U.S. Strategy Undermined Iraq's Women: Report

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by miloblithe, Mar 10, 2007.

  1. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/45361470191173556315;_ylt=AtuGmORwOB0Ls.oRzhk_3sIDW7oF

    Not really a surprise and not really new news, but another reality. Life is significantly worse for men in Iraq since the occupation, but that's nothing compared to what women have endured.

    However, this group's inditement does seem a little unrealistic to me:

    Yes, the US could have thrown more support behind secular, progressive Iraqis, but they wouldn't have gotten elected.
     
  2. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    How is this any different then when Sadam was in power? Wasn't this happening then too.
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    that's why there are reports, with things like data. to ease your confusion.
     
  4. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    If the United States was invaded and there was war all around. Raping and beheading women isn't something I would do.
     
  5. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #5
    Here is a 2003 report that briefly outlines what was going on during Saddam. Its DOD so I'm not sure if anyone here would believe it.
     
  6. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #6
    Actually, it's from the Department of State.

    Furthermore, this isn't a report, but rather a press release, note the lack of sources and actual data.

    However, yes Saddam's reign was terrible and awful, but things are— according to the report—worse across the country.
    In other words, Iraqi women have the privilege of living in the fire rather than the frying pan. A fantastic success all around.

    I'm not sure about this group considering this nugget:
    I can only respectfully disagree with MADRE here, Iraq will surely become a synonym for fiasco before the decade is out.
     
  7. miloblithe thread starter macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    I'll agree that these sources are both suspect. The DOD page probably uses fairly reasonable data, but of course presents it in a certain package that means a critical thinker might want to look deeper. This MADRE group sounds a little loose with data, if you ask me.

    Still, it's hard to doubt the overall conclusion, and I doubt anyone else does either: that violence towards women has risen across the board since Saddam's ouster. Just the simple fact that there is no longer a virtual monopoly on violence by Saddam's police state would lend itself to that conclusion. You now have all levels of Iraqi military and police plus militias and insurgent groups and terrorists and common and organized criminals and US and other foreign troops all running around in one big chaotic mix. Easier targets tend to fare worse in dangerous circumstances.
     
  8. miloblithe thread starter macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    Actually, it does reference a number of reports for its assertions:

    Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria

    U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University

    U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; U.S. Department of State, Iraq: A Population Silenced, December 2002

    UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    I don't think it's in much dispute that women have it worse in Iraq post-Saddam than prior to his ouster.

    Just as an example, women used to be able to attend university freely under Saddam (at least as freely as anyone did anything under Saddam), and drive to get there. Now they must cover up, only be outside in the presence of a male relative, and they risk getting killed for trying to go to school.

    Does that mean I'm arguing that women had it great under Saddam? No. It just means that as bad as it was -- it got worse. I don't think that is in dispute by anyone without a serious partisan agenda.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    Even if it wasn't true (and it is, we've known this for awhile), how bad is it that our best argument is "well, at least we aren't as bad as Saddam". But, in this case, we are. Actually, in many cases we are.

    Why did we attack Iraq anyway (might as well just keep asking that, because I never do get an answer)?
     
  11. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #11
    Here is a good list of all the U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq. There should be something in there to answer your question.
     
  12. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #12
    Didn't you know that the only appropriate response to UN violations is to send more money? We're not supposed to actually enforce them!
     
  13. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #13
    1. oil
    2. military/reconstruction contracts
    3. oil
    4. 2002 mid-term elections
    5. oil
    6. increased military presence in the middle east
    7. oil


    oh, did i mention oil?
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Which is why we were bombing them, keeping them sanctioned, and why I cheered when we got Saddam. But it doesn't doesn't answer my question. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan and Pakistan (as well as Saudi Arabia). We didn't need to wage a very poorly planned war and waste thousands of lives and pull resources from our real targets to screw up Iraq and make terrorism worse. Maybe Clinton didn't do enough, neither did Bush I, but Bush II did everything wrong. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, no WMDs, no threat, and we've arguably made things worse for the Iraqi people than under Saddam's rule. Even those things he did when he was our friend and/or we just didn't feel like dealing with him.

    So I'll ask again, why did we attack Iraq?
     

Share This Page