babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Women Now Worse Off Than Under Saddam: Poll

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Women Now Worse Off Than Under Saddam: Poll
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 April 2006 04:51 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A new poll of leaders of Iraqi women's-rights groups finds that women were treated better and their civil rights were more secure under deposed President Saddam Hussein than under the faltering and increasingly sectarian U.S.-installed government.

Just part of the campaign to bring democracy to Iraq....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/267125_erbe19.html


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 19 April 2006 04:56 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That was always one of the great fears of the Americans just going in with guns blazing, kicking over the Middle East hornet's nest.
From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 19 April 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
P.S. I saw you posted this in Rest of the World, instead of Middle East.

Smart.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 19 April 2006 05:01 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
See before last paragraph:

Latest HRW report on women in MIddle East


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 19 April 2006 11:31 PM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now let me state at the outset that my statements in NO way indicate that I agree with the war in Iraq. That being said though, I thought women in Saddam Insanes time had NO rights. So for someone to claim they had more rights and were treated better somehow sounds a little bogus. More of nothing is still nothing.
From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 April 2006 11:48 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by virge47:
I thought women in Saddam Insanes time had NO rights.

Hmm. When you say "I thought", tell us more. Why did you think that? Did someone tell you? Did you read anything, or visit? Or do you think that by renaming Saddam Hussein with a humorous surname, and as long as you say you don't agree with the war in Iraq, you can say anything that pops into your head?

I'm curious as to how beliefs like yours are formed. Please elaborate.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 20 April 2006 12:00 AM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by virge47:
[QB], I thought women in Saddam Insanes time had NO rights. QB]

I believe women in Saddam's time before the wars could vote (for what that was worth), drive cars, go to school, not cover their heads etc.

In other words rights that most women in Middle East Islamic countries lack.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 20 April 2006 12:50 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In the same vein as Unionist's question, Where the heck did you get your "information" from, virge47 ?

From Wikipidia:


"Ba'thist beliefs combine Arab Socialism, nationalism, and Pan-Arabism. The mostly secular ideology often contrasts with that of other Arab governments in the Middle East, which sometimes tend to have leanings towards Islamism and theocracy."

Iraq was (under the Baath regime, mainly Saddam Hussein's) one of the most progressive societies in the Arab/Muslim world and even beyond (Tunisia also comes to mind, though much more socially than economy-wise now).

Worth adding that personhood of women has never been questioned in Iraq (or elsewhere in that region).

[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 20 April 2006 01:54 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A survey in March, 2006 produced similar results:

Saddam Better for Women


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 20 April 2006 10:26 AM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hmm. When you say "I thought", tell us more. Why did you think that? Did someone tell you? Did you read anything, or visit? Or do you think that by renaming Saddam Hussein with a humorous surname, and as long as you say you don't agree with the war in Iraq, you can say anything that pops into your head?

I'm curious as to how beliefs like yours are formed. Please elaborate.


Yes I have read some articles in regards to the mistreatment of women in Saddam Insanes time. I have also seen a television special where some of these women were interviewed and told their stories.


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 20 April 2006 10:34 AM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apparently my information was dated. Well, what is the answer to this problem? We unfortunatetly cannot role back time. So what is the solution, or is there a solution? Is the re-installation of Saddam Insane as dictator the answer? The war in Iraq is wrong and it should never have happened, but it has, so what is a viable solution to this issue?
From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 April 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have some sympathy for Virge's comment that women had no rights under Saddam Hussein; after all, no one had any RIGHTS in the sense that Saddam could violate them at will.

But, as with many authoritarian regimes, even Stalin's, absolute power CAN coexist with a reasonable daily life for many people.

So, people could actually be better off under Saddam, even though he pulled off the fingernails of his enemies. The trick, and it was a manageable one it seems, was to give Saddam and his group a wide berth.

I have less sympathy for Virge's second point, which is: close your eyes to who started the war and how they screwed it up, just provide a solution to the problem they caused.


My solution is: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld must resign. No one could have any faith that they can do anything right, much less extricate troops from a terrible situation which these leaders made.

Second, a new administration should organize the withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq.

The United Nations should work with the Arab League and similar local organizations to keep violence to a minimum, recognizing that the fuse, once lit, will be hard to extinguish.

Maybe some babblers remember the "Pottery Barn Rule", which says that, it you break it, its your job to fix it. So the US would have to fund reconstruction.

But the one thing which no one can demand is that American soldiers keep dying in a war which was based on lies.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 20 April 2006 04:17 PM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
jeff house ,I have some sympathy for Virge's comment that women had no rights under Saddam Hussein; after all, no one had any RIGHTS in the sense that Saddam could violate them at will.
But, as with many authoritarian regimes, even Stalin's, absolute power CAN coexist with a reasonable daily life for many people.

So, people could actually be better off under Saddam, even though he pulled off the fingernails of his enemies. The trick, and it was a manageable one it seems, was to give Saddam and his group a wide berth.

I have less sympathy for Virge's second point, which is: close your eyes to who started the war and how they screwed it up, just provide a solution to the problem they caused.


My solution is: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld must resign. No one could have any faith that they can do anything right, much less extricate troops from a terrible situation which these leaders made.

Second, a new administration should organize the withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq.

The United Nations should work with the Arab League and similar local organizations to keep violence to a minimum, recognizing that the fuse, once lit, will be hard to extinguish.

Maybe some babblers remember the "Pottery Barn Rule", which says that, it you break it, its your job to fix it. So the US would have to fund reconstruction.

But the one thing which no one can demand is that American soldiers keep dying in a war which was based on lies.


He never limited the torture to just his enemies. He used it as a way to control the populace. To suggest otherwise is not correct. He ruled by fear and torture of NOT only his enemies, but all Iraqi people. His son's were no better then their father. Besides what good is a right if you fear in exercising it? Just like their being allowed to vote. The problem is Saddam Insane was the only person running. How do you know it was a manageable way of life to bein constant fear of getting on Saddams wrong side.

Where have I closed my eyes to who started the war in Iraq? I have NEVER stated anything of the sort. I only asked questions on what might be a solution. I agree with you that the U.S. should have never went to Iraq in the first place. They had no business interfering in that nations affairs, since they were not an imminent threat to the U.S. So to eliminate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld is only part of the solution as you stated. The troops should now withdraw in an orderly fashion to minimize casualties on both sides is also one that I agree with you on.

Unfortunatelty I don't think the Arab League would work with the U.S., since the U.S. recognizes Isreal,and that would be unfortunate. As far as violence among the different tribes in Iraq, that has been an ongoing issue for many years and is NOT the total fault of the U.S. I think if the Islamic religion stayed out of politics I think that would go a long way in defusing the violence that has gone on for years. So the fact is that fuse you speak of was lit long before the U.S. ever entered Iraq. Now I am not minimizing the fact that the U.S. invasion did not increase the violence, but it certainly did not start it. I only point out the U.S. even though you stated the U.N. as the negotiator with the Arab League, because practically speaking the occupiers are mostly U.S. forces.

As far as rebuilding Iraq, the U.S. has been doing just that, but the terrorists and insurgents within the country have been destroying what is being built.

And finally I fully agree that U.S. soldiers and Canadian soldiers as well as soldiers from other countries who are taking part in this war should NOT have to fight a war based on lies and as a result be sent home in a body bag for the families to bury.


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 April 2006 04:37 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have less and less sympathy....

Reality: Women who lead civil organizations, in Iraq, say that things were better for them under Saddam.

So, whether Saddam tortured 100, 1000, or 10,000 people is not the point. The point is that, WHATEVER THE FIGURE WAS, Iraqi women are now saying things were better then.

So, I'll take their word for it over that of Virge.

The second element of Virge's post was to say that
we should not fixate on the past, but apply ourselves to creating policies in Iraq which will work.

That is a handy point of view for those who do not want their actions to be examined. I am not too interested in debating exactly what should be done in Iraq; that is mostly fantasy at this time anyway.

If Bush had listened to babblers about the risk of a quagmire, he wouldn't have this problem now.

But don't ask American soldiers to give their lives for this insanity.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 20 April 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Virge 47. Your comment that women in Iraq had no rights under Saddam is inaccurate. Women in Iraq had the protection of civil law unlike most other countries in the middle east. It now under Bushco has reverted back to Sharia simply because it was politically expedient for the US to agree to it to get the cooperation of the Shia clerics.

I would also suggest to you that women in Iraq were the best educated women in the Middle east and in fact many petroleum professionals are women and there are those who work in Canadas oil industry with experience gained in the oil fields of Iraq.

Bush has sent the women of Iraq back to the stone age. That on top of the no water, little elctricity, kitchen chores and babies, menstruation and diapers, the cloth kind ,that men don't even think about.

[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: eau ]


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 April 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Iraq also owned the lowest infant mortality rate among Arab nations before 1991, including Kuwait where about 10 percent of the people are even allowed to vote for prince al Sabah and vote for him they must! American people were fed dozens of lies about this situation, including Bush I's reference to a fairy tale about "nurse Nayirah" and Kuwaiti babies being yanked from incubators and left to die on cold cement floors.

UNICEF estimates that over 750 000 children have died in Iraq since U.S.-led sanctions began in 1991 on what is a desert country. More than 1, 500, 000 Iraqi's are believed to have died prematurely since 1991. About half the population in Iraq are children.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 20 April 2006 09:15 PM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have less and less sympathy....
Reality: Women who lead civil organizations, in Iraq, say that things were better for them under Saddam.

So, whether Saddam tortured 100, 1000, or 10,000 people is not the point. The point is that, WHATEVER THE FIGURE WAS, Iraqi women are now saying things were better then.

So, I'll take their word for it over that of Virge.

The second element of Virge's post was to say that
we should not fixate on the past, but apply ourselves to creating policies in Iraq which will work.

That is a handy point of view for those who do not want their actions to be examined. I am not too interested in debating exactly what should be done in Iraq; that is mostly fantasy at this time anyway.

If Bush had listened to babblers about the risk of a quagmire, he wouldn't have this problem now.

But don't ask American soldiers to give their lives for this insanity.


It is NOT according to Virge, but rather it is according to some Iraqi women who were interviewed that had lived under Saddam's regime.

As far as fixating on the past, I have nothing to hide or gain by this accusation that you make. How are you or anyone going to change the past? The important thing now is to make changes for the future. Maybe now that the war has gone so badly and most Americans disapprove of Bush, now is the time to complain and work hard to make sure chnages are indeed implemented. I see this time as the best considering the political atmosphere in the U.S. to force change for the better. Of course the alternative is to whine and complain about what has passed, which of course is a fruitless effort if change for the better is what you really desire.

Also as I already stated American soldiers as well as the countries that have contributed soldiers, should NOT be asked to give their lives for an insane and unjust war.


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 20 April 2006 09:47 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As far as rebuilding Iraq, the U.S. has been doing just that, but the terrorists and insurgents within the country have been destroying what is being built.

No they haven't. When they talk about "the hard work" of rebuilding Iraq they are talking about the oil wells. They haven't even given them water in ...how long has it been, oh yeah 3 fucking years. So how come oil is some how managed to be pumped but not water.
Your view warped on this one. What happened in the past isn't in the past seeing as how it is continueing and even worse been now perpetuated against Iran. What the hell are you going to say after they attack iran..."Well they screwed this up too I guess we need to help the Iranians out by rebuilding their country" Why do we need Haliburton rebuild a country that was running OK before the invasion. Look at what the US has done to Cuba before you say anything more, don't even respond with a post till you realize that the US is a terrorist state and not a legitimate government.
When the chicken hawks are hung for warcrimes then I will have some positives to say about the iraq situation. After all those evil bastards(BushCO) had to die, because of all their human rights violations. How could we just let them continue with all that they did.(Sound familiar?) Then we can get on to building a new enlightened society in the US.


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 April 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by virge47:
Apparently my information was dated. Well, what is the answer to this problem? We unfortunatetly cannot role back time. So what is the solution, or is there a solution? Is the re-installation of Saddam Insane as dictator the answer?

Actually yes, the foreign assassins should leave, and leave Iraq as near to the way they found it when they marched in slaughtering people in 2003. That means Saddam Hussein should be reinstated. If the Iraqis want to overthrow him, they will have my warm sympathy. But it will be their choice. And you might be surprised.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 April 2006 10:14 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Second, a new administration should organize the withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq.

I agree with much of what you said, but have trouble with this point. The "Western troops" should be driven from Iraq (actually, they are being driven from Iraq, as surely as they were from South-East Asia in the 1970s), instantly. Poof! Not "organize the withdrawal". Get out, or get killed. Simple. Iraqis are not inferior barbaric subhumans that will just gleefully start murdering each other the moment their "Western" benefactors aren't there to babysit them. This is fundamentally repugnant, ahistorical, and racist notion.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 April 2006 10:17 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by virge47:

The troops should now withdraw in an orderly fashion to minimize casualties on both sides is also one that I agree with you on.

Are you another proponent of "the Iraqi untermenschen will slaughter each other the moment the Great White Crusader withdraws"? I hope not! The Americans should pack their gear and flee, as they did from Saigon in 1975, where the helicopters couldn't get their sorry pampered butts out fast enough. And of course the poor Vietnamese savages all murdered each other as soon as the kind gentle Americans left -- right? I don't think so.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 21 April 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually yes, the foreign assassins should leave, and leave Iraq as near to the way they found it when they marched in slaughtering people in 2003. That means Saddam Hussein should be reinstated. If the Iraqis want to overthrow him, they will have my warm sympathy. But it will be their choice. And you might be surprised.

No actually I am not surprised by your response. Actually I would have been surprised had you suggested anything else.


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 21 April 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually Unionist it is estimated that the post war North Vietnamese regime is responsible for approximately 1.6 Million dead, the result of re-education camps etc. Follow this link and scroll down to lines 818 & 819.

Post Vietnam War Death Tolls


From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 21 April 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
thorin_bane No they haven't. When they talk about "the hard work" of rebuilding Iraq they are talking about the oil wells. They haven't even given them water in ...how long has it been, oh yeah 3 fucking years. So how come oil is some how managed to be pumped but not water.
Your view warped on this one. What happened in the past isn't in the past seeing as how it is continueing and even worse been now perpetuated against Iran. What the hell are you going to say after they attack iran..."Well they screwed this up too I guess we need to help the Iranians out by rebuilding their country" Why do we need Haliburton rebuild a country that was running OK before the invasion. Look at what the US has done to Cuba before you say anything more, don't even respond with a post till you realize that the US is a terrorist state and not a legitimate government.
When the chicken hawks are hung for warcrimes then I will have some positives to say about the iraq situation. After all those evil bastards(BushCO) had to die, because of all their human rights violations. How could we just let them continue with all that they did.(Sound familiar?) Then we can get on to building a new enlightened society in the US.

First, why do you assume that I approve of what the Bush administration has and is doing? Let me try and widen your narrow judgmental view. Instead of cherry picking what I say and you actually read all my posts you would see that I am also against the Bush administration, but your post has a definite tone that assumes I am in favor of the war.

Your claim that the U.S. has not tried to re-build Iraq, but has only re-built the oil industry is total hogwash. Could you explain to me what these Islamic terrorists are acheiving when they attack their own people, destroy mosques and murder innocent children? I can guess your answer will be some twisted logic that it is the U.S.'s fault. Why not just concentrate all of their attacks against the U.S. military and drive them out of Iraq? At NO time should innocent civilians and especially young children be subjected to violence and murder. When the U.S. military commits such a horrible crime against innocents,I condemn them just as I do when these insurgents commit these same terrible crimes.

You know just as I do, that such a statement about hanging them for warcrimes is just another way for you to avoid having to try and be positive, since that likelyhood is unlikely to happen.


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389

posted 21 April 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for virge47        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Khimia
Actually Unionist it is estimated that the post war North Vietnamese regime is responsible for approximately 1.6 Million dead, the result of re-education camps etc. Follow this link and scroll down to lines 818 & 819.

Actually I will be surprised if he responds to your post, since he would have to try and refute facts, something I don't think he relies on too much.


From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 21 April 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think many of the hundreds of thousands of boat people who ended up in the West, including Canada, may have something to say about Vietnamese policy.

The horrors of post-1975 Vietnamese Stalinism still do not change the fact women's rights are going backwards in Iraq as a consequence of the American-led war on that country, as well as all over the Arab/Moslem world as the Human Rights Watch report to which a link was provided has documented.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 27 April 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't even get started on Vietnam or all of Indochina, where the US dropped more bombs than all of WWII. Agent Orange and Napalm has killed hundreds of thousands alone. US inflicted casualties in Cambodia due to intensive bombing also comes near the toll of the Killing Fields, but no one talks about that.

As for women's rights in Iraq, it just goes to show you that getting rid of the Taliban was incidental to the Afghanistan war, but dredged up for propaganda purposes.

There is so much hypocrisy it's hard to know where to start. As for reconstruction, one just has too look at the embezzlement of billions of dollars of reconstruction funds that has happened.

Before the war, the Iraqis could point with pride to their reconstruction efforts after the first Gulf War. No longer...


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca