‘Wave Of Violence’ Against Women In Iraq Undercuts White House’s Claims Of Success
‘Wave Of Violence’ Against Women In Iraq Undercuts White House’s Claims Of Success
In recent weeks, the Bush administration has cited declining violence in Iraq as evidence of the success. Earlier this month, President Bush said that Iraqis are slowly “taking back their country.”
But last night, NBC Nightly News aired a segment about a “wave of violence that’s gone largely unreported lately against women in Iraq.” The report noted that Iraqi women, once “the most emancipated in the Arab world,” are increasingly unable to walk around without a hijab, wear cosmetics, or work. Watch the report:
Bush has largely ignored the deteriorating plight of Iraqi women, choosing instead to cite signs of “progress.” Yet earlier in the war, he and other administration officials repeatedly claimed that the rights of Iraqi women were “inseparable” to success:
“The advance of women’s rights and the advance of liberty are ultimately inseparable.” [President Bush, 3/14/04]
“President Bush has made the advance of women’s human rights a global policy priority. … We all have an obligation to speak for women who are denied their rights to learn, to vote or to live in freedom.” [Laura Bush, 3/8/05]
“The commitment of this administration to women’s rights in Iraq is unshakable.” [Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, 3/9/04]
“There can be no compromise on the principle that Iraqis can each have an equal role in the building of their country’s future without regard to their ethnic or religious background or gender.” [Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, 8/8/05]
Many Iraqi women who have fled to Syria are increasingly forced to turn to prostitution, as they struggle to support their children after their husbands were killed in Iraq’s violence.
Transcript:
WILLIAMS: NBC’s Tom Aspell tells us about another wave of violence that’s gone largely unreported lately against women in Iraq.
ASPELL: Iraqi women were once the most emancipated in the Arab world. Educated, allowed to work and vote, even allowed to divorce. Safia al-Suhail, a member of the Iraqi parliament, says those rights took years of struggle. But now:
SUHAIL: I’m sorry to say, women have started to lose.
ASPELL: Women have become targets in a campaign of brutal violence, especially in Iraq’s second largest city, Basra — conservative, and overwhelmingly Shiite Muslim. “We hear about girls who are kidnapped or killed,” says this woman. “And we don’t know why.”
The government knows why. Shiite militiamen and religious zealots are using Islam to tighten their control. This is a copy of a police file from Basra recording the details of more than 50 women murdered in the past five months. The police are often too scared to investigate the crimes.
Basra’s police chief says the murderers are Shiite extremists. “The women are killed, their bodies thrown in the streets with obscene notes attached. Some are stripped and dressed in scandalous clothing,” he says.
SUHAIL: Some of them were killed because they were not wearing the hijab — the veil, the scarf. And some of them just because they were using some make up, cosmetics. Some of them just because they had a profession.
TV actor Hadil Sabbagh (sp?), like many working Iraqi women, is under pressure to cover up. On assignment in Basra, threatening phone calls forced her to stay inside her hotel room. Even here in Baghdad, a much more sophisticated city, Islamic extremists threaten her because of the way she looks.
SABBAGH: They say they will kill me if they see me on tv again. But that doesn’t stop me from my job. I like it.
ASPELL: Another working woman, Sharm (sp?) has been threatened by Shiite militiamen. She says one of them has been harassing her for more than a year. First for sex, then insisting she stop working, dress modestly, and stop wearing make up, otherwise they’ll kill her. “He told me he could crush me like a pack of cigarettes,” she said.
ASPELL: Many Iraqi women see extremist threats as efforts to curtail their rights.
SABBAGH: They want us to be just like Taliban.
ASPELL: And that makes them more determined than ever to resist. Tom Aspell, NBC News, Baghdad.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
123 Responses to “‘Wave Of Violence’ Against Women In Iraq Undercuts White House’s Claims Of Success”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Women lost a lot of their freedom ,specially in South of Iraq (City of Basra),since the war began.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:00 amIraqi women now have to endure the religious rules and pressure of many organized militant groups,who are setting the rules governing women’s behavior.
Disobedience of such rules are not allowed by these organized groups.
Women freedom in Iraq now is in big jeopardy.
Please ignore the troll
November 24th, 2007 at 10:01 amDemocracy in the Shiite dominated south of Iraq means Sharia law. Put it to a vote…that’s what the majority of Shia want.
Sharia law means second class citizenship for women. Not exactly Freedom.
Democracy WITHOUT a Bill of Rights is dangerous. Our founding fathers knew it. Bush is finding it out.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:07 amI don’t get it.
If they say feel-good phrases like “we’re winning” and “we’re making progress” and say that over and over and over and over again like a religious mantra, isn’t that supposed to make it all come true?
I don’t get it.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:10 amAnd few are bothering to talk about the purges of Gays and Lesbians in Iraq over the past three years. They were among the first to be witch hunted and exterminated in the happy Bush March towards freedom. You can certainly agree with Bush on that one point: death has brought freedom to a great many in Iraq. A bit like what was on the entrance to one of Hitler’s death camps, “Work Shall Make You Free” was it?
Americans don’t seem to care at all that they have abetted a genocide of innocent people.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:12 amI don’t get it.
Comment by Abby — November 24, 2007 @ 10:10 am
That’s because you are not drinking the kool-aid.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:12 amHooray for Georgie! More “progress”.
/sarc off
November 24th, 2007 at 10:13 am“The reopening and rehabilitation of Abu Nawas is one of the bright results of Operation Imposing Law,†Lieutenant-General Abboud Qanbar, head of the Baghdad security plan, said.
“We will poke terrorism in the eye,†he said in a speech.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 24, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Operation Imposing Law=OIL
The lies of the right are never-ending. they are hard-wired for it.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:25 amComment by cold_hard_left — November 24, 2007 @ 9:49 am
So then you agree that we can declare victory and bring our soldiers home?
November 24th, 2007 at 10:31 amOne off topic comment…
It was very telling on the mind set of the “average: American over Thanksgiving. I was watching some football games and whenever the announcers decided to get patriotic and say something about our troops they only mentioned “our troops in Iraq”. Absolutely no mention of Afghanistan. It’s like it wasn’t even in their minds that people are still dying there…..just forgotten.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:37 am#11 I don’t consider your comment to be off topic. I view the topic of this thread as “wars that Bush has lost”.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:38 amThanks George. All of the dire things we warned would happen have happened. While these things are indeed unintended consequences they were nonetheless both predictable and predicted. They are all your fault Mr. Bush. Have you no shame?
November 24th, 2007 at 10:39 amI take the troll’s silence to mean it agrees that we can bring the troops home.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:43 amWhere’s Pickles McAsshat on this? Where are you, o tranquilized one?
November 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am“Democracy WITHOUT a Bill of Rights is dangerous.”
Elections do not equal democracy.
Free elections are generally the result of a move toward democracy, not the beginning. Iraq has neither the free press, an independent judiciary, the financial institutions, nor the education system to support a democracy.
Democracy in Iraq? Don’t believe it.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:03 am1,118.846 Iraqis DEAD or MURDERED 5% pf the whole population
2 million with severe injuries AT LEAST 8% pf the population
2.5 million Iraqis displaced 10% of the population
YOU NEED TO LEARN WHATS A DISASTER ……….
…..THIS CAN NEVER EVER BE A SUCESS
November 24th, 2007 at 11:12 am20,000 American with brain damage
who sleep 6 hours a day in a nice bedroom who are fed 3 meals a day
WHAT ABOUT THE IRAQIS who are deliberately kept up with mortar fire every hour in the middle of the night ,,,,,,,, have to scavage for food
This whole war is a genocide on Americas behalf
November 24th, 2007 at 11:15 amthe mandate for Multinational Force Iraq lasts until 31 December 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ United_Nations_Resolutions_concerning_Iraq
November 24th, 2007 at 11:22 amBombing shatters Baghdad’s calm
By Nancy A. Youssef and Hussein Kadhim | McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — A remote-controlled bomb exploded in the middle of a crowded Baghdad pet market Friday morning, killing at least 13 people, wounding 57, ending a two-month lull in major attacks in the Iraqi capital and raising fears that recent improvements in security may not last.
Sometime before 9 a.m., witnesses said, someone detonated an improvised bomb hidden in a pile of trash in the Ghazal Bazaar in central Baghdad, where salesmen gather once a week to sell birds, monkeys, tropical fish and other animals.
Afterward, witnesses described the dead lying among birds, snakes, rabbits, cats and dogs. Shop owners pulled out the injured on carts because the streets were too crowded for ambulances to pass. Others ran away, saying they feared a second attack.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:41 amOT but somewhat relevant, another Bush Poodle goes down in flames:
SYDNEY, Nov. 24 — Prime Minister John Howard of Australia suffered a comprehensive defeat today, with a coalition led by his Liberal Party losing its majority in parliament.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:43 amC’mom, give the neocons a break. There is no way they could have thought of everything that could have gone wrong in nation building. Geesh, who could have known there were Sunni and Shia? Everyone thought they were Muslim. Hey, they’ll do better in Iran if they have time.
/snark off.
Peace!!!
November 24th, 2007 at 11:52 amPJ
President Bush: The Iraqis are slowly taking their country back.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:57 amIf by taking their country back he means pre Hussain, Taliban like control where women were abused and had no voice, well, I guess Mission Accomplished!
“Who could have ever predicted that removing the most western/secular ruler in the Muslim world and installing a failed government which leans hard to the right would be bad for women’s rights”?
November 24th, 2007 at 12:29 pmAnd in Saudi Arabia (one of our “staunchest allies” in TWOT), women get punished for having been raped. And in the US, Bush wants to reinstate laws telling women what they can or can’t do with their own bodies by overturning Roe V Wade.
Badger: Bush considers a Bill of Rights a threat to our “safety”, (i.e. his power). Evidently Congress agrees with him - that’s why they are methodically destroying it.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:10 pmRepublicans are misogynists, so this won’t phase them much.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:25 pmIT IS AMAZING THEY CAN FIND PEOPLE THAT ARE ACCTUALLY LISTENING TO BUSH! HE SAID THIS… HE SAID THAT… DO YOU STILL LISTEN TO WHAT THIS CORRUPTED ANIMAL AND HIS TEAM OF SCUMBAGS ARE SAYING???!!!! DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE MAKING PROGRESS, JUST BECAUSE BUSH OR HIS GENERALS SAID SO??!!! THE MOMENT THEY MADE HIM PRESIDENT (HE WAS NEVER ELECTED!) WAS THE MOMENT HE STARTED NOT TELLING ANY TRUTH AND HE HAS NOT STOPED!
November 24th, 2007 at 1:58 pmGringo W. Bushie hates women.
November 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pmGEORGE WC. BUSH HATES THE WORLD!
November 24th, 2007 at 2:00 pmIt takes 50,000,000 votes for an educated, qualified person to be president.
It takes 5 for a mushhead.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:01 pmBARTLEBEE, BUSH AND HIS WAR CRIMINAL TEAM, CALL FIDEL CASTRO A TYRANT, BUT IN CUBA, HEALTHY CARE IS FREE AND ACESSIBLE TO EVERYBODY!
November 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm…AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, FIDEL CASTRO IS LOVED NOT ONLY IN CUBA, BUT THROUGHOUT SOUHT AND CETRAL AMERICA! NOSOSTROS SOMO AMERICANOS TABIEM!!!!
November 24th, 2007 at 2:05 pmBUSH HAS ONLY 24% OF SUPPORT INSIDE THE FACISTS STATES OF AMERICA (FORMER USA). OUTSIDE IT THE PERCENTAGE IS MUCH LOWER!
November 24th, 2007 at 2:06 pmWhat if Congress forced Laura Bushie to prostitute herself? How would the decider like that?
November 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pmFunny how our resident kool-aid drinking troll has to skip over the section in the article that puts a dent in his cherished notions. Let’s take a what he left out in his copy-paste operation:
Scores of U.S. and Iraqi security forces deployed in and around the thoroughfare along the Tigris River, frisking visitors and preventing cars from reaching the area where government officials held a low-key ceremony.
Only a day earlier, a bomb hidden in a box of birds killed 13 people at a popular pet market in central Baghdad.
Famous Baghdad street reopens after facelift
In other words, the reason why Mr. Mahmoud was able to have an outing is because his part of the city was cordoned off, and heightened security measures were taken to prevent the ongoing violence.
Also, let’s not forget that Biddle attributed American “successes” in Iraq to luck (please read the interview. It is interesting that Biddle says American forces are now training, arming, and financing the very militias they used to fight not long ago.)
I don’t see much worth bragging about here…
November 24th, 2007 at 2:08 pm24% equals a mandate, thanks to the rigged electoral college.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:09 pmMEANWHILE IN THE VERY FORTIFYED GREEN ZONE: BOOMMMMMMMMM! HAHAHAHAHA SO MUCH PROGRESS!!!! WOW WHAT A JOY!
November 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pmUnder Georgie, it gets worse before it gets a BIT better. Then it gets really bad.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:13 pmChina: We Loan America.
The last time I checked, isn’t someone’s credit worthiness affected if the have a habit EXCEEDING THEIR CREDIT LIMIT?
Funding for aggression at premium rates!
November 24th, 2007 at 2:15 pmDemilitarized zones make wars toasty and fun, fully excusing America’s treasonous acts.
I get it now!
November 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pmrepublicans long to treat women the way radical Muslims do. That Iraqi women are being severely oppressed is just part of the republican view of victory in Iraq.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm.
There is no way they could have thought of everything that could have gone wrong in nation building.
neocons don’t do nation building; they only blow shit up - their thought process such as it is ends at invasion.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pm.
Georgie’s response: Iraqi women off the welfare rolls and “working” “makes them feel good about themselves.”
November 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pmThere’s no military solution after blowing everything up. Duh.
Political solution? Can’t happen, City Hall got blown up.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:20 pmComment by Cambio de Orden —
I appreciate your opinion but 23 posts in 40 minutes on 2 threads is a bit excessive. Please be considerate and write all your thoughts in larger posts.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThere is no way they could have thought of everything that could have gone wrong in nation building.
I know it’s a bit of sarcasm but, the maddening thing is that most people knew what would happen. Our “fearless leaders” were the only ones who said it wouldn’t happen. The only question is; “how much was due to stupidity and how much was lying”?
November 24th, 2007 at 2:51 pmBush and his neocon friends are not only incredibly stupid; but, are sexist pigs, too.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pmComment by troll buster — November 24, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
I wouldn’t care if someone posted 100 comments in two mins. I wouldn’t be stalking them.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 24, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
That’s intellectually considerable. You could be onto something….
November 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 24, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 24, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
You aren’t going out on a limb. With this administration, you rule nothing out, so good job for intelligently considering the possibilities. These sharks have shown how it’s possible to be smart in all of the wrong ways. Using a union (as opposed to following the usual script and attempting to bust it) to silence their critics could be one more UnAmerican tactic out of the Rovish playbook. Maybe it was recently added.
In this case, I wouldn’t be surprised if you turned out to be the Russ Feingold of TP on this issue.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:32 pmIn Bush’s world violence against women doesn’t count.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:36 pmI go to about.com “Late Night Political Jokes” page, no updates. Page is usually full of jokes about Bush and Cheney. Both must have short fuses.
No Colbert. No Stewart. I can’t think off the top of my head of one right-wing commenter affected by this strike.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pmNBC execs like the money they’re saving in the meantime.
Bunch of thugs.
November 24th, 2007 at 3:54 pmStill not clear what success in Iraq is….
November 24th, 2007 at 5:00 pmto further the progress of slaughter, genocide, mayhem in order to ensure corporate gain/control of Iraq’s oil?
In other words, the reason why Mr. Mahmoud was able to have an outing is because his part of the city was cordoned off, and heightened security measures were taken to prevent the ongoing violence.
That’s also why people like McCain are able to walk through outdoor markets. Take away the intensive security and things haven’t changed much in Baghdad or anywhere else in Iraq.
November 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pmThe Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq, was issued in July.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I don’t know whether or not you are right, I certainly wouldn’t put it past Bush to do what you are saying he did. But, silencing Stewart and Colbert IS NOT going to save his bacon. His bacon was burned to a crisp a long time ago. If I was Bush I would be more worried about all his former employees who are out there writing books. One of them is going to squeal on him sooner or later.
November 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pmI think the strike may be helpful. When reruns become unbearable, people will pay attention to politics.
November 24th, 2007 at 7:37 pmIn Bush’s world violence against women doesn’t count.
Comment by Willy — November 24, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Add in children, and we have a winner.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:53 pmI see NBC (and ThinkProgres) are still finding it difficult to accept that they were wrong and the surge and Petraeus strategy has been remarkably successful in reducing the violence in Iraq, including the violence against Iraqi women….As even The New York Times begrudgingly admitted this week:
“Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves
BAGHDAD, Nov. 19 —
In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.”
Nice try NBC and TP, but the facts are against ya…
November 24th, 2007 at 11:25 pmI think the White House pressured media moguls to shut down Colbert and Stewart, and others like Maher and even Letterman.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:25 pmLast I heard, comcast - a provider in the Pacific NW will be dropping MSNBC from the main package and make it an extra to pay for. Not Faux, cnn,…. guess Oberman is gainning popularity and can not have that.
I dropped cable months ago and find Oberman on Crooks and Liars.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:30 pmsaw and heard about this too… Mike Malloy and Thom Hartman talked about it.
Nothing, absolutely nothing surprises me.
>Nice try NBC and TP, but the facts are against ya…
Exley got any articles about all the political progres the surge was supposed to be buying time for occuring? And you still havent told us whether you’re at all bothered by the fact we’re making millionaires out of sunni chieftans who are the equivalent of the taliban in afghanistan, in that they’ve at the very least, provided material support and assistance to our enemies, just like the taliban did.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:43 pmLet me guess exley, you don’t care how much american money general betrayus funnels to people with american blood on thier hands, as long as there is less violence, right?
November 24th, 2007 at 11:45 pmComment by Chocolate Jesus — November 24, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Good luck with that, CJ. Exley doesn’t possess a functioning moral compass.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:46 pmExley, do you also advocate paying the Taliban not to commit acts of violence in afghanistan?…after all, you know it wasnt the Taliban that attacked us on 9-11….
November 24th, 2007 at 11:46 pm“Exley doesn’t possess a functioning moral compass.”
Says the woman who prefers to see more American soldiers and Iraqi civilains killed by terrorists rather than admit she was wrong in opposing the surge and Petraeus’ strategy.
Poor Zooey…Living in both ignorance and in the past. As even the left-wing The New York Times reports today, the Democrats now find themselves havingto admit they were wrong and that the Bush/Petraeus strategy is working at bringing about a dramatic reduction in violence in Iraq:
As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts
By PATRICK HEALY
New York Times
As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.
Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:52 pmThat tired old projection, Exley? Please….
I’ve got nothing to prove to you. I just pay attention to what is actually happening in the world — not just what I wish were happening. Like you.
You Cons are so stupid. The NYT is a liberal rag — until they publish something you like. What a joke.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:56 pm>Says the woman who prefers to see more American soldiers and Iraqi >civilains killed by terrorists
how many american soldiers would be dead if they withdrew like I would assume Zooey would want? ever going to answer my questions about massive bribes we’re paying to our former enemies?
November 24th, 2007 at 11:57 pmCJ.
My concern is in protecting the lives of American military personnel and innocent Iraqi civilains. And if shifting alliances (hardly an unknown phenomenon in the Middle East and in warfare) helps bring about that goal, then I have problem with helping Sunni chieftans who have witnessed first-hand the savagery and brutality of Al Qaeda in Iraq and who now want to join with us in driving the terrorists out of Iraq and in helping bring about a political reconciliation in that country.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:59 pm>the Democrats now find themselves
if the democrats had any stones, they launch an investiagation into exactly who in iraq we’re paying for peace, and the american public would quickly know that general petrayus is writing checks to people with american blood on thier hands,
November 24th, 2007 at 11:59 pm>then I have problem with helping Sunni chieftans
I assume you mean “no problems”….
even if they’ve provided material support to our enemies, eh?
so you think we should be paying the Taliban not to attack us too, huh?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am>and in helping bring about a political reconciliation in that country.
oh they’ll take our money and our weapons and turn in some foreigners for us, but there ARENT in any friendly with the central government.. did you hear about the recently falling out between the sunni delegates and the central government?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:02 amWas I kidding about Exley’s moral compass deficit…? Heh.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:03 amHey Exley, how about addressing the topic of the thread — the increase of violence against women in Iraq? Is the NYT telling you to be optimistic?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:05 am***crickets***
November 25th, 2007 at 12:10 am>the increase of violence against women in Iraq?
I guess they need to put aside some bribe money for rapists also, and not give it all to murders! hey, cheer up zooey, someday, iraq just might be the sort of middle eastern country we like..you know, the kind where women get raped and jailed instead of raped and murdered!
November 25th, 2007 at 12:11 am“I just pay attention to what is actually happening in the world …”
Actually, as I have shown over and over again, no, you don’t.
Again, I recommend you pick up a newspaper or newsmagazine every now and then (In case you didn’t know this, most newspapers are available on-line, so you have no excuse for your continuing refusal to follow the news) and learn what is going on in the world….
Now, after you finish reading the NYTimes article I referenced, I will give you another head start:
“Is Iraq getting better?
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad
Is Iraq getting better? The statistics say so, across the board.
Over the past three months, there has been a sharp and sustained drop in all forms of violence. The figures for dead and wounded, military and civilian, have also greatly improved.
All across Baghdad, which has seen the worst of the violence, streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business.
People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes. Everybody agrees that things are much better.”
November 25th, 2007 at 12:12 am..you know, the kind where women get raped and jailed instead of raped and murdered!
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — November 25, 2007 @ 12:11 am
There’s always room for progress. :D
(that’s sarcasm, Exley)
November 25th, 2007 at 12:16 am>“Is Iraq getting better?
You do know that a great majority of these articles also mentioned iraq is increasinly devided along sectarian lines, right? So did the article mention any of the political progress the surge was supposed to be buying time for?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:16 amExlexlia, can you put a rough dollar amount on the amount of OUR money you feel is acceptable to spend to bribe people not to attack us?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:18 am#87 “Hey Exley, how about addressing the topic of the thread — the increase of violence against women in Iraq?”
Ah…How typical of Zooey…Not reading what has been written.
Try again, Zooey and read posting #72 again…This time, try reading it aloud if it helps you to understand:
“Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves
BAGHDAD, Nov. 19 —
In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. ”
See it now, Zooey??? Good! Thanks to the surge and the US victories over the radical Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorist group which subjugates women, women in Baghdad are now free to do as they wish without fear of reprisal from the fundamentalists.
Again, Zooey…Read.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:19 amEverybody agrees that things are much better.â€
Comment by Exley — November 25, 2007 @ 12:12 am
Let’s ask the families of the people blown up in Baghdad recently, shall we? Who are theses “everybody” people?
Don’t dictate to me, you pompous ass.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:19 amIn the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. â€
Oh goody, some women can dress as they like. Woo!
Now, the violence….?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:20 amim trying to dig it up, about a week ago one of the leading sunni politicans, i think the vice president, had a very public, nasty exchange of words with maliki…..it was followed by a string of bombings and attacks several days later… what it looks like is some sunnis arent taking betrayus’s cash…maybe even standing by thier principles in the face of massive, multimillion dollar bribes..shocking..some peopel cant be bought?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:22 amCJ,
Obviously the increased security and reduction in violence had to come first and then political reconciliation. As we have seen the dramatic success of the Bush/Petraeus strategy in reducing violence against our troops and against Iraqi civilains (as even Democrats, ThinkProgress, and The New York Times now begrudgingly admit) continues and taks hold, political reconciliation must follow (we have already seen hopeful signs of this).
November 25th, 2007 at 12:22 am>without fear of reprisal from the fundamentalists.
you DO realize that 99 percent of the funamentalists in iraq ARENT al-queda, right exley? the main fundamentalists, the ones your hero helped put in power, are Iranian Shia…
November 25th, 2007 at 12:24 amU.S. blames shiites (ie. NOT AL-QUEDA) for new violence
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20071125/ ap_on_re_mi_ea/ iraq
“He also blamed Shiites for recent attacks on U.S. bases, raising fears that a three-month truce by the most feared Shiite militia may be at an end.
”
looks like Sadr might be about to call off his truce and you might soon start looking very foolish..
November 25th, 2007 at 12:26 amCJ, secular women in the most stable neighborhood in Baghdad are wearing the stuff they want to wear.
That means there is no increase in violence against women in Iraq. Just ask Exley.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:27 amAh, Zooey, I know that even you are not that dense. The Iraqi women are now able to dress in Western garb because the violence against them ha been dramatically reduced, thanks to the surge and the victories agaist Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is the groupperpetratingthe violence against women in Iraq.
I find it amusing that you are so naive about radical Islamic fundamentalism that you somehow think removing the US troops, which are the ones fighting (and beating) radical, fundamentalist groups in Iraq would improve the lives of women in Iraq.
Yes, Zooey, leaving Iraq in the hands of a Taliban-like regime would REALLY improve the lives of Iraqi women!
November 25th, 2007 at 12:27 am>Obviously the increased security and reduction in violence had to come >first and then political reconciliation.
In other words, theres been none. Thanks for making my point for me.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:29 amHow much time, american lives, and money should we give them to get thier act together? 6 months?
CJ,
The most radical, violent, and savage Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq is Al Qaeda….So savage are they that even the Sunni insurgents have turned against them and joined with the United States in fighting them.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:30 amExley READ.
‘Wave Of Violence’ Against Women In Iraq Undercuts White House’s Claims Of Success
“But last night, NBC Nightly News aired a segment about a “wave of violence that’s gone largely unreported lately against women in Iraq.†The report noted that Iraqi women, once “the most emancipated in the Arab world,†are increasingly unable to walk around without a hijab, wear cosmetics, or work.”
Guess what!? Not all women in Iraq live in the “most stable neighborhoods” in Baghdad.
You are that dense.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:30 am>Yes, Zooey, leaving Iraq in the hands of a Taliban-like regime would ?>REALLY improve the lives of Iraqi women!
Your brilliant president gave the iraqis democracy. If the iraqis choose a fundamentalist islamic regime to represent them, what are american troops going to do to stop them? You know Sistani, the Shia Cleric we tiptoe around in Iraq? The one who represents the Shia Majority? hes like their pope..he advocates killing homosexuals…..hes their “moderate”.. now are these the kind of people you think our soldiers should be dying to hand the reigns over to?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:32 am>The most radical, violent, and savage Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq is Al >Qaeda….
and you know this how? the Shia pope advocates killings homosexuals. this is more reasonable than Al-queda?
you do know that Reagan was pretty wary is Shia Islam fundamentalists, right? enough so that he gave saddam WMD and other weapons to try and fight them….was reagan off his rocker
November 25th, 2007 at 12:35 amAs see from the NBC report, most of the violence against women perpetrated by by radical Islamic fanatics is commited in Basra, which was controlled not by the U.S. but by the British. The Brtish have long been criticized for not being tough enough against the Islamic extremists in Basra. By contrast, we see the women in Baghdad, which is under US control. are far safer from Islamic extremist violence.
So, in a rare agreement with Zooey, Zooey and I both call for more U.S. troops in Basra to battle and defeat the radical Islamic extremists in that city and do what the British troops failed to do.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:39 amSo, in a rare agreement with Zooey, Zooey and I both call for more U.S. troops in Basra to battle and defeat the radical Islamic extremists in that city and do what the British troops failed to do.
Comment by Exley — November 25, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Bloodthirsty, sexist creep. You can take your patronizing projection and shove it up your ass.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:43 amOh, CJ, I hold no brief for radical Islamic extremism — whether it be from the Sunni or Shiite sect. That is why we need to keep a careful eye on the Shia-dominated government of Iran, which has been fostering violence in Iraq and providing assistance to radical Shiite militias…For the past several months, Al Sadr and the radical Shiites has been relatively quiescent in Iraq. If that changes, then we will need to address that issue. But the best way to keep the radical Shiites in line is to defeat Sunni extremist group Al Qaeda. By doing that, we show the Shiite radicals our strength and our resolve to keep Iraq from following prey to any radical extremist group — no matter what sect.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:45 amPoor Zooey…She is so confused she is all over the poverbial map. Now she says she doesn’t want U.S. troops to help protect Iraqi women from radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Thus, we see her feigned concern for these Iraqi women was nothing more than a pretense. She cares nothing about innocent Iraqi civilains.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:48 am>perpetrated by by radical Islamic fanatics is commited in Basra,
exley, but wait a minute, i thought you said al-queda was the worst fundamentalists! im confused,,the shia militas in Basra ARENT AL-QUEDA… in fact they are from the SCIRI and Badr brigades…both of which have strong government ties..ties to the government your precious democracy created….I hate to burst your bubble exley, but the united states will NOT get involved against the basra militas because this would be a de facto war against iraqs own government…
November 25th, 2007 at 12:48 am>Now she says she doesn’t want U.S. troops to help protect Iraqi women >from radical Islamic fundamentalists.
If the political parties who control iraq democractically choose to oppress women with the laws they make, what are american troops going to do to stop it? One of the most powerful political figures in iraq openly advocates killing homosexuals. We’re dying in iraq so we can hand the reigns to people like this? You seem to have the quite myopic view that power can only be gained or lost though violence…you dont even realize it, but the minute we invaded, we turned over true power in iraq to the iranians and other shia groups…
November 25th, 2007 at 12:52 amBy the way, CJ, the success of the Bush/Petraeus surge has not only brought about a reduction in the violence perpertrated by Al Qaeda and other Sunni groups, it has also helped dramtically reduce the violence commited by Shiite radical groups in Iraq….
This is from the same BBC article I presented earlier:
“On Thursday, in a crowded public hall in the mainly Shia city of Karbala, south of Baghdad, the local police chief, Brig-Gen Ra’id Shaker Jawdat, bitterly denounced the Mehdi Army militia, accusing it of presiding over a four-year reign of terror there.
It was an extraordinary occasion. One by one, men and women stood up and screamed abuse at the militia, blaming it for killing and torturing their loved ones.
It could not have happened a few months ago, when the Mehdi Army - the military wing of the movement headed by the militant young Shia cleric, Moqtada Sadr - was the real power in the streets of Karbala.
A few days later, Moqtada Sadr ordered his followers to halt all forms of military action nationwide, even in self-defence.
That was a turning-point in Baghdad too. The number of bodies being found daily, dumped randomly in the city after being abducted, tortured and killed in sectarian reprisals, dropped from dozens a day to less than a handful.”
Link:
November 25th, 2007 at 12:53 amhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7089168.stm
Thus, we see her feigned concern for these Iraqi women was nothing more than a pretense. She cares nothing about innocent Iraqi civilains.
Comment by Exley — November 25, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Get bent, f_ckwit. You don’t give a shit about any woman on this planet, so don’t pretend you do.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:53 am“….I hate to burst your bubble exley, but the united states will NOT get involved against the basra militas because this would be a de facto war against iraqs own government…”
That is simply not true, CJ. The U.S. has been battling radical Shiite groups as well as radical Sunni groups (of which Al Qaeda is the most violent) for a while now.
And, as we see from the BBC article above, the surge has produced successes in dramtically reducing the violence perpetrated by Shiite groups, as well as Sunni.
The vas t majority of Iraq is Shiite, but only a small minority of those are radical fundamentalists like Sadr. It does not naturally follow that an Iraqi government with a Shiite majoirty would be a radical theocratic government, such as in Iran.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:57 am#115,
That is quite a well-thought out and well-researched posting there, Zooey. Really insightful. Look, don’t be embarrassed. So, you didn’t know that Basra was under the control of the British and not the U.S.???
So you have completely contradicted yourself on this thread???…So you haven’t even tried to defended your asburd and ill-conceived claim that removing US troops and leaving Iraq in the hands of radical Islamic fundamentalists (whether Sunni or Shiite) would somehow help protect Iraqi women from such fundamentalists.???
So what? It’s no big deal, Zooey. We are all used to your vapid postings that reveal your rather shallow way of looking at world affairs. But we all appreciate that you try….And really, that’s all we can expect. So, nice try!
November 25th, 2007 at 1:05 am>A few days later, Moqtada Sadr ordered his followers
> to halt all forms of military action nationwide,
> even in self-defence.
Sadr called a truce because of some very public violence his followers were blamed for, where some 50 people got killed, had nothing to do with any miltary action being taken against him. Also, I’m sure he got an “aide package” much like the sunni chieftans did. His militia was faught to a standstill by the american government several years ago, that didnt start him from formenting trouble later again, did it?
>The vas t majority of Iraq is Shiite, but only a small minority of those are >radical fundamentalists like Sadr.
wrong. cite something that backs up that assertion. can you remind us how well any secular parties like Allawis have done in elections. like I said, Sistani is much more politically powerful than Sadr, and he openly advocates killing homosexuals. are these the kinds of beliefs you dont consider to be “fundamentalists”
November 25th, 2007 at 1:06 amExley the benevolent sexist. They all turn ugly when women won’t sigh and giggle at their tactics.
Dismissed.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:06 am>So you haven’t even tried to
> defended your asburd and ill-conceived claim
and you havent even tried to defend your equally ill conceived claim that american soldiers can do anything to stop fundamentalism from taking over via the ballot box…. Sistani is the Shia pope..Sistani is the guy we tiptoe around and try to avoid pissing off.. Sistani is a kingmaker in iraq.. and he advocates killing gays…
you DO know why Reagan and Rummy were once so fond of saddam, right?
November 25th, 2007 at 1:09 amthey wernt a fan of democracy in iraq back then, is why..
> It does not naturally follow that an
> Iraqi government
> with a Shiite majoirty
> would be a radical theocratic
> government, such as in Iran.
Iran’s leader claims gays don’t exist. The most powerful political figure in Iraq advocates killing gays. Yeah it doesnt logically follow at all..
November 25th, 2007 at 1:11 am>when the idiot they elected who started the war didn’t even know there >were such a thing as Sunni or Shia.
or that they’d get along just because they were “all muslims”! hahahaha
November 25th, 2007 at 1:12 amCJ,
Are you actually claiming that the vast majority of Iraqi cviliains are really violent radical Islamic fundamentalists at heart? That is too broad a statement. Clearly Islam permeates the culture in Iraq, including politics, as it does throughout the Arab world (and that is, I agree, a problem). However, it is a large leap to say that because religious parties did well in Iraqi elections (election, which by the way, never would havetaken place unless Saddam had been deposed), Iraq is on its way to becoming a theocracy.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:14 am>The U.S. has been battling radical Shiite groups
i never said they havnt. i just said that they wont try to use force against the militias in basra, because the militias in basra are essentially a wing of the government..
November 25th, 2007 at 1:14 am“and you havent even tried to defend your equally ill conceived claim that american soldiers can do anything to stop fundamentalism from taking over via the ballot box”
1. I am glad we agree that Zooey’s claim that leaving Iraq in the hands of a Taliban-like theocracy would help women’s rights was ill-conceived. On that, we agree,
2. I never said American soldiers can stop fundamentalism from taking over at the ballot box. As I said, Islam permeates the culture and politics of the Middle East. Thus, it is unlikely that there would be no Islamic influence in even a democratic Iraq. The key is to keep that influence to a minimum and to such a degree that it does not manifest itself in anti-Americanism that threatens U.S. security in the long-run. That is not a military objective or function. That is a diplomatic, legal function (which needs to be supported by militarily-maintained security). The new Iraqi constitution is a step in that direction. It protects religious freedom and diversity. While I am hardly an expert on constitutions in Islamic nations, I would believe that Iraq’s is the most tolerant and protective of religious diversity and seeks to check and prevent the establishment of a radical Islamic theocracy in Iraq
November 25th, 2007 at 1:23 am>Are you actually claiming that the vast majority of Iraqi cviliains are really >violent radical Islamic fundamentalists at heart?
what “the majority” wants is irrevant. im sure the majority of iraqis no more advocate mass killing than the majority of germans did. all that matters is who the majority elects and what those people do with thier power. also, religious parties often have more power than thier numbers would indicate, because they are a vocal minority who often uses violence to silence thier dissent.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:23 am>However, it is a large leap to say that because
> religious
> parties did well in Iraqi elections Iraq
> is on its way to becoming a theocracy.
its not a large leap at all. if you look at how other middle eastern governments keep a tight lid on the political power of religious groups, you
will see a deep and pervasive concern at very high levels of government that fundamentalism poses a great political danger to them. why do you think saddam was so brutal toward them? just so he could be mean?
> (election, which by the way,
> never would havetaken place unless Saddam had
> been deposed),
why do you assume elections are always whats best? were the elections that brought Hamas to power in Palestine a good thing? I beleive that democracy is NOT a good thing in cultures where fundamentalist religions
However, it is a large leap to say that because religious parties did well in Iraqi elections (election, which by the way, never would havetaken place unless Saddam had been deposed), Iraq is on its way to becoming a theocracy.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:24 amI am glad we agree that Zooey’s claim that leaving Iraq in the hands of a Taliban-like theocracy would help women’s rights was ill-conceived. On that, we agree,
Utter bullshit by Exley — November 25, 2007 @ 1:23 am
Stop putting words in my mouth, you idiot.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:26 amoops the last paragraph of that post was an Exlexlia quote, sorry..
November 25th, 2007 at 1:26 am>The key is to keep that influence to a minimum
> and to such a degree that it does not manifest
> itself in anti-Americanism that threatens U.S.
> security in the long-run.
and that, my dear sir, is exactly why reagan sold hussian gas and weapons.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:27 amif you allow majority to rule, and there is a strong undercurrent of fundamentalism in the society, there is no way an occupying army can to “keep it to a minimum”…I daresay it must come from within
CJ,
It’s late and it’s time for me to hit the hay. I enjoyed the discussion. I will check in tomorrow to read your response. You raise very good points. The danger of Iraq becoming a radical Islamic regime is a real one. If that were to happen, it would be a disaster. The question now is what is the best way to prevent that from happening. One thing I am pretty certain about — Withdrawing U.S. troops now just as the country is seemingly beginning to stabilize is not the best way to do it.
Until tomorrow. Good night.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:28 amExley,
Every time you decide what I’m thinking or saying, I’m flagging you as abusive. Maybe others are as well. Keep it up, you’ll disappear from here.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:28 am>The new Iraqi constitution is a step in that direction
>seeks to check and prevent the establishment
> of a radical Islamic theocracy in Iraq
“no law shall contradict islam”…. yes, a document that contains this as one of the first lines is certainly keeping us away from fundamentalism!
>I would believe that Iraq’s is the most tolerant and protective of religious >diversity and
would it surprise you to know that there are more jews is Iran than in any other country in the middle east other than Turkey (and obviouslY, Isreal)
November 25th, 2007 at 1:31 am>Good night.
nIGHTY NIGHT! I enjoy our little chats also, although I think you’re concerns are a bit misguided at times, you at least thinking about things, although perphaps a bit more myopically than one would hope.
my theory about iraq is this… its going to end up ugly and bad for us, eventually, one way or another, no matter what we do..just as trying to bring democracy to ANY country with a strong fundamentalist undercurrent would have a similarly bad outcome… best case scenario for us is that Iran has a stable ally. thats the BEST possible outcome, in my opinion. I think we should at some point just acknowledge there will be no happy outcome for this and not wasting our blood and treasure doing so.
November 25th, 2007 at 1:37 amSo what? It’s no big deal, Zooey. We are all used to your vapid postings that reveal your rather shallow way of looking at world affairs. But we all appreciate that you try….And really, that’s all we can expect. So, nice try!
Comment by Exley — November 25, 2007 @ 1:05 am
Superb projection from a deluded, ignorant fool. Best one yet, Exlax, fact-free as usual.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:03 amIf justice has even the slightest presence in the structure of our universe,
key individuals in this administration will get what they deserve.
I hope I get to see it.
November 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pmAnd if so, the celebration will be unending.
#144
CJ,
I hope you are wrong. Moroever, I think it is too soon to be so pessimistic. I am the first one to admit that back in 2002-early 2003, I was wrong in thinking that democritization of Iraq would be a relatively straight-forward transition. I was undoubtedly lulled into this thought by the relative ease of our military and political success in Afghanistan in late 2001. So, yes, things have been far more difficult and bloody than I had expected and hoped. But even with all that, I am still somewhat hopeful that we can do better than merely having Iraq as a stable US ally (which is not a bad thing, of course). I am still hopeul that we can have a functioning quasi-secular democracy in Iraq — something along the lines of Turkey.
But that goal is unquestionably a ways off. My immediate concern about Iraq is keeping it from becoming a sanctuary for Al Qaeda in the post-Saddam era. Fortunately, we see that the Bush/Petraeus surge is (so far) succeeding in defeating AQI and that the Iraqi people (including Sunnis) are now rejecting and turning against Al Qaeda in Iraq. That is a great success. We should not abandon that strategy now thta it is finally paying remarkable dividends and AQI is on the run.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:12 pm