http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003...er/57743.shtml

ARTHUR KENT reports on how Washington's planners got the math wrong

WAS IT just another random collage of video streams, or did the juxtaposition of live TV feeds on Britain's Sky News this past Wednesday reveal much more than the sum of its parts? On the left frame of the split screen, above the title "War on Iraq," Tony Blair was facing Prime Minister's Questions at Westminster and being quoted as saying "enormous progress has been made." Simultaneously, at frame right, a body was being pulled from the wreckage of a Baghdad bazaar, allegedly hit by misguided U.S. or British missiles.

So is it progress or predicament in the war on Iraq? The former, insist officials at the Pentagon, who, after waffling for a time, finally declined to accept responsibility for bombing. But with mounting civilian casualties -- including another gruesome bombing at a second Baghdad bazaar -- and grim reports from the battlefield, an unsettling pattern is developing in this second week of the U.S.-led campaign: a good number of physical objectives are being achieved, but almost invariably without gaining the desired results. Armoured infantry columns ate up 300 km of desert on the way to Baghdad, only to be stalled by overstretched supply lines that are regularly ambushed by Iraqi troops and militia. Despite the bombing, Baghdad functioned behind its thick veil of smoke from surrounding oil fires. And while American and British firepower is brought to bear on strategic cities such as Basra and Nasiriyah, it's not grateful civilians providing the welcome, but fanatically determined militiamen willing to fight and die.

"You could have expected that the Fedayeen would be fanatical," says Daniel Neep, a Middle East specialist for Britain's Royal United Services Institute, referring to the young irregulars who have emerged from obscurity to make their mark on the front lines. "But the fact that they've actually translated their fanaticism into organized resistance is quite surprising."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

An article that digs a little deeper into Donald Rumsfeld blunders, and shows. I really believe the Rumsfeld'sd and the Perle's of the world are influencing Bush's decisions and that is not a good thing for anyone except maybe themselves and a few friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perle wrote: "The 'good works' part [of the UN] will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the looming chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die with Iraq is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order."

One senior member of Secretary General Kofi Annan's staff shakes his head in disbelief. "I don't think there's any way to change the minds of people like this," he told Maclean's. "They're diehard rejectionists and there's probably no way of turning them around. But I believe there are many more people who understand the great potential benefits of the United Nations, and it's these people who will help us get around the Richard Perles.

[ 04-02-2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Pritchke, I agree with you 100%: the forest reminds me of pansy elves, too.

Maybe you think this is offtopic, but maybe it's not.

What a crock! Do you really want to know why these Fedayeen animals are fighting? They know that because of the things they've done over the years that, when Saddam is dead, so are they. I'd like to know how this war plan is failing. They are less than twenty miles from Baghdad, and the last twenty-four hours has witnessed the destruction of two of these supposedly elite Republican Guard divisions (or what was left of them). And these attacks on the rear echelons are a complete failure. All they've done is see hundreds, if not thousands, of these goons killed.....well maybe they are not a failure for us. Not after being pounded from the skies twenty-four hours a day.
[img]graemlins/tomcat.gif[/img]

[ 04-02-2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: khazadman ]

What a crock!

Possibly, but it is good to get a rise. :D

But I won't shed any tears when Donald Rumsfeld, Pearle, and the other 8 officials in Washington who composed the first strike policy are out one way or another. Bush can stay president though.

Personally I feel those 10 are a threat to Canadian interest as well as the rest of the world. :rolleyes:

And it won't be the allies that kill them. I've heard predictions that it will be the outraged iraqi citizens that root out the Saddam-sympathisers and deal with them.

Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Now there's an unbiased article!

As they used to sing on every episode of Hee-Haw (which I watched every week when I was a 'yungun.) [img]smile.gif[/img]

"Gloom, Despair, and agony on me... deep dark depression, excessive misery... if it weren't fer bad luck I'd have no luck at all... Gloom, Despair and agony on me!"

<font color=skyblue>I'm with you, Thoran...Hee-Haw...Saturday nights at my grand-mother's home. Thanks for the flashback!</font>

<font color=orange>I grew just down the road from Archie Campbell. For those of you who don't know who Archie Campbell was, he was the Creator, producer and one of the Stars of HeeHaw. He was a pretty neat guy to all of us kids. How did we get so off topic!

BTW, my saturday nights at Grandma's was Lawerance Welk, THEN HeeHaw. Talk about extremes! </font>

[ 04-02-2003, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

Hee-Haw then Walt Disney on sunday nights for me. [img]smile.gif[/img] That was the number one TV day until I got old enough to discover Daisy Duke. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Whur, oh whur, are you tonite?
Why did you leeeeaave me here all alone?
I searched the world o'er an' thought I found true love,
but you met another, and *pffft* you were gone. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh damn! Why did you have to bring up Hee Haw? For years my parents made us watch that show. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

...and now back to your regularly scheduled anti-american rhetoric...

A little pent up agression, perhaps?

I've read a couple of your posts in different threads, and am somewhat offended by the colourful words used to describe the Iraqis.

You may not agree with these people nor like them, however irregardless of their motives, they are fighting for their homeland. Just because we don't understand them, doesn't give us the right to insult them.

Right

They are forced to fight. In fact told family members will be killed if they do not. People who refuse are shot. People are try to run are shot. A woman waving down soldiers was hung. As many that could escape away as quit before the fight even started.

Yes, they are fighting for their homeland.

lol

Man can't wait to hear the stories from the Iraqi's forced to fight. Heck they are already coming out. The only people fighting are the thug's who have everything to lose and the people forced to.

It has been more my impression that the Iraqis continue to fight because this has been turned into a holy war...to die for Jihad "guarantees" them a place in heaven.

EDIT: The Iraqis who fight willingly that is, I hadn't given consideration to those who are forced to when I made this post.

[ 04-02-2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]

So people forced to fight should be subject to abusive comments?

Just because we don't understand their way of life and the way they think, obviously we are right and they are wrong? Our way of life is correct and theirs is not?

Do we even attempt to understand them or even care or are we so caught up in our own righteousnes and self worth that the defense of your home is suddenly a crime.

Many do not agree with Saddam, but take enough pride in their way of life, culture, religion and beliefs to stand by those same values even if it means dying in the process, because that is all they have. It would seem that some find this funny. Perhaps if we, as citizens of the west, demonstrated the kind of courage and dedication to our beliefs that the Iraqis do, we'd be much better off.

A man isn't much of a man if he can't stand up for his beliefs and principles.

[ 04-02-2003, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Animal ]

How many security briefings was Auther Kent in on? What security clearance does he hold? The market in Baghdad hit by coalition Missles or Bombs is not supported by the laws of phsyics. Tommahawk missles carry a 1,000 lb warhead, the bombs the coalition are droping are 1,000 lb(Very few)2,000 lb(mostly) Those bombs and missles make a "HALE" of a bigger crater then the Measly 15 ft crater the was shown to be the one in the market. If a tommahawk or 2,000 lb bomb would have gone off in the market there would have been nothing left. The market shown by AlJareeza to be the market hit is smaller then a football field (100 yrds x 50 yrds) well with in the total destruction area (Area where NOTHING survives)of both of those weapons. There would have been NO market to film only a large smolderning crater, with the surounding building suffering massive damage. Not a 15 ft crater with the surrounding buildings windows blown out from shrapnel.

I read recently that their was an unconfirmed report that the market was actually hit by an Iraqi missile that was originally fired in an attempt to destroy the coalition missile that was fired on the Iraqi missile position. Clear as mud, right? :D

I remember the cruise missile testing in Northern AB when they were first being developed. A completely devastating weapon.

I have several friends that have and do work on the tommahawk for the DoD. Bad weapon, very bad weapon! Fired from 1,000 + miles it could fly through the uprights of any football field with a greater accuracy then a profession place kicker kicking a 30yrd field goal.

So people forced to fight should be subject to abusive comments?

Just because we don't understand their way of life and the way they think, obviously we are right and they are wrong? Our way of life is correct and theirs is not?

Do we even attempt to understand them or even care or are we so caught up in our own righteousnes and self worth that the defense of your home is suddenly a crime.

Many do not agree with Saddam, but take enough pride in their way of life, culture, religion and beliefs to stand by those same values even if it means dying in the process, because that is all they have. It would seem that some find this funny. Perhaps if we, as citizens of the west, demonstrated the kind of courage and dedication to our beliefs that the Iraqis do, we'd be much better off.

A man isn't much of a man if he can't stand up for his beliefs and principles.</font>[/QUOTE]You are such a idealist but SO wrong.

In no way can you or anyone else EVER defend what is going on by a select few of the upper crust in Iraq. Not now, not tommorow, not ever. I don't have to understand the mentality that allows raping women in the street, torturing children, mass murder of you're own people for god's sake. I don't want to even begin to try to think about such madness. This was before the war. They put their own people in PAPER shredders!

Look at the taliban. They would MURDER a woman for showing a ankle. A FREAKING ANKLE! And you dare me to try to understand that culture, religion, way of life? I just seen three day's ago on discovery live them dancing in the street! women with no shawl and men clean shaven. I seen building, American, British, and Afghani's rebuilding a lifetime robbed from them by the Taliban. If we listened to idealists like you the people would still be getting beat, raped, and FORCED to follow some radical stone age version of Islam.

The courage and dedication? Man you are so lost in space. Anyone can grab a child of some parent and force them to fight. Anyone can hang a woman from a fence and dare the next person to stand up. That don't take courage. That takes NO value in you're own people. That takes a sickness I would rather die before I began to see into that type of mind. They are willing to die in the proccess? Give me a break! If they don't fight they will die anyway by their own government.

Why don't you get in reality. Defense of a country? WRONG,
They are defending their Government. They are defending a lifestyle that has them in power over all. The only people willing to fight are people who have been butchering people for a decade.

I REALLY hope you are around when this is over. When the stories flood out and pictures of people talking the truth. When no threat is there to hold them back. When no stone age freak can keep them silent by hanging his mother up. I almost wish they would take people with you're mindset after the war and have you say the same thing in front of the then free people. I wish to see that response. I have listened to exile after exile talk about how Sadam has to be removed and force is the only way. I don't need people who have never once felt threatned telling me what people who scared about thrown in a paper shredder are fighting for.

In no way despite culture, religion, can anyone ever say this radical Islam is right. In no way can anyone say treating women like trash and everything else is "ok"

You are possibly correct Mordenheim. However when this is all over and Saddam is removed and the people of Iraq tell you they wish your troops to leave their territory you will oblige them. However it is likely that the only reason your government decided to attack Iraq is to occupy for several possible reasons. If it was to free the people their would be a country in Africa that would be attacked right now and I would now problem with that. However your government has ulterior motives. The people do not want Saddam but they do not wish to be occupied by American soldiers either. As far as the treatment of women are concerned please clean up the way your air force officers treat women in the military. Yes I know about the sexual assaults that many of your fine officers have placed on women training in the US air force.

[ 04-02-2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

lol, ok, I am sure the people will tell us to leave at the same time they are taking our food off trucks while killing themself to do it. Oh wait you expect france, russia, and countries that shed no blood for them to go in and take over? I don't think so.

I would be willing to wager the people will get along just fine for the month or whatever it takes to finish off the Sadam regime. Care to place a bet? The same people crying about Afghanistan were wrong and they will be wrong again.

As for that last remark, see that is what is great about America. It was caught and will be dealt with. Funny how law's work huh? Every one of those men will face a military court. I bet they wished they lived in Iraq where you can rape women daily with impunity and pride. Too bad they don't.

[ 04-02-2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

I don't seem to recall defending anyone...particularly the select few uppercrust in Iraq. I'm not discussing the attrocities commited by Saddam, or his chosen few, and not once did I bring the Taliban into this. Neither Saddam nor the Taliban represent Islam in any way shape or form, they are nothing more than fascists. These people may be forced to follow Saddam, but doesn't mean they cannot defend their Islamic culture.

By liberating the Iraqi people, does this give them freedom? Freedom to do as they wish or freedom to do as they wish as long as they conform to the western way of life?

You oppose me because I stood out and said that is is wrong to degrade the Iraqis with verbally abusive language, the same people that the coalition are "liberating," the very same people that you, yourself are defending.

We both agree that Saddam's regime is cruel and merciless, yet you feel that it's okay to refer to the Iraqi's in a derogatory manner. Not every Iraqi soldier is fighting for Saddam, and I think very few are, but they are fighting to maintain their right to believe in Islam, something that, by your own words, would be taken from them in a westernised culture.

You seem to have missed the point of my first post, that it is not okay to be degrading to the Iraqis as a culture, or nation. Saddam does not represent the true Iraqi people and more than Hitler represented the true German people.

I am neither an optimist nor a realist and have faced very real threats to my own life on more than one occasion, but I still see no reason for the abusive nature of certain comments.

Perhaps you need to think about just what you are debating with me, since it's not very clear to me. From my perspective you are defending your right to treat the Iraqi's with disrespect.

If you call that abusive then ...

I do not understand you. You say I refer to the Iraqi people as deragatory? mind pointing out specific phrases? I refer to his butchers and thugs as scum that no society anywhere should tolerate. I do not refer to the opressed people as anything but a enslaved nation.

That radical version of Islam is spreading. I watched a very good documentry called Islam : The new face on discovery about a half a year ago. I do not hate Islam anymore then I hate christianity. There is no doubt that Christianity was used for wisespread abusive torture and control through the history of the world. I don't have to hate Islam to hate the way it is getting used in certain places to enslave masses of people. I don't have to want them to follow my way of life to disagree with the abusive nature that this religion is ussed currently in certain places.

Sadam is getting removed no thanks to all these peace loving idiealists (anti-american, Bush, wolf in sheeps clothing). Do people really think this new Iraqi government will praise France, Russia, and all the people doing every thing they could to stop this war before it even began? Only time will tell but again I would be willing to make a bet who they will see as the people who freed them and the people who tried to stand in the way.

The whole premise you make of me disrespecting the opressed Iraq's is insane. I have no idea where you are getting this from but I ask for some clarification. Did you hear the report about the man who blew himself up and killed the American soldiers? Did you hear how his family was taken hostage and he was forced to? Did you see the tape of them shooting at Iraqi's trying to make it to the soldier's? I don't blame these people nor disrespect them. I brought the Taliban in for a specific reason. The same group crying about Iraq now were crying about Afghanistan. We are still in Afghanistan.

Again, when the war is over I hope we can all have another conversation. I will make sure to keep note of these debates here and see how it all play's out.

"but they are fighting to maintain their right to believe in Islam, something that, by your own words, would be taken from them in a westernised culture"

I must have speed read past this. This is the most insane thing I have read yet by anyone on any forum.

I bet we have more people following Islam then France, Russia, Canada and Germany put together. You are seriously mixing thing's up here. The RADICAL form of OPPRESIVE islam would not be allowed in ANY civilized country. You are free to practice ANY religion in the United States you wish. You can even follow Satanism if you wish as long as NO ONE is hurt and no law is broken. The government here has no right to stop you from practicing you're faith including Islam.

man o man.......

I know people in Canada are not that naive. I meet them all the time down here in florida. I mean what the? You live in a westernised culture. What are you talking about?

I would just like to say, all of this spurious debate reminds me of all of the comment of "Wellington was surprised at Waterloo," though one would think that if he was really surprised, it should redound more to hs credit that he cane so handsomely out of the scrape. Otherwise, pah, who is winning, anyhow?

The same people crying about Afghanistan were wrong and they will be wrong again.

Funny thing is I was not one of them. I was for that for and I still am for having peace keepers in the region to allow the people to stabilize a government and protect them from local War Lords.

[ 04-03-2003, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Yes. It's a shame that the only thing that has been accomplished so far is stability in Kabul - leaving the rest of the country in anarchy.

I wouldn't say the scenerio is so bleak. There are areas that are still quite dangerous (some Eastern and Southern provinces), but excepting these area's the bulk of the country is stabalized, although not yet back on it's feet. The bulk of the problem is caused by rebels who are able to flee to Pakistan and safety, then return later to cause trouble. Pakistan has been trying to address this issue from their end (with some limited success) and on the Afghani side the rebels have been hit whereever they've been found (and as opposed to the USSR fiasco, the rebels are definitely getting the short life span end of the exchanges).

ONLY! *cough* ONLY? 18 months ago iirc was not the whole country in the hands of one of the most brutal, evil governments the world has seen since pol pot? spreading its tentacles of hatred and terror like cancer through the very fabric of world unity?

I guess 18 months was a long, long time ago for people to remember *sigh*

some people won't be happy no matter what wellard

it will alway's be "well this is still around" or "that group is still alive"

They just can not give credit. Watching the now free people is enough to satisfy me. Is there more work to do? sure but at least it is getting done

It was a brutal regime - BUT it was ruled as a religious one.
Yes indeed, punishments for crimes were certainly severe by our standards.
Yes indeed they refused to accept our social values - I mean, you could never buy a good porn mag in Kabul and hell, these toads would not allow you to watch a movie with blood and gore.

But the people *did* have freedom from bullets and freedom from terror, provided that they didn't challenge the system - the Taliban had ultimate control over the warlords. Today, there is nothing that they can do to avoid the terror as brutal warlords fight for petty gain and the people are caught in the middle.

Our improvements have included doubling the number of people at risk from starvation, massive casualties from unexploded ordinance, a million extra refugees and absolute lawlessness outside Kabul, where those with a gun have more rights than those without. Nice going.

You are right - we've had 18 months to sort this mess out - but we've forgotten Afghanistan in that time - a very short time to forget so many.
Some people do indeed have a very short memory - allow me to remind you that the Afghan situation is far from resolved:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=389803
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=391773
http://www.developmentgateway.org/no...w?docid=428104
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?R...n=Central_Asia

and even Kabul has major problems not seen under the Taliban:
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?R...n=Central_Asia

18 months is a short time to forget the mess we left behind...

My original post was not directed at you, but someone else who was, in my opinion, being quite disrespectful, so I suggest you start from the begining and work your way down again.

Let me start from scratch here. I have no love for Saddam, and I am quite happy to see him go, although I do not agree with the US method's of doing so. I have made my point on that subject several times in various different threads and have no desire to dig it up again.

Once again, I suggest you re-read my original post in this thread.

I hope we can have a discussion regarding this matter once all is said and done, but in the mean time, I see no reason for anybody to refer to anyone in Iraq in a disrespectful manner nor judge them based upon a religion or beliefs that nobody on this forum fully understands.

As for the removal of Saddam from power, do not make the mistake of assuming it is over the supposed WoMD that Saddam posses or his proven crimes against humanity. The western propaganda is as guilty of falsehoods as much as Iraq is.

Naive? People in Canada? Exactly what is your point here.

During my tenure here in the war forum, I have had seem heated debates with various different people, but none have gotten to me quite like this.

Is the United States that perfect that they can decide for the rest of the world what they can and cannot do? You talk about the treatment of women in Iraq. I ask you this...do you know exactly how many women are beaten each day in the US or Canada or Britain or Germany or France, or any western culture because the men have the freedom to go out to the bar and get pissed each night, come home and beat the living crap out of their girlfriends or wives?

Before the US, or any other nation for that matter starts passing judgement, they need to take a long hard look at their own culture. How many women in the United States are being beaten tonight?

We have no right, NO RIGHT, to pass judgement on Iraq, when we are no better than they are.

Since the U.S. was responsible for putting Saddam into power in Iraq, don't you think they they should hold some responsibility in taking him out?

Yes, the abuse of mankind against mankind/womankind is a world-wide plague but how many countries will go around killing the wives and children of men who will not take up arms to kill for them? Giving people the option to "do what I tell you to do or die"?

<font color = lightgreen>I must respectfully disagree with you on this. The US is far from perfect--a simple examination of our history proves this. Furthermore, we are painfully aware of the domestic problems we face, even if we are currently focusing our attention elsewhere.
We are not, however, deciding what the rest of the world can or cannot do, because we certainly didn't force anyone to join the Coalition. True, decisions have been made that have an effect on the entire world, but we didn't force anyone's individual choice.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" has an inherent flaw. If my neighbor is beating his wife and I know about it (let's say I can hear them fighting and I see the bruises on her) then not only is it a crime to fail to report this activity it is a moral failure on my part. I am no better than the abusive neighbor; in fact, I would be just as bad as he for allowing the beating to continue when I could help stop it. It is a moral failure on the part of both the US and the entire world for not stopping Saddam Hussein sooner.
As a nation we are not passing judgement on the Iraqi people, only on a government that has failed to follow "generally acceptable behavior" for responsible governments. I think any sane person would agree that the Iraqi people deserve more decent treatment than they have received. The best way to accomplish this is to remove Hussein and allow the Iraqi people to rebuild their country the way they wish with a goverment they have themselves chosen.

**********

My goodness! This topic certainly brings out the feistiness in our nature. At least those on both sides of the fence are not apathetic.... [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

<font color="#C0C0C0">That's an interesting analogy - by a quirk of fate, I've seen the same one before, but used slightly differently. But before I quote it, let me first say this.

In my own opinion, the United States war on Iraq was unavoidable because the US was set upon removing what it perceived to be a threat to its security and interests, both in the middle east and at home. There was nothing that the international community (or indeed the Iraqi government) could do to prevent the conflict. The threat to US security was seen to be real and the belief in Washington was that Saddam could never be trusted (not without justification).

**It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destructions, helping the 'oppressed people of Iraq' or profit. Those are merely additional secondary benefits of the action.**

However, the *rest of the world* (and by this I mean the majority of the population, rather than merely the governments of various regimes are far more cynical (esp. in the ME).

Anyway, back to the wife-beating analogy as posed in the Saudi based Arab News:</font>
"Take the apparently unobjectionable statement that, by opposing a US invasion of Iraq, you are effectively supporting the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps it is better to explore this by way of an analogy. Suppose you know of a family who live on a farm. You know for a fact that the husband is a brute who rapes his wife and regularly beats his children. You also know of a notoriously unscrupulous multinational corporation, which wants to purchase the farm and use any means necessary to get rid of the brute. It is using the excuse of “liberating” the mother and children to achieve those ends.

Suppose further that, under pressure from the community, the husband has allowed the social worker into his house, and denies the presence of a belt on the premises. The social worker has not been able to get his hands on the belt. Perhaps the husband has hidden it. Perhaps the social worker, a pusillanimous individual, has simply overlooked it. In any case, you are not satisfied that things do not return to normal as soon as the social worker goes home.

Do you therefore help further the ends of the immoral multinational in order to bring the suffering of the beaten wife and abused children to an end? If you say yes, you do so in the knowledge that such an organization can only cause suffering in other ways, as the vehicle for exploitation there and elsewhere.

But if you say no, you are in effect saying that you accept that this poor woman and her children could be black and blue for the rest of their lives. That is not an easy thing for any decent person to live with...

...In the end, perhaps turning a blind eye would have been the moral thing to do. After all, many beaten women, despite everything, keep on loving the brute who beats them, as do their children. Ultimately, it is their choice, and to go knowingly against their wishes by jumping on the back of the multi-national corporation, which pretends to be helping them only to get their land, is really only to sink further into the moral quagmire."

[ 04-05-2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Turning a blind eye to women and children being abused is NEVER the moral thing to do.

You can always put a corporation out of business...you can never bring back the lost life of a woman or child beaten to death, shot, or used as a shield by a cowardly soldier in his fight to keep the abusive man in power...you pay more to reverse the damage done to the children when they are turned into killers, addicts, wife beaters, whatever, as a result of the abuse they suffered growing up with it...you don't allow a legacy of hate to pass on to the next generation as something that is acceptable.

[ 04-05-2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]

Amen

This whole idea that due to religion or culture it is acceptable to allow women and children to be abused and treated like slaves is garbage. That we should be "understanding" of radical Islam and the sensitivity of the male/woman relationship is the kind of mindset that allow's abuse to continue. It is never ok.

Oh and I don't care if it is a Iraqi or Bob down the street. If it is religion or caused by substance abuse.

[ 04-05-2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

Naive? People in Canada? Exactly what is your point here.

During my tenure here in the war forum, I have had seem heated debates with various different people, but none have gotten to me quite like this.

Is the United States that perfect that they can decide for the rest of the world what they can and cannot do? You talk about the treatment of women in Iraq. I ask you this...do you know exactly how many women are beaten each day in the US or Canada or Britain or Germany or France, or any western culture because the men have the freedom to go out to the bar and get pissed each night, come home and beat the living crap out of their girlfriends or wives?

Before the US, or any other nation for that matter starts passing judgement, they need to take a long hard look at their own culture. How many women in the United States are being beaten tonight?

We have no right, NO RIGHT, to pass judgement on Iraq, when we are no better than they are.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh give me a freaking break Animal. We have law's against not that allow you to beat you're wife or child. We have centers for anger control and we do EVERYTHING possible to prevent it. We have shelters for abused women and children to try to hide at. We have program after program. Do not try that here. You can not stop abuse totally but we damn sure try. Our culture does not in ANY way condone such behavior. Find another nation that tries harder to stop abusive behavior. Give me a break.

It is a big difference from SANCTIONED, LEGAL, RELIGIOUS, allowance of. A man has to hope his wife don't call the police here. A woman in Iraq and other radical Islamic countries are lucky if they do not get raped by their husband AND police. Rape is a VERY serious crime here. It will ruin you're life. It should and I am glad we take it very serious.

To even compare makes me sick. If you can not see the vast difference of ILLEGAL abuse and SANCTIONED/RELIGIOUS right to make you're wife a slave then... friend I wonder if there is ANY hope