Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Kill

[leekohler]

When militiamen from the Mahdi Army came by the compact, two-story stone home in the Doura neighborhood of Baghdad, they weren't looking for Sunnis to harass. They were hunting gays. "Bring us your son's cell phone," one ordered the middle-aged man who came to the gate. They wanted to check if his son, Nadir, had been calling foreigners--and in fact he had only hours earlier called this reporter to set up a meeting, and he had repeatedly called a gay nongovernmental organization (NGO) in London. Fortunately, Nadir was ready for them and produced a "clean" phone he keeps for just such a threat. This time they left, but vowed to come back if they found any evidence he was gay--or was talking to undesirable foreigners. Now that Iraq's sectarian war has cooled off, it's open season on homosexuals and others who infuriate religious hardliners.

Sometimes the act of reporting a story is revealing in itself--especially when it proves particularly difficult. This was the case when NEWSWEEK began looking into the problems of Iraq's homosexuals after hearing reports of secret safe houses around Baghdad where many of them were taking refuge from the militias' self-appointed morality police. After weeks of inquiries, NEWSWEEK managed to find Nadir and persuade him to arrange a visit to one of the safe houses he helps run. Instead, the Mahdi militia rousted him the night before. Established in 2004, the militia is the armed wing of the organization led by radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has been an implacable foe of the Maliki government. Terrified, Nadir contacted people at the London-based gay NGO that finances the safe house, and they instructed him to break off the visit.

That was only one of many problems reporting on gays in Iraq. Iraqi authorities scoffed at the subject--when not scolding a reporter for even asking about it. Some of NEWSWEEK's own local staff were wary of the story. Virtually no government officials would sit for an interview. And the United Nations human-rights office, which has a big presence in Iraq, dodged the subject like a mine field. As with a number of Muslim societies where homosexuality is officially nonexistent but widely practiced, the policy in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule was "don't ask, don't tell." But that has changed. Iraqi LGBT, the London NGO that Nadir works for, says more than 430 gay men have been murdered in Iraq since 2003. For the country's beleaguered gays, it's a friendless landscape.


Many officials say they feel that in a country at war, there are more pressing concerns than gay rights. A Ministry of Justice judge rebuked a reporter for wasting time on such an issue, noting that "crimes of sodomy" are "very rare" in society and even rarer in the courts. "Most acts of homosexual people are being done in dark corners and, with corruption and paying bribes, they will be kept there for a long time, for it is not on the top of our priorities list, which is occupied by issues of terror, kidnapping and killing," said the judge, who would not allow his name to be used discussing gays. An adviser to the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that of all the meetings he has attended, none ever touched on the rights--or even the existence--of homosexual Iraqis.

The only recourse for Iraqi gays seems to come from activists abroad. Iraqi LGBT, which was founded to defend the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Iraqis, looks after about 40 young men between the ages of 14 and 28 in several Baghdad safe houses. There they are fed, can watch TV, hang out and sleep in cramped quarters, their beds inches apart. They stay away from neighbors and rarely leave their immediate area. "I hope you can see how sensitive and very important the security issue is for the safe houses," said Ali Hili, who fled Iraq and received asylum in Britain.

Hili continues to use a pseudonym to protect himself and insulate relatives still in Iraq. He has not returned home in eight years but does visit Syria and Jordan to raise money and check on an underground railroad that helps spirit some gay men out of Iraq. He says the government tries to monitor the group's activities. Saif, one of the older residents at an Iraqi LGBT house, recalls Saddam's repressive but secular regime wistfully. "Those were the most beautiful days of our lives," he says. "The fall [of Saddam] was the worst thing to happen."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/155656

Gee thanks, Dubya. Those Iraqis sure are enjoyin' that there freedom we gave 'em. :mad:

The saddest sentence is the very last one.

[glocke12]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/155656

Gee thanks, Dubya. Those Iraqis sure are enjoyin' that there freedom we gave 'em. :mad:

The saddest sentence is the very last one.

hmmm...so what is your opinion on the atrocities commited by saddam and his cronies???

[leekohler]

hmmm...so what is your opinion on the atrocities commited by saddam and his cronies???

Don't be obtuse. Clearly, many Iraqis are not better off now. Or do you find this acceptable? Wait- don't answer...

[és:]

hmmm...so what is your opinion on the atrocities commited by saddam and his cronies???

Some of the things he did were horrible. I don't see the need to kill a million people because of it, though.

[leekohler]

Some of the things he did were horrible. I don't see the need to kill a million people because of it, though.

Glocke posted and ran as usual. :rolleyes:

[Anuba]

While dictatorship is a deplorable form of government, the U.S. has to understand that in some countries it's the only way to maintain stability. Saddam was an @sswipe, for obvious reasons, but he was able to keep that peculiar country in check. Iraqis aren't a malleable bunch of generic people who were waiting with bated breath for democracy if only someone would give it to them, their clan-based culture is so radically different from the traditionial western/judeo-christian culture in terms of structure, values and social codes that it's basically a different planet. When you dethrone the guy who's sitting on the powder keg to keep it shut, you can't be surprised if all hell breaks loose.

[glocke12]

Glocke posted and ran as usual. :rolleyes:

vrooooooooom.........

cant sit around and post all day, but i do like to check in.

Anyway, how am I being obtuse? The atrocities of Saddam are well documented.

I think this is just someone looking for a reason to slam W and the US once more.

I agree on the needing a dictator part though. Some societies are just unable to govern themselves.

[és:]

Glocke posted and ran as usual. :rolleyes:

It's not unusual for that to happen around here. As soon as somebody gets their opinions challenged and can't reply to it with more propaganda then they disappear after the embarrassment has worn off.

I guess whilst they are running they can't type here, so we all win.

[glocke12]

It's not unusual for that to happen around here. As soon as somebody gets their opinions challenged and can't reply to it with more propaganda then they disappear after the embarrassment has worn off.

I guess whilst they are running they can't type here, so we all win.

HAte to disapoint you, but I did reply.

Also, believe it or not, all of us are not college kiddies and need to work for a living and pay attention to our jobs during the day, so cant post every single minute....

[freeny]

vrooooooooom.........

cant sit around and post all day, but i do like to check in.

Anyway, how am I being obtuse? The atrocities of Saddam are well documented.

I think this is just someone looking for a reason to slam W and the US once more.

I agree on the needing a dictator part though. Some societies are just unable to govern themselves.

Yes, it is true Saddam was a bad man.
So why are'nt we taking care of the other dictators with atrocities?
surely they are just as bad if not worse?
why did Bush target Iraq specifically?....

[arkitect]

why did Bush target Iraq specifically?....

Bush: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad at one time"
link (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YCfJBe9nKKQ)…

Dubbya took it awfully personal…
:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

HAte to disapoint you, but I did reply.

Also, believe it or not, all of us are not college kiddies and need to work for a living and pay attention to our jobs during the day, so cant post every single minute....

Hey- some of us are over 40 and work 50+ hours a week and still find time to post. :rolleyes: Get off your high horse.

How were you being obtuse? Well gee Glocke- do you actually think I'm going to defend Saddam Hussein? Do you really? The reason I said that line was sad was because things WERE actually better for the people in the article under Hussein. That is tragic indeed.

Do you think that some atrocities are acceptable and others aren't? It sure sounds like you do.

[aristobrat]

Hey- some of us are over 40 and work 50+ hours a week and still find time to post. :rolleyes: Get off your high horse.
Are you having a bad day today or something? You called the guy out for "posting and running" after he hadn't responded in 20 freaking minutes and now you're bent out of shape because he was sarcastic back at you?

[leekohler]

Are you having a bad day today or something? You called the guy out for "posting and running" after he hadn't responded in 20 freaking minutes and now you're bent out of shape because he was sarcastic back at you?

When I read stuff like this, yeah it p***es me off. It should p*** you off too. And I answered him after he asked a stupid, baiting question.

[yrsonicdeath]

Sub-issues of this thread aside. Thanks for posting an article I may not have seen otherwise, Lee.

[leekohler]

Sub-issues of this thread aside. Thanks for posting an article I may not have seen otherwise, Lee.

Well thank you. At least someone is willing to comment on the actual article posted. ;)

[iJohnHenry]

I guess they already came for the Jews??

Hitler had a different list priorities, but I'm sure Gays were in there somewhere. :rolleyes:


First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

[leekohler]

I guess they already came for the Jews??

Hitler had a different list priorities, but I'm sure Gays were in there somewhere. :rolleyes:

I doubt there are many Jews left in Iraq. We were definitely on the list, but I don't think we were last.

This is why this makes me angry:

My friends and family have been or are over there right now. Is this what they've been fighting for?

[és:]

HAte to disapoint you, but I did reply.

You're not disappointing me because I didn't say that you hadn't/wouldn't reply. I was replying to Lee and saying that it's not unusual for it to happen. Surely my use of 'they' gave this away?

Also, believe it or not, all of us are not college kiddies and need to work for a living and pay attention to our jobs during the day

That makes two of us, then.

[mactastic]

So women and homosexuals are worse off now than under Saddam. Glad to know my tax dollars are going to spreading freedom so effectively.

What was the reason we went to war in Iraq again?

[és:]

What was the reason we went to war in Iraq again?

Weapons of mass destruction. A war against terror. They could launch and attack within 45 minutes. Any BS reason that you can think of, but certainly not oil.

[skunk]

So women and homosexuals are worse off now than under Saddam. Not only women and homosexuals, but also Jews, Christians, Yazidis and others. Everybody, in fact, apart from some Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. Besides which, the electricity supply, water supply and health infrastructure were in a better state even after US efforts (contravening the Geneva Conventions as usual) to wipe out power generation during the first Gulf War and years of subsequent sanctions. We had no right whatsoever to target Iraq for regime change or anything else.

[LethalWolfe]

I guess they already came for the Jews??

Hitler had a different list priorities, but I'm sure Gays were in there somewhere. :rolleyes:
Actually minority groups like gays and Gypsies were among the first to be persecuted and shipped off to concentration camps. The inverted pink triangle, which is s symbol of gay pride today, was originally an 'ID badge' that the Nazis made gay men wear on their clothes.


Lethal

[leekohler]

Actually minority groups like gays and Gypsies were among the first to be persecuted and shipped off to concentration camps. The inverted pink triangle, which is s symbol of gay pride today, was originally an 'ID badge' that the Nazis made gay men wear on their clothes.


Lethal

I used to wear a pink triangle button in college. People would ask me about it all the time. It was an easy way to come out.

[mactastic]

Not only women and homosexuals, but also Jews, Christians, Yazidis and others. Everybody, in fact, apart from some Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. Besides which, the electricity supply, water supply and health infrastructure were in a better state even after US efforts (contravening the Geneva Conventions as usual) to wipe out power generation during the first Gulf War and years of subsequent sanctions. We had no right whatsoever to target Iraq for regime change or anything else.
Democracy sure is messy, isn't it?

It's ironic that those who used (and continue to use) Saddam's brutality as a casus belli are now willing to ignore the brutality of the current crop of leaders because they're "our" leaders. Just as Saddam's brutality was once ignored because he was "our SOB" at the time.

[CalBoy]

What a horrific story. Thanks for posting it Lee.

And here I am worried about Prop 8 passing, when in another place in time, I might just as easily find myself lynched. :(

[leekohler]

Democracy sure is messy, isn't it?

It's ironic that those who used (and continue to use) Saddam's brutality as a casus belli are now willing to ignore the brutality of the current crop of leaders because they're "our" leaders. Just as Saddam's brutality was once ignored because he was "our SOB" at the time.

Of course. It's OK because it's happening under us now. There are even people in these forums who apparently think the same thing.

[leekohler]

What a horrific story. Thanks for posting it Lee.

And here I am worried about Prop 8 passing, when in another place in time, I might just as easily find myself lynched. :(

Or shot. It's just insane to me.

[SMM]

Well thank you. At least someone is willing to comment on the actual article posted. ;)

I appreciate the post too, Lee. That should have been topic enough for discussion on this thread. I have known at Islam is militantly anti-gay. However, it does not often register until a personal story, like that of Nadir's forces you to see the human impact. I would also add, there are many in this country, who actively promote this very thing. Earlier this year, I posted a thread about the repressive laws (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=490927)(and pending legislation) in Oklahoma. It was a short thread, because it had been previously discussed at some length. But, Baghdad is not that far away. ;)

I do not think Bush, or McCain are actual theocrats, even though they do support some of their agenda. I do not think either of these two would share power with (or abdicate it entirely) with the clergy. Palin on the other hand, is a theocrat pure and simple. Her church is really fringe. She is not just a 'Sunday singer'. She is deeply involved. With the statistics not favoring McCain completing a four-year term, those who are not connecting the dots of Palin being in the big chair, had sure as heck better start doing so.

The subject was raised about the atrocities committed by SH. Many are true, while some are embellished. Still, the final report-card shows a ruthless dictator to his enemies, but also a decent administrator to his country. The only leader in that region, whom I truly admire for his vision, leadership and humanitarianism, was Anwar Sadat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_El_Sadat). However, historically the successful leaders of this region, have been basically like SH. By their standards, he is just another leader, able to subdue most of the region, we call Iraq. If that meant using ruthless means, so be it. If you think this is a endorsement for the man, you are not reading carefully. My main point is, he is just not that unusual, especially for the region.

Our official portrayal of him, is that of a ruthless tyrant, who illegally attacked his neighbors and supported the Islamic Jihad/Al Queda. How quick and convenient it is for us to lose track of history. Prior to 1990, SH and America were on friendly terms. We supplied him with a tremendous amount of military aid (including poisonous gas artillery shells). This was an on going program for his war against Iran. To begin with, this was done covertly, then right out in the open. After the war, we asked him to remove the Islamic Jihad from Iraq, which he took immediate action on. Since then, Iraq has no documented proof of supporting, supplying, training, or harboring terrorists.

In 1990, the following happened:



In late July 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on its border with the emirate and summoned U.S. ambassador April Glaspie to a meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. In them, Saddam Hussein outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to Saddam Hussein:

We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us? My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not in the spirit of confrontation — regarding your intentions. I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.




In diplomatic terms, this is a 'green light'. Believing he had our support, he attacked. It is anyone's guess whether he would have anyway. Finally, we have had, and still do, many 'friends' who are ruthless dictators, many far worse than SH. But, they play ball with us and US corporations. We need only go so far as next door, and back a couple decades, to meet one of the most ruthless in recent memory that region; the Shah of Iran. he was basically a US puppet, but was forced to flee the country, but taking a few hundred million with him (Swiss bank accounts).

Most of the world knows these things, especially in Europe. So, when Americans scratch their heads and wonder why everyone does not see things like we do, well it is because their news is not nearly as slanted, tainted and full of omissions as our is. In other words, they have superior information, and take the time to read it.

[leekohler]

Thanks SMM. Of course, many people in the US would rather put their heads in the sand and blindly salute the flag than get to the heart of matters such as this. It's laziness and ignorance.

[skunk]

<story behind SH being suckered into invading Kuwait>Indeed. The whole reason for Iraq's "problem with Kuwait" which Glaspie referred to was that Kuwait, with the assistance of and equipment supplied by Pennzoil, had been using diagonal drilling for years to steal oil from Iraqi oilfields near the border. And who founded and owned Zapata Oil, the "Z" in Pennzoil? None other than GHWBush. Oh, what a tangled web that family wove.

[solvs]

hmmm...so what is your opinion on the atrocities commited by saddam and his cronies???
The atrocities of Saddam are well documented.
Besides what's already been mentioned about what he did when he was our buddy, what does it tell you that they still prefer him to us? Makes us look pretty bad, doesn't it? I mean, he was that bad, and yet they'd still rather have him back. Mission Accomplished!

Baghdad Mayor: US Tanks Run Amok and There'll Never be a Street Named for Bush in Baghdad (http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/baghdad-mayor-us-tanks-run-amok-and.html)

And yeah, why haven't we gone after those other dictators? Some of whom are even worse than Saddam? Who committed those atrocities more recently than the ones Saddam was convicted of, most of which happened in the 80's when, again, we called him pal.

I think this is just someone looking for a reason to slam W and the US once more.
I do wish you lot would stop using this ridiculous talking point. When Clinton was criticized, was that a slam on the US? Of course not. As for the slam on Bush, as if that's hard to do. You can't honestly say he's done a bang up job of things. Again, Saddam was terrible, yet we're still seen as worse by the Iraqis. If that doesn't deserve a slam, I don't know what does.

And I posit that we are the ones who support the US. We see what this folly, among a list of many, as helping to damage a country we repeatedly state how much we care about and why. You, meanwhile, seem more to support this gov and it's failed policies, and this cluster*** of a war, than you do the country. And definitely over the troops. Next you're going to tell us how much the surge is working, despite all the proof we could give that, no, it really really isn't. One side puts country over politics, and it ain't yours.

See, we can play the patriotism game right back. ;)

Some societies are just unable to govern themselves.
Yes, I'm sure that's it. Had nothing to do with Bush's lack of planning and overstretched resources. Let me guess, it was also somehow Clinton's fault too right?

Yes, it is true Saddam was a bad man.
So why are'nt we taking care of the other dictators with atrocities?
surely they are just as bad if not worse?
why did Bush target Iraq specifically?....
Oil.

What was the reason we went to war in Iraq again?
Oil.

Weapons of mass destruction. A war against terror. They could launch and attack within 45 minutes. Any BS reason that you can think of, but certainly not oil.
No, I think it was oil.

Combine that with Halliburton and Blackwater, and the no bid oil contracts, and it's all pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.

[EricNau]

As poignant as that article is, I fail to see the connection to our occupation of Iraq.

I realize that many things have deteriorated since our involvement, but in this specific case, were things better under the Hussein regime?

[CalBoy]

As poignant as that article is, I fail to see the connection to our occupation of Iraq.

I realize that many things have deteriorated since our involvement, but in this specific case, were things better under the Hussein regime?

The point is, if our intention was to provide "freedom" to the Iraqi people, we've failed miserably.

[Iscariot]

but in this specific case, were things better under the Hussein regime?

Yes.

[EricNau]

The point is, if our intention was to provide "freedom" to the Iraqi people, we've failed miserably.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure it's a fair argument. You're taking a very small (though very tragic) issue, and using it to diagnose the entire outcome of a war (or, whatever we're calling it now). In other words, just because advancements weren't made in regards to gay rights, doesn't mean we weren't successful in other areas.

Basically, unless LGBT rights in Iraq have deteriorated over the past few years, I'm not certain our involvement is relevant.

Besides, if we're using LGBT freedoms as an example, one could easily say America has failed to a similar degree.

Yes.
How so?

[Anuba]

Besides what's already been mentioned about what he did when he was our buddy, what does it tell you that they still prefer him to us? Makes us look pretty bad, doesn't it? I mean, he was that bad, and yet they'd still rather have him back.
What else would anyone expect?

Nothing Saddam ever did could possibly compare to the 1 million dead, 2 million wounded and 3 million displaced Iraqis that the US and its allies left in their wake. Iraqi fugitives are pouring into not only neighboring countries, but the rest of the world, mostly Europe. There's a town called Sodertalje (population 62,000) in Sweden that has taken in more Iraqi fugitives than the US (population 300 million) has. Welfare programs all over Europe are buckling under the Iraqi weight. Yeah, everyone is eternally grateful. :rolleyes:

And it's all due to WMD's that didn't exist and oil we're still waiting for.

EPIC FAIL doesn't even begin to cover it.

[CalBoy]

Perhaps, but I'm not sure it's a fair argument. You're taking a very small (though very tragic) issue, and using it to diagnose the entire outcome of a war (or, whatever we're calling it now). In other words, just because advancements weren't made in regards to gay rights, doesn't mean we weren't successful in other areas.

Ahh, but it has been shown in several other cases that on the whole, we have been a failure. A lack of running power and water, a shortage of medicine, a lack of civil order, etc, all point to the failures of our attempt at "liberation."

This story merely adds one more arena in which we've failed, making the list quite exhaustive and thorough.

In effect, one can't even say, "at least the gays are better off." We've failed in every way, totally, completely, unequivocally.

Basically, unless LGBT rights in Iraq have deteriorated over the past few years, I'm not certain our involvement is relevant.

As far as I understand the situation before our presence, gay people operated under the radar, but there wasn't a specific hunt for them. Now that has changed, as civil unrest and chaos has created roaming militias who pay no allegiance to anyone but their narrow minded world views.

Besides, if we're using LGBT freedoms as an example, one could easily say America has failed to a similar degree.

As bad as gay rights are in the US, it isn't the status quo to hunt down and kill gay people here (again, Matthew Shepards and such aside, it isn't normal for it to happen).

I'm not expecting the Iraqi people to suddenly grant same-sex marriage and let gay people adopt, but killing them outright is just horrific beyond imagination.

[EricNau]

Ahh, but it has been shown in several other cases that on the whole, we have been a failure. A lack of running power and water, a shortage of medicine, a lack of civil order, etc, all point to the failures of our attempt at "liberation."

This story merely adds one more arena in which we've failed, making the list quite exhaustive and thorough.

In effect, one can't even say, "at least the gays are better off." We've failed in every way, totally, completely, unequivocally.
True. To be honest, I stopped looking for proof of progress in Iraq years ago.

As far as I understand the situation before our presence, gay people operated under the radar, but there wasn't a specific hunt for them. Now that has changed, as civil unrest and chaos has created roaming militias who pay no allegiance to anyone but their narrow minded world views.
Fair enough. That's all I was looking for: evidence that things have deteriorated, and not simply remained stagnant with respect to LGBT rights.

As bad as gay rights are in the US, it isn't the status quo to hunt down and kill gay people here (again, Matthew Shepards and such aside, it isn't normal for it to happen).

I'm not expecting the Iraqi people to suddenly grant same-sex marriage and let gay people adopt, but killing them outright is just horrific beyond imagination.
Granted, I might of been slightly hyperbolical to prove a point. ;)

[Iscariot]

How so?

Saddam's Ba'athist government was actually rather secular for the region, and homosexuality was legal until 2001 under his reign. That's not to say the LGBT community wasn't persecuted, because it was, under the harsh conditions of Saddam's rule. Now, however, several militias have anti-gay death squads, and some Sunni insurgents claim their violence is a means to prevent the legalization of gay marriage. Organizations Iraqi LGBT and OutRage! and ex-Iraqi gay activists have been stating for some time now that the lives of homosexuals under Saddam were better, as discrete homosexuality was usually tolerated.

I don't think this is unique to homosexuals, but serves as an example of how virtually every minority is suffering under the current conditions in Iraq.

[leekohler]

How so?

Did you read the article?

[EricNau]

Did you read the article?
Yes, although I didn't find much in the article related to the tolerance of homosexuality under Hussein's rule. His policy was mentioned briefly, although there can often be a large gap between official policy and practice.

Although, with the help of CalBoy and Iscariot, the situation is more clear to me.

[leekohler]

Yes, although I didn't find much in the article related to the tolerance of homosexuality under Hussein's rule. His policy was mentioned briefly, although there can often be a large gap between official policy and practice.

Although, with the help of CalBoy and Iscariot, the situation is more clear to me.

Good enough, then. Yeah, it's hard to believe that this is going on.

[solvs]

I think it was already noted as well, but womens rights have also gotten worse than they were under Saddam.

He was a bad guy, but again, the point is that we screwed things up so much, he is actually seen as the better alternative between the 2 options.

[leekohler]

I think it was already noted as well, but womens rights have also gotten worse than they were under Saddam.

He was a bad guy, but again, the point is that we screwed things up so much, he is actually seen as the better alternative between the 2 options.

B-b-but, Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world! He could've attacked at any moment! You just hate 'Merca! :rolleyes::D