WAR MISCALCULATIONS

[Skunk]

Rape is a VERY serious crime here. It will ruin you're life. It should and I am glad we take it very serious.

It carries the death penalty under Shariah law too...

[Mordenheim]

yes I am sure the Iraqi people and the former slaves of the Taliban (and many other places) agree

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: *snip* ..........in Iraq and other radical Islamic countries ............

Just a small point - Iraq isn't a 'radical islamic contry'. The Ba'ath party represents a secular government. It's only when Saddam is threathened by western forces that the islamic rethoric gets aired.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Azred: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: 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.

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] [/QUOTE]"To allow the Iraqi people to rebuild their country the way they wish with a government they have themselves chosen."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/ar...-war_iraq.html

The list goes on and on. It is clear that the next government of Iraq will be a US government. The Iraqi people will have no choice as to how their country is rebuilt. In my eyes, this is deciding what Iraq can an cannot do.

True, nobody was forced to join the coalition, however strong arm diplomacy certainly played a role.

Once again I remind people to review my original post, and the reason for it.

Saddams regime is clearly a problem and needs to be removed, however a US controled post war Iraq is in no way "freedom" for the Iraqi people.

[Skunk]

Just a small point - Iraq isn't a 'radical islamic contry'. The Ba'ath party represents a secular government. It's only when Saddam is threathened by western forces that the islamic rethoric gets aired.

No, but the Shi'ites are - and this is the reason why Bush Snr walked away from them during the rebellion - he was too worried that they would seize control and institute a radical fundamentalist regime.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Skunk: Quote: "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.

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:
"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."[/QUOTE]Having served as a police officer for many years, domestic abuse is nothing new to me. I have responded to more domestic dispute calls than any other, and the face of every beaten women and child still rings clear in my mind.

One night I responded to a domestic dispute, and found the husband had beaten his wife with a wrench. She was beaten so badly, her face was unrecognizable. One month later I was back at the same residence for same problem. Overall, I was dispatched 6 times in 9 weeks. I would have gladly laid a beating on the husband for such abuse, however the law prevented me from doing so. I was required to follow the laws, no matter the cost, not "go it alone."

Let's not forget about the husband who used to routinely punish his wife by butting out his lit cigarette on her exposed skin, because dinner was not ready when he got home, or the mother who held her 5 year olds hand on the stove hotplate to teach him a lesson.

I think the one that stands out the most is the husband who inserted a beer bottle into her wifes genital region and then proceeded to kick her until the bottle broke. And why? In his own statement, because another man looked at her.

These crimes against humanity are just as rampant here as they are in Iraq, if not worse, so the government claiming this war is to end the oppression of the people or root out WoMD is complete BS. If the government wants to go to war, fine they should at least have enough balls to be honest about the reasons.

You're right, the war was unavoidable, not because of some perceived threat against the US or the Middle East, but because the opportunity was there.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Animal: re: the two news story links Animal posted above It is clear that the next government of Iraq will be a US government. The Iraqi people will have no choice as to how their country is rebuilt.

Sadly, it appears as if no one in Washington has studied history or understands the ramifications of such a disastrous decision, should these actions become reality. If we have this strong of an influence in reconstucting the government of Iraq, then we will be fighting another war with them within another 20 years or at least having hostile relations with them for several decades.

Originally posted by Animal: If the government wants to go to war, fine they should at least have enough balls to be honest about the reasons. You're right, the war was unavoidable, not because of some perceived threat against the US or the Middle East, but because the opportunity was there.

I can agree with your first statement--the government should have the balls to state their reasoning truthfully. We certainly expect that of individual people; the same should be expected of a government.
However, I do not agree with your second statement. We didn't go to war with Iraq just to have something to do. No, I am not so naive as to think that we did it to "liberate the Iraqi people once and for all" but we did attack a perceived threat which could have become an actual threat at any time. Besides, Hussein was one of the largest roadblocks to peace in the Middle East.

[Mordenheim]

I give up

A government that allow's torture, abuse, rape is equal to a country that has laws against all the above. How dare I judge. Forgive me. Let me not cast a stone since I never beat a woman, child, animal and so on. America is just like Iraq. We all beat women, rape women, kill children, and care only about money. That is all. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: I give up A government that allow's torture, abuse, rape is equal to a country that has laws against all the above. How dare I judge. Forgive me. Let me not cast a stone since I never beat a woman, child, animal and so on. America is just like Iraq. We all beat women, rape women, kill children, and care only about money. That is all. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

Just a second while a wipe the sarcasm off of my monitor.

I never said America was equal to Iraq or vice versa. What I did say is the same crimes that are being committed in Iraq are being commited everywhere.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline has received more than 700,000 calls for assistance since February 1996. – National Domestic Violence Hotline, December 2001

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. –Commonwealth Fund survey, 1998

It is estimated that 503,485 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year in the United States. – National Institute of Justice, July 2000

Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend each year to 4 million women who are physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners each year. – Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998

Studies show that child abuse occurs in 30-60% of family violence cases that involve families with children. – "The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering." J.L. Edleson, Violence Against Women, February, 1999

While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner. – Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998

Violence by an intimate partner accounts for about 21% of violent crime experienced by women and about 2 % of the violence experienced by men. – Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998

In 92% of all domestic violence incidents, crimes are committed by men against women. – Violence Against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January, 1994

Of women who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since the age of 18, three quarters (76 percent) were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabitating partner, date or boyfriend. – Prevalence Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, U.S. Department of Justice, November, 1998

In 1994, women separated from their spouses had a victimization rate 1 1/2 times higher than separated men, divorced men, or divorced women. – Sex Differences in Violent Victimization, 1994, U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1997

In 1996, among all female murder victims in the U.S., 30% were slain by their husbands or boyfriends. – Uniform Crime Reports of the U.S. 1996, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996

31,260 women were murdered by an intimate from 1976-1996. – Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998

A child’s exposure to the father abusing the mother is the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next. – Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, APA, 1996

Forty percent of teenage girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend. – Children Now/Kaiser Permanente poll, December, 1995

Females accounted for 39% of the hospital emergency department visits for violence-related injuries in 1994 but 84% of the persons treated for injuries inflicted by intimates.– Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998

Family violence costs the nation from $5 to $10 billion annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism, and non-productivity. – Medical News, American Medical Association, January, 1992

Husbands and boyfriends commit 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace every year.– Violence and Theft in the Workplace, U.S. Department of Justice, July, 1994

The majority of welfare recipients have experienced domestic abuse in their adult lives and a high percentage are currently abused. – Trapped by Poverty, Trapped by Abuse: New Evidence Documenting the Relationship Between Domestic Violence and Welfare, The Taylor Institute, April, 1997

One in five female high school students reports being physically or sexually abused by a dating partner. – Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), August 2001

"Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

I'm not sure how this got so far off topic, but we are in no position to judge Iraqis with statistics like those.

[ 04-05-2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Animal ]

[Mordenheim]

Yes they are being commited everywhere.

Let me try to make this VERY clear for you friend

The B I G difference is :

It is SANCTIONED allowed torture, abuse, rape, murder of men, women, children in some places. I draw a DISTINCT difference in LEGAL and ILLEGAL actions. I don't care how many polls, stats, crime sheets you place in front of me. There is a BIG difference. A policeman can not LEGALLY take a woman and rape her ANYWHERE in the United States. Has it ever happened? I am sure it has but it is VERY illegal and if caught will pay the price as ANY citizen.

If you see this as the same then I honestly give up. I am not sure I have EVER run into that mentality.

Second this throw stones is the biggest crock I have ever heard. If that was the case then everyone should ignore everything. I have NEVER hit a woman, child, or even animal in my entire lifetime. I will damn well throw stones at ANYONE who has done so. More then that I will throw even bigger one's at ANY country that ALLOWS this due to religious, power, or any other contributing factor. In America we do EVERYTHING possible to discourage and stop abuse.

Man you amaze me. Honestly I would HATE to live in a world where no one judged anyone. It would be filled with murder, rape, and anarchy in every corner of society. I will judge any and every government that I feel treats women as second class citizens. I don't care what culture or religious slant they put on it. Period