http://english.aljazeera.net/p....html

Thoughts? Is this issue even addressed in the criteria for "winning?"

[Eikon]

I've also heard that life in Iraq is considerably worse for "the average" woman. At least for those not being killed by Sadam's chemical and random terrorism.

I think when the central government of any nation falls, the streets are ruled by local militia's and religious groups. Those are usually quite severe and impose much more harsh punishment for anyone not following their commands. This is certainly true in Iraq.

In Sunni neighborhoods, the Shia women are raped and brutalized if they do not leave. Even the Sunni women are harassed if they do not dress in the ultra conservative style that the Imam's command.

While the US would like to point out that women now have more freedom to go to school and run business and be active in local politics, that is not yet the case because the people on the street terrorize any women who do step outside the new local order.

It's a shame!

I still think the long term future for ALL Iraqi's is better under a new government. But it's sure a tragedy for those going through this tough time. Hopefully they will endure knowing their children will have better lives.

Hopefully their children will have better lives.

[AZhitman]

Let's all blame the US.

Let's not blame a bass-ackwards prehistoric society that showcases the ultimate in barbaric misogyny... one that treats women like property (or dogs), won't let them show their faces, vote, get an education, own property, drive a car, wear makeup, go out unescorted, divorce her husband, or go on dates.

Yes, let's point the finger at us.

You either want to save 'em or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

For all the squealing we hear from the Left about "a woman's right to choose", this just tells me it's NOT about women's rights - it's about convenience and a lack of responsibility and regard for human life. What about the rights of the Iraqi women?

You guys don't give a shlt about those women. Spare us the dramatic nonsense.

[Eikon]

I didn't point any fingers at the USA. My finger is, like yours, pointed at the local society. Though I didn't use so many big words to say so. lol.

Not dramatic nonsense... I just thought I would try agreeing with Bob once to see what it's like. I'll go cut my wrists soon.

I really do feel bad for the women and children in Iraq. I could give a rats butt about the men. They have the power to change things, yet they only make things worse. The women and kids are just along for the ride. In this one instance... i'll let my heart bleed for them.

[rn79870]

It's ironic that the people who want us to remain Iraq until we "win," define that win as a reduction in violence, not against the Iraqi people, but against US servicemen and US interests.

My question has been whether the Iraqi people are finding a better life now than they previously found under Sadam. It appears, at least for one class, the answer is "not as good."

So who do we blame for that?

[Eikon]

So who do we blame for that?

Let's not blame a bass-ackwards prehistoric society that showcases the ultimate in barbaric misogyny... one that treats women like property (or dogs), won't let them show their faces, vote, get an education, own property, drive a car, wear makeup, go out unescorted, divorce her husband, or go on dates.

[AZhitman]

Oh God forbid we blame the real barbarians.

Bob's head would explode.

[rn79870]

You forget one very simple and predominate legal principle...the But For rule. But for GW interfering...

Kind of like pulling the rug out from under someone and blaming them for breaking their glass when they fall. I'd call it a swing and a miss...

[rn79870]

Let's not blame a bass-ackwards prehistoric society that showcases the ultimate in barbaric misogyny... one that treats women like property (or dogs), won't let them show their faces, vote, get an education, own property, drive a car, wear makeup, go out unescorted, divorce her husband, or go on dates.

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

[wingFeather]

What happened to my post, dear open-minded one?

[rn79870]

It went into the trash cans as will all other nonsense posts. Post something even remotely relevant, even controversial and I'll leave it. Criticize, condemn, whatever and it's fair material for the forum, but claptrap twaddle doesn't add to the discussion and won't survive.

[wingFeather]

Funny how you consider viewpoints other than your own "trash".

Anyhow, what I posted was a relevant counterpoint. You are too quick to dismiss what we've done in that part of the world. It is a process that will take some time. And as it seems we have made more progress there, than has been made in centuries. Imagine the change that can happen if we stick to it, instead of trying to discredit our efforts to date & the deaths of those who stuck to their hope for change!

Nothing happens over night, despite the Annointed One Obama claiming that he can change the world, like Captain EO. Quickly & conveniently. Now that, sir, is trash!

[rn79870]

Funny how you consider viewpoints other than your own "trash".

It was hardly a viewpoint or it would have stayed. If you want to contribute to this forum, your contributions are welcome and will stay. Nonsense posts won't.

Anyhow, what I posted was a relevant counterpoint. You are too quick to dismiss what we've done in that part of the world. It is a process that will take some time. And as it seems we have made more progress there, than has been made in centuries. Imagine the change that can happen if we stick to it, instead of trying to discredit our efforts to date & the deaths of those who stuck to their hope for change!

Perhaps you missed the meaning of the OP. It impartially reported that life for women, (I assume that's about 50% of the Iraqi people) is not better now than it was under Saddam. 7 years into the war and they are worse off than before. I'm not drawing any conclusion here, I'm just asking you hawks why this wasn't possibility considered and whether it is part of your plan for the "win" in Iraq.

Nothing happens over night, despite the Annointed One Obama claiming that he can change the world, like Captain EO. Quickly & conveniently. Now that, sir, is trash!

It's been 7 years so far, how much longer should it continue, 100 years?

[wingFeather]

7 years into the war and they are worse off than before.

Let me compare this to a concept that is at a basic level. When fixing an engine, it gets worse before it gets better. Sure the engine was together when you brought it to the mechanic, but it had deep-seated problems. NOW, the engine is in 1,000 pieces spread out around a machine shop AND you find there will be additional charges! But in the end, it all comes back together, and is better than it would've been if you kept limiping it along.

It's been 7 years so far, how much longer should it continue, 100 years?

How long does it take to make things right? 100 years? If so, is not 100 years better than the option of INFINITE years of suffering? Hey, if you don't mind the possibility of falling a few hundred stories to your death, out of a flaming inferno, then be my guest - end your own life & allow me to live in safety. Don't make decisions that affect my mortality... that is very personal!

[rn79870]

Let me compare this to a concept that is at a basic level. When fixing an engine, it gets worse before it gets better. Sure the engine was together when you brought it to the mechanic, but it had deep-seated problems. NOW, the engine is in 1,000 pieces spread out around a machine shop AND you find there will be additional charges! But in the end, it all comes back together, and is better than it would've been if you kept limiping it along.

I would agree with that. the problem is that we were told a simple change of spark plugs was all that was needed, and we believed it. Now, we're told the main bearings are bad. This makes me think we've got a very bad mechanic or we've been taken.

How long does it take to make things right? 100 years? If so, is not 100 years better than the option of INFINITE years of suffering? Hey, if you don't mind the possibility of falling a few hundred stories to your death, out of a flaming inferno, then be my guest - end your own life & allow me to live in safety. Don't make decisions that affect my mortality... that is very personal!

My question is are we making things better. And who is responsible for determining what is involved in "better." Why can't we get a clear and concise plan for this "win". And that's not directed towards either candidate, as I don't think either man, nor the current man, has a real clue of what's involved.

[AZhitman]

I would agree with that. the problem is that we were told a simple change of spark plugs was all that was needed, and we believed it. Now, we're told the main bearings are bad. This makes me think we've got a very bad mechanic or we've been taken.

...or we re-evaluated and adjusted once additional information became available, something you seem to applaud.

They can do as they please, but either we care or we don't. Just because someone violates human rights for 1400 years doesn't make it OK or acceptable.

Hell, we're over here wasting taxpayer money to apologize for slavery. We've come a long way in 100 years... Excuses based on habit are weak.

Many people there are better off now than they were before. Many may not be. But to beat ourselves up over a "but for" implies that inaction is the best policy, which I reject.

Inaction in the face of human suffering is the domain of the limp-wristed and frail.

[wingFeather]

.......

[wingFeather]

...or we re-evaluated and adjusted once additional information became available, something you seem to applaud.

They can do as they please, but either we care or we don't. Just because someone violates human rights for 1400 years doesn't make it OK or acceptable.

Hell, we're over here wasting taxpayer money to apologize for slavery. We've come a long way in 100 years... Excuses based on habit are weak.

Many people there are better off now than they were before. Many may not be. But to beat ourselves up over a "but for" implies that inaction is the best policy, which I reject.

Inaction in the face of human suffering is the domain of the limp-wristed and frail.

Well stated, and I agree with every line.

RN79870, I somewhat understand what you are saying. We are indeed getting a new mechanic soon (and no, McCain is not McSame).

But if we step back a few philosophical feet, it would be nice if our future leader would say something like AZ has posted. Something along the lines of "we will stay as long as it takes for freedom, democracy and social health to be stabilized for the MAJORITY of citizens." and have a track record to back that up. Don't just say it, or change your mind according to the polls, or offer "hope" and a "ray of light". That would not be... Wright You cannot make everyone happy. I guess the problem is that everyone has a different view of what is healthy, as I can see in our own clashing posts here.

[rn79870]

...or we re-evaluated and adjusted once additional information became available, something you seem to applaud.

There is another side to that argument too. I may not have decided to have the car fixed if I had been advised that it might require more than the plugs. I rely on the mechanic just like I relied on the President. That's water under the bridge now so what can I do.

They can do as they please, but either we care or we don't. Just because someone violates human rights for 1400 years doesn't make it OK or acceptable.

Maybe it's not our place to meddle in the affairs of another country, at least that's what I've learned from the major conflicts of the latter 20th. and early 21st. century.

[Eikon]

Maybe it's not our place to meddle in the affairs of another country, at least that's what I've learned from the major conflicts of the latter 20th. and early 21st. century.

So we should have let the Nazi's kill the Jews?Let the Hutu's kill the Tutsi's in Rwanda?Let the Sudanese kill everyone in Darfur?

Is it not also a crime to have knowledge of an atrocity being committed and yet not do anything to stop it?

[AZhitman]

Maybe it's not our place to meddle in the affairs of another country, at least that's what I've learned from the major conflicts of the latter 20th. and early 21st. century.

...and in that case, you need not worry about the Iraqi women.

I'm of a mind that I'll take a playground beating from a bully if it means he'll quit picking on the smaller guy. And he'll go home with a black eye and a bloody nose to remind him that such behaviors are not without consequence.

[rn79870]

So we should have let the Nazi's kill the Jews?Let the Hutu's kill the Tutsi's in Rwanda?Let the Sudanese kill everyone in Darfur?

Is it not also a crime to have knowledge of an atrocity being committed and yet not do anything to stop it?

If you feel that the US is the worlds police force then perhaps we should intervene. Others feel that a nice wall, a missile defense system, and a "mind your own business" attitude is in the best interest of the United States.

[Eikon]

If you feel that the US is the worlds police force then perhaps we should intervene. Others feel that a nice wall, a missile defense system, and a "mind your own business" attitude is in the best interest of the United States.

That is a difficult topic for me. I honestly don't know where I stand on this. When I see great atrocities being committed, I feel like our nation, which has been given such wealth and power, should step in and save innocent lives.

On the other hand, I sure don't like the financial burden and loss of American lives that often comes with that role.

Wouldn't it be nice if the UN actually had the support and power to fill that role.

Wouldn't it be nice if the other wealthy and powerful nations would step up and do something honorable for the poor people in the world.

In my own personal opinion, if I had to draw a line (and that's never easy to do), I'd say that in cases of genocide, we have a responsibility to save lives. In the case of political turmoil, I think I'd rather we stayed a bit more isolationist.

As this relates back to Iraq... 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. Since we can't fight the terrorists on an open battle field, we have to cut down the forest in which they hide. If the Iraqi government was a supporter and protector of the terrorists that hit us and planned to continue to do so. Then I'm fully in favor of mitigating that debt.

I will agree with you and many other people's view that our government probably didn't fully think it through. I don't think they properly planned to rebuild the nation afterwards.

[telcoman]

On the other hand, I sure don't like the financial burden and loss of American lives that often comes with that role.

Wouldn't it be nice if the other wealthy and powerful nations would step up and do something honorable for the poor people in the world. [/QUOTE

I will agree with you and many other people's view that our government probably didn't fully think it through. I don't think they properly planned to rebuild the nation afterwards.

Other countries tried to warn us but George Bush, d!ck Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz wouldn't listen

We're only there to rip off their oil. The lobbyists for the US oil companies and automobile manufactures opposed reducing consumption by raising the CAFE standards and gave incentives for huge SUVs.

We should have been concentrating in Afghanistan. The Republicians screwed up Viet Nam and they are doing it again in Iraq. Those Republicians keep screwing the American People six ways to Sunday.

Telcoman

[Eikon]

Other countries tried to warn us but George Bush, d!ck Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz wouldn't listen

We're only there to rip off their oil. The lobbyists for the US oil companies and automobile manufactures opposed reducing consumption by raising the CAFE standards and gave incentives for huge SUVs.

We should have been concentrating in Afghanistan. The Republicians screwed up Viet Nam and they are doing it again in Iraq. Those Republicians keep screwing the American People six ways to Sunday.

Telcoman

Come on Telco... I expect more from you than this blather. Support your opinions... it makes for a better debate.

btw.. The Republicans screwd up Vietnam??? Last I checked Kennedy and Johnson were in power during most of the Vietnam war. They were both Democrats. Nixon was the one who got us out of Vietnam. Nixon was a Republican. (don't think i'm saying he was a good president, I'm just refuting your claim that it was the Rep. that screwed up Vietnam).

[wingFeather]

Other countries tried to warn us but George Bush, d!ck Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz wouldn't listen

We're only there to rip off their oil. The lobbyists for the US oil companies and automobile manufactures opposed reducing consumption by raising the CAFE standards and gave incentives for huge SUVs.

We should have been concentrating in Afghanistan. The Republicians screwed up Viet Nam and they are doing it again in Iraq. Those Republicians keep screwing the American People six ways to Sunday.

Telcoman

Wow, talk about trash posts. This is some of the most outrageous stuff I've read. You'll say anything to get your party in office. Go Democrats!

[rn79870]

Come on Telco... I expect more from you than this blather. Support your opinions... it makes for a better debate.

btw.. The Republicans screwd up Vietnam??? Last I checked Kennedy and Johnson were in power during most of the Vietnam war. They were both Democrats. Nixon was the one who got us out of Vietnam. Nixon was a Republican. (don't think i'm saying he was a good president, I'm just refuting your claim that it was the Rep. that screwed up Vietnam).

Actually, to fully understand Vietnam you have to start with Ike and the Laos situation he left Kennedy. When Johnson became president he made a poor choice by choosing Robert McNamara as Sec. of Defense. Johnson was a "kill the messenger"type of president, thus, McNamara lacked the courage to tell Johnson anything other than what he wanted to hear. I've studied that mess and I put much of the blame on McNamara for the entire mishandled war. By the time Nixon came into power, the decision to invade Hanoi was not a possibility and without that option, there was no hope of winning the war. We didn't lose it, we just didn't allow the military the opportunity to win it. This is a perfect example of why a war should not be fought unless there is a defined win option and a willingness to pursue that goal. This error was repeated by you know who.

As immaterial as this may be, the Southeast Asia war started, and ended on a Republican watch.

[heliochrome85]

this thread is 100% pure unadulterated FAIL. I want to read it, but the posts are so insane, its tough to make sense of any of it.

a few points though:1.) Saddam was NOT bad for everyone. Life in Iraq was stable and prosperous for decades before we destroyed the entire system.

2.) AZ i would have thought you would have picked up of some of the stuff we've discussed before. Some of the statements youve made tell me otherwise. I guess im not making my points clear enough.

3.) NIXON caused the extending of the Vietnam war. He ruined peace negotiantions with the Vietnamese in 1968, on the eve of the election by sending a message to the Vietnamese delagation stateing that they would get better peace terms under him, rather than under democrats. If that isnt treason, i dont know what is.

To reiterate, Iraqi women have suffered because peace and order have been destroyed by the US invasion. The middle east has never been governend democratically. NEVER. Guess what, its gonna take some time for US camel jockeys to understand. Scuse me while i go to beat my wife, cover her head in a sheet, and beat her again for not enjoying the first beating. Sheesh.

[Eikon]

Bob.. ya dun edumacated me this here day.

I've never studied the Vietnam war in any detail (beyond basic high school history books). So thanks for the little lesson there.

now i'll have to do some follow up research on my own and see if what you've said is a little "biased" or not.

[rn79870]

The absolute best source on that is Stanley Karnow's Vietnam, A History Penguin books. 1983. It's a 750 page work that fully explains the situation from a historical point of view.