Iraq: The Women’s Story
The invasion of Iraq heralded promises of freedom from tyranny and equal rights for the women of Iraq. But three years on, the reality of everyday life for women inside Iraq is a different story.
By Zeena Ahmed
This Channel4 Dispatches film provides a compelling account of life inside Iraq that is rarely seen on news bulletins: stories of ordinary women whose struggle to survive has only worsened since the war.
You can also download the Real Media File from here.
Posted by Haitham Sabbah
Enjoy this post? Get future updates sent to you for free! Join by 
49 Comments on “Iraq: The Women’s Story”
For My Fellow Americans,
If you have taken the time to view this film tells me that you are interested in what is going on in Iraq. If you are unsettled by these images and feel that our invasion and continued presence in Iraq is wrong, please e-mail this video to your friends. If we as Americans start spreading the news of the devastation there we will be able to make a difference in our country’s policy by turning the tide against this war like we were able to do in the Viet Nam war. We cannot wait until the number of American soldiers dead makes a difference in our support of this war. Our conscious must lead us to action when we see the results of our actions to the innocent people of Iraq. We must stop this killing by our military so that our children will not grow up with a greater threat to them by those who have been turned against us. We must stop the killing by our military of innocent Iraqis. Please take the time to e-mail this video and discuss the issue with people. Every single time you are able to plant a seed of doubt in the supporters of this travesty will make a difference. And please, keep all the Iraqi people in your prayers and ask God to make them as safe as we are here in our own comfortable world. Thank you.
Wakeup O Arabs, Wake up O people before our women are forced into prostitution, our children are orphans. We are made refugees in our own land. The British and the Americans need to pay for this and shall pay for this. This war shall hit your own country. I pray to god that they bring curse and death to british and americans. The murderers, they are worse than the nazi’s. Wakeup before everyone of us end up in european concentration camps and end up incenerated.
shams,
You should realise that the destruction of Iraq does not represent the ambitions of every American or British citizen. Robin and I are both Americans and both find this to be an atrocious abuse of power and completely abhor the war in Iraq and the demonisation of Arabs and Muslims.
There are many more like us.
http://www.nion.us
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
Shams, you’re a pathetic terrorist-wannabe freak.
Sabbah, thanks for the post. I’ve long been telling anyone who cares to listen that women’s rights are not being advanced by the occupation and war. Unfortunately, some people just don’t get it. Most, however, do. President Bush’s rating has justly plummeted.
Bush is still in in his own world and he is dragging everyone down to his level.
These Women are suffering and he doesn’t care.
Women don’t matter to him because the men are important.
He is the alpha species and women are subserviant. His religion tells him so!
That is the crux. RELIGION! Just his and his mirror counterparts.
The radical Islamatists are just as bad.
As long as we have radicals on both sides the struggle will continue.
Is Bush really that stupid to think that he is right all the time?
Do women have to continue constantly to suffer to keep Bush and the other radicals in power?
Am I going to be investigated by the US government for saying this?
The world needs women to continue.
The world does not need men!
Stop and think before you tell women what to think and do!
Men have controlled the world for years. Look at the shape it is in.
Please give women a chance, because they cannot make it any worse.
Personal opinion from a male!
Shams,
I might add to Raymond’s comment by stating that even those of us who agree with the Iraq war do not reflect ANY of the characterizations you wrote. I may get pimp slapped by Raymond and Robin for this, but I LOVE the Iraqi people and desire only the best for them.
Kimmy,
Forgive me if this sounds mean, but what the hell are you talking about?
Although, I must say, Kimmy, that my preferred choice for president in 2008 is in fact a woman, and a black woman at that…
Philip,
It’s good to hear that you love the Iraqi people. I think the Iraqi people would rather eat their shoes, however, than continue to receive such gratuitous public displays of affection from the US.
I also appreciate your progressive attitudes towards minorities and women. A shame that she’s part of a fascist regime.
;)
Haditha massacre, the compensation paid is $2800 per victim. Is it the price, would you pay the same price for victims if they are american or british. What if the freedom fighters of iraq pay the same for killing each british and american? My question is not to kill or nor to promote hatred. But think about your policy and judgement. We go on placing puppet regimes, isn’t it better to think that we have a different regimes so that people in the whole world live peacefully. People having the power in U.K abolishing the Monarchy As the french did during the french revolution. And even at the United States. 6 billion people are suffering from 4 bullies U.K, U.S and the fourth world country - Germany. For it is a post cold war country. If germany can be world power. The world is better off with out United Kingdom and United States isn’t. I mean the regime change. Please the agents of the west refrain from any personal attacks and think.
I believe the people of Haditha, should immediately sue American and British Forces and Tony Blair for Crimes against humanity. 28 billion dollars per victim for hatred. The council of hadith for another 50 billion dollars for the psychological stress and pain and the fear inflicted. Halliburton to be sue for 100 billion dollars for pursuing ethnic cleansing and other media business for reporting false and covering up the crime.
These nazi dictators BLAIR BUSH should be punished by their own people. I remember Saddam used to have the pictures of old BUSH on the door matt of one of the hotels. I dont remember its name.
Lets make history and promote their figures who would like to be in history or make history, lets make them know how they will be remembered in the history . If you are true believer of Liberty, freedom. every person in the world should have bush and blairs face to on the door matts where your clean your shoes, before you enter the home. They are disgrace for humanity.
Ahlen Shams,
You are right, absolutely right. I am very nervous responding to you though because I don’t want you to think in any way that I support one single freakin thing my government is doing there. It is not for any of us here whatsoever to dislodge you of your disdain for us, the US that is (Raymond and I are Americans, as is Philip). It is YOU who can tell us what is happening better than anyone else.
Yesterday when I saw your response, I had a physical reaction, a cringe, a feeling of fear. I don’t fear you, I fear my own government because of it’s policy. It is not Iraq who ever threatened me, it is the continuing policy of my imperialistic government. I am NOT, nor is Raymond, an ignorant flag-waver.
When I watched the video Haitham provided us all I could see was destruction. Where are the questions in our media about this? The bombing of all of your infrastructure and leaving it for ruin without replacing it.
Yesterday CNN had several stories on Haditha. (yes I am well aware that CNN is not a good news source, quite the contrary). I watched in amazement as American after American tried to sanitize the situation. But what struck me most was your newly appointed ambassador to the States. His attitude about the situation was abominable. He shrugged his shoulders when asked if he had talked to anyone here about it and said that many Iraqis want to spread rumors about America, we must wait and see. He is obviously an American approved ambassador. Your prime minister is speaking up and demanding answers, I applaud that. I hope someone sues the hell out of us, the only problem is that it would take too long. For every American politician that diminishes ANY Iraqi life, let them have their own family put in a similar situation.
Shams, it is you who can tell us how it is there. We want to hear you. This is YOUR reality, your everyday existance, your reaction to the US occupation. But please, please know, that not all Americans support our government. Some of us know the other side through our own personal experiences being there. I pray for your safety.
May be if every iraqi has camira’s and tools they could have posted the reality like this. not everyone in iraq is fortuuanate to have them. the reality is different from what CNN presents. its tag line unrivaled journalism. if you rival their is threat from their military wing cia.
may robin, every body non-white is destined to die in this new world order. that is what one would have to live. we should start teaching our future generation that there is no future for us, for being iraqi or non-white.
only british and americans have the right to exist, right to speak, right to live. non-whites do not have the right to defend their own nation. same is with iranians, o iranian, you also should start realising as state by the prime minister of israel, a couple of days ago that iran shall have the same fate as of iraq.
we certainly do not have any hope, you can have our heads skulls and bones for the musueem, and our flesh for transplants and sell our body parts. Hope we have met all your requirements. By the way this musuem could give in huge revenue and bring employment for americans, doctors, archaelogist. You can have our women for pleasure, when they are dead meat you can use their organs for transplants and their skulls and bones for stone age musueem of iraq.
Shams,
Please let me explain this to you. I was married to a Saudi. We have been amicably divorced for quite a while and still maintain a very loving relationship towards each other. I carried a child from that marriage in my womb who is now a beautiful 28 year old woman. I don’t want anyone to die, not in Iraq, not here, not anywhere. I don’t want to be a part of your people dieing. I absolutely abhor what my country is doing to yours. I also absolutely abhor what my country is doing to itself. You have absolutely EVERY right to defend your nation. I am in total agreement with you. Many here say the war is becoming unpopular but our troops should still be honored. I do not honor anyone who ENLISTS in the military of my country to carry out our policy. They are clueless idiots who think it is a noble deed to serve our country. It is NOT noble to go to Iraq and kill people for the LIES that sent them there. I could go on and on, but please believe me when I tell you I am against my country’s policies. Shams, my government is a threat to me too, my personal liberties are being threatened and the hatred towards me as an American from your country is completely and utterly understandable. If your country invaded mine, I would hate the hell out of Iraqis too.
Yes we are indeed responsible for teaching our children. I have two additional all-American daughters. They are being taught by ME to accept all people as equals. They have a half-Arab sister, she is not their “half-sister” she is their sister.
This thread is about an “Iraqi Woman’s Story” You are Iraqi. Please share with us yourself. I am truly trying to reach out to you across the horrendous divide.
Innallah malayakatihi salleaanou saayyadoun naabi allahanu!
Yes even the angels in heaven praise the prophet pbuh
I do not speak very much Arabic anymore and spent two hours trying to find out what this meant by calling Arabic bookstores. (I hope it is the correct translation) I am trying to reach out to you Shams. Please share with us.
Philip,
If you have to ask, you don’t know.
Women are more important than men.
Men need women.
Women don’t need men!
If you need to continue you family line, you need women.
Women can cut that short.
As a father of two girls I can attest to that.
Religions are using the scare tactics to keep women subserviant for their future.
My daughters were raised to be self thinkers and in control of their bodies.
As a non-believer I have no problems with their descicions
What religion hates women? Christianity? Islam? Judaism?
Bush is Methodist, a Christian denomination which allows women as clergy.
Christian tradition does not consider women inferior. Oftentimes different roles are emphasized, but never as a matter of inequality. Good heavens, one of the more “offensive” practices of the 1st century Christians was the prominent role of women in the Church!
My wife is a Christian and is under no one’s thumb. I am a Christian, and my wife gets top priority in my life, equalled only by my son.
She will be the first to acknowledge that men and women are equal, and that it takes both to continue the human race!
Shams,
2,800 USD per person!!! That’s too high man.
They shouldn’t pay more than 500 USD a piece… Even that is too high a price but what the hell, the US’s got the cash, they can pay.
Ed,
I am hoping you carry your own life insurance policy and make the premiums on time. What price did you assign to your own worth as a human being?
Philip,
Ihope you realise that modern technology means women don’t need men.
Ed,
I hope you realise that in California a persons life is worth over $1 million.
Are the Iraqi’s worth less?
Your comments are stupid and worthless!
These are people killed by Americans and deserve better.
Your comments only prove Bush is prejudiced!
Sorry, Kimmy, but it goes both ways. Men need women, and women need men. We are complements to each other, not adversaries. No technology has ever produced sperm, only preserved that produced by men. The human race, like any mammalian species, is made up of both genders, and it’s that way for a reason. The only reproduction without the “products” of men and women created anew is cloning, which so far is not perfected, and it requires neither women no men specifically. The sexes are equal.
Philip,
Read a little more.
Forget religion and realise the women can reproduce without men!
Stick your high horse somewhere.
Kimmy,
Your anti-Christian bigotry is becoming apparent. I made no mention of religion, only science … yet you tell me to forget religion.
Now, kindly explain how women reproduce without men. What is added to the female’s egg to enable her to reproduce?
The sexes are equal. If that is somehow a bad statement, then I guess that makes me bad.
Or is it that women have discovered the ability to create babies without sperm, but George W. Bush is preventing them from doing it through his unlimited power?
Philip,
CLONING is the word!
Religion is losing its control of women!
Enter the new world of science.
Laws are supposed to protect everyone.
Your United States are enacting laws to control people when it comes to abortion, gay marriages and many other freedoms.
All supported by religion!
Get rid of your PICTURE looking down at everyone!
Accept everyone who doesn’t fit into your picture of your view of individualism.
Your religion is souring this post!
Kimmy,
I think you meant artificial insemination which needs the spermies but does not need the man attached to it. There is NO way to get out of having the woman in the process.
Here’s an interesting article about women serving in the Iraqi army these days. http://newsblaze.com/story/20060612080552nnnn.nb/newsblaze/IRAQ0001/Iraq.html
Here is another article saying how difficult the lives of women are in Iraq now since the rise of fundamentalism (Gee, wasn’t Iraq a secular state prior to the US invasion?) http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m23828&l=i&size=1&hd=0
Kimmy,
Met any good clones lately? Me neither. Besides, that is not reproduction, and it does not require women either. And sperm are only produced by men, so I hate to break it to you: Women and men are equals. How is it controlling of religions to call both genders equal?
As for abortion laws, that is not a religious issue. Need proof? Click here.
Robin, you are correct in saying that prior to the invasion, Iraq was a secular state. This is truuuuuuuue, sort of. Somehow, though, in this secular state the Shi’ia and Kurds were oppressed. And while the US, Canada, Britain, Japan, Egypt and India are secular states, they don’t exactly compare to Saddam’s secular state. Try Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea…
And Iraq remains a secular state. Extremists are attempting to prevent that, especially because the new Iraq represents a twofold negative to extremists: secular representative democracy.
The Iraqi Army women article was pretty cool. Note, though, that it states that the society is male dominated (which means it was under Saddam).
Philip,
“Try Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea?”
You are so bad at hiding how big a Neocon bigot you really are!
This is exactly the type of subtle manipulatation of public opinion you and your puppet masters are so skilled at. Twist the truth to fit the ‘reality’ you desire and repeat the same shit enough times then mindless ignorants like you will believe it to be true.
Grouping the Neocon USA, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy together would be a far better comparison than the one you use. To claim that Venezuela belongs to the same grouping as Communist dictatorships like Cuba and North Korea is nothing but self-righteous propaganda in support of you and your masters’ ambitions to dominate the world with your perverted idea about freedom!
Stop being such a sore looser! Your government tried to instigate a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela, the Venezuelan people took to the streets to demonstrate against your fascistic plot, CIA and their Venezuelan 5th column supporters had to pull back, Venezuela remained a free country with a democratically elected government. YOU LOST! YOU LOST! YOU LOST! YOU LOST! YOU LOST!
I know it is incompatible with the Neocon concept of Freedom, but we, in the free world, recognize that freedom includes the right of any nation to democratically elect a socialist leaning government if that is the will of the people!
A smelly shit will remain a smelly shit; even if you try to label it as apple pie or freedom!
By the way, did I remember to mention that YOU LOST!
What did I lose, exactly?
Oh, and how is comparing Chavez to Castro propaganda? He is Fidel’s favorite ass kisser and has specifically stated that he intends to incite his own Bolivar (Cuban-style) Revolution. Add this to his enabling and funding of narcoterrorists like FARC, and yeah … he’s a swell guy, Gandhi in a red beret. You know, a misunderstood teddy bear like Saddam.
“You are so bad at hiding how big a Neocon bigot you really are!
This is exactly the type of subtle manipulatation of public opinion you and your puppet masters are so skilled at. Twist the truth to fit the ?reality? you desire and repeat the same shit enough times then mindless ignorants like you will believe it to be true.” Ooooooo-kay. Gotcha. Right on, bro. What exactly is a neocon bigot? I halfway understand what neocon means (although it’s more or less a meaningless buzzword), and I know what bigot means. I’ll accept the first, as meaningless as it is. But explain the second. How, exactly, am I a bigot? Or was it just a profound typo?
“Grouping the Neocon USA, Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy together would be a far better comparison than the one you use.” You caught me, T-Bob. I’m the propagandist here.
Philip,
Just like Bush.
Lie and lie again until it becomes the truth.
I am right and you are wrong. That is your mantra!
Your religion is your downfall.
You won’t recognise anyone elses religion.
You still keep falling back to your religion.
Your religion proves that Bush is right because your religion tells you so.
Islam is right too.
Try to be a little more open. I know I am asking much.
Kimmy,
I’m beginning to wonder why I bother responding to you!
* You say: “I am right and you are wrong. That is your mantra!” A mantra is a repeated phrase. I have not made this statement once, much less many times. And you call ME a liar?
* “Your religion is your downfall.” Alright, Kimmy. You got me. I guess I have to become an atheist now, dang it all.
* “You won?t recognise anyone elses religion.” Where do you come up with this stuff? Look in the mirror. I have repeatedly recognized other religions and spoken very respectfully of them, yet you repeatedly denigrate mine.
* “You still keep falling back to your religion.” Please cut and paste some examples. Just saying something doesn’t make it true, and I see you repeatedly attempting to achieve this feat.
* “Your religion proves that Bush is right because your religion tells you so.” Huh? My only interpretation of this (correct me if I am wrong) is that you are saying that my faith compels me to follow lock-step with Bush. If that is your assertion, you are wrong. I agree with Bush on more things than I disagree with him on. But I have criticized him on a number of things. It’s called balance. You rather have a blind hatred of him, one that is hypocritical, frankly. I instead analyze the issues one by one and determine my feelings about Bush as a person based upon how sincere he appears to me.
* “Islam is right too. Try to be a little more open. I know I am asking much.” There are many points at which my faith and Islam are hand-in-hand. Muslims and Christians have much in common where their faith is concerned. But there is a reason there are such terms as “Muslim” and “Christians.” One central debate is a man referred to as Jesus. Muslims believe he was a great prophet, in the tradition of Moses and others, one of many who would reveal the word of God until its completion in the revelation of Mohammed, contained within the Qu’uran. (Any Muslims correct me if I am in error at all here.) As a Christian, I believe that he is the Son of God, that he (as he claimed) has existed for eternity, one with God, and thus God. That is — God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Though distinct in presentation, they are simply 3 aspects of God’s character. That is, God is one, but he presents himself in these distinct ways. Of course, this is totally contrary to the teachings of Mohammed. We worship Jesus, In Islam, that is forbidden, as he is not believed to be God, but only a messenger of him. Thus, the differences are irreconcilable. That does not make us enemies, though, and you keep trying to incite division here where there is none! There is absolutely nothing wrong with asserting that what you believe is true. You do it, Kimmy, repeatedly. You believe that all religions are the same and that there should be no claims to absolute truth. So you assert that your belief is true.
The only solution that would make you happy is for me to reject my faith, for me to turn my back on Someone who through an act of kindness gave me a son who could not have come into being by force of nature nor medical science. Yes, Kimmy. You ARE asking much if that is what you are asking.
Here are some more articles about life for women in Iraq today:
This one was written at the beginning of the US occupation:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/palestine/pflp_sabrashatila.html
This one is titled “News / Life in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam, Iraqi woman tells MCC students”
This one is written by the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq written in April 2006
http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm
This one is about the statement by our own US envoy to Iraq, Khalilzaad’s statement “We have opened up a Pandora’s box in Iraq”
and is dated March 2006
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002848965_iraq07.html
We here in the US for the most part just do NOT GET IT. A “noble gesture” to liberate Iraq from Saddam has turned into a nightmare for all but paricularly for women. Now the fundamentalist Islamic forces have been set loose to reek havoc on the women in this country. If we want democracy there (hah!) and that is the goal of this administration just how are they going to accomplish this and how are they going to control what that democracy produces. Just like with the Palestinian elections, you better be careful of what you wish for. We need to LISTEN to what these Iraqi women are saying and believe that they can speak with more authority of their own circumstances than any neocon liberator ever can.
For all the women of Iraq, even though it is an American holiday, I wish you a Happy Father’s Day, because without you, they would not be fathers
Philip,
I think you have been reading too much Heritage Foundation diatribe:
“For no apparent reason, the leftist strongman is arming Venezuela to the teeth. He’s also supporting local narcoterrorists and other Latin revolutionaries.
Chavez idolizes Cuba’s Fidel Castro, is chummy with Libya’s Moammar Khadafy and was a Saddam Hussein pal. He’s made nasty remarks about President Bush and “suggestive” public comments about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.” http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed040505a.cfm
It is not a secret that Chavez is very left-leaning and that he has been very critical of the Washington Consensus (Neocon plans for US economic influence in South America) and the US government. Therefore, it is not a surprise that the Heritage Foundation, a known Neocon propaganda organization, is not the best place to look for objective information about Hugo Chavez.
If you look at most of the Chavez critical claims on the Internet, a very large majority of them are simply word-by-word repeating the Neocon diatribe promoted by the Heritage Foundation (primarily) between 2000 and 2002. Ever since they have been performing the same song and dance with nothing new added.
Let’s take the mono-thinking propaganda of you and the Heritage Foundation one-by-one:
1) He “is arming Venezuela to the teeth.”
Neocon thinking dictatates that any country that does not submit fully to USA governance (directly or by proxy) and is buying weapons must be arming themselves to make up a clear and present danger to the USA. Of course it cannot be considered that, based on USA’s track record, such weapons purchases could just as well be for defense in the (not that unlikely) case that the USA should see an opportunity to invade the country!
2) He is “enabling and funding of narcoterrorists like FARC…”
FARC is a rebel group using terrorist tactics to promote a Communist revolution in Venezuela. Neocon thinking dictates that if somebody is communicating with a rebel faction, then he must be a strong supporter of that rebellion. Of course it cannot at all be considered that, Chavez HAS TO recognize the existence of an armed militia in his country and that he may see trying to limit violence and eventually disarm the rebels through negotiation as the better alternative to military action which is bound to bear much higher human costs to Venezuelan civilians! Neocon thinking also dictates that a Communist terrorist organization officially praising some of the actions of a Socialist leader must be based on that they share a ‘love of terrorism’. Of course it cannot be considered that both follow left-wing ideologies as the common denominator!
3) “he intends to incite his own Bolivar (Cuban-style) Revolution.”
Bolivarianism is NOT pure Communism, but Neocon thinking dictates that everybody with a political opinion to left of centre is a nasty Communist. Of course black/white mono-thinkers are incapable of recognizing a political spectre with more than two political ideologies!
By the way, mentioning the word ‘revolution’ is meaningless as he is already in power as a democratically elected representative of his people. Why would he need a revolution? To revolt against his own policies?
4) “He is Fidel?s favorite ass kisser”
Again an example of Neocon simple-mindedness in terms of the political spectre. Of course it cannot be considered that in addition to partial overlap of political ideology, other factors such as that the USA has embargoed Cuba, that the USA has threatened with sanctions against Venezuela (which will not happen as long as the USA needs Venezuelan oil), and that Chavez and Castro both see the US government as oppressive imperialistic raiders, so they would have very good reasons to trade with each other!
5) He “is chummy with Libya’s Moammar Khadafy and was a Saddam Hussein pal.”
Again, Neocon thinking dictates that if they talk together about one topic, then they must be strong supporters of each other on all topics! Of course it cannot be considered that Chavez held the OPEC presidency in 2000 and that he met with both leaders on a round trip where he met with ALL leaders of OPEC membership countries.
6) “He’s made nasty remarks about President Bush and “suggestive” public comments about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”
This wording is not only funny, but also show the ridiculous simplicity of Neocon world view; either you are with us or you are against us!
It is very very clear that the main reason for the political clashes between the Bush and Chavez is that Chavez decided to raise the 1% royalty fee on ExxonMobil’s oil exploration in Venezuela, which was ‘forced’ through some 60 years ago by the US government.
Bolivarianism is NOT Communism, but very left-wing Socialism with welfare and other anti-poverty initiatives. One of the main points of Bolivarianism is that the main beneficiary of Venezuelan oil and other natural resources must be the Venezuelan people and NOT ExxonMobil, the people of the USA, or any other country for that matter. I fully agree with Chavez on that point, so maybe you and the other Neocon mono-thinkers would label me as a Bolivarian, a Communist, or a revolutionary!
By the way, Neocon is not a buzzword, but is the name for the neo-liberal (by supporters)/fascistic (by opponents) doctrines promoted in the ‘New American Century’. A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - in your case, the “USA ?lles!” chanting!
I got my info from Capitalism magazine, which undoubtedly is of similar thought as the Heritage Foundation (fine by me).
It looks like this one breaks down fairly easily. Our differences on the Chavez issue are clearly distinguishable and largely based on a certain philosophical perspective. Ironically, we don’t appear to disagree much on the specifics, but the approach. Although FARC is more than just a bunch of angry reds. They have one important commodity that they like to market, despite their socialist beliefs. Also, they are not a Venezuelan entity per se, but a Colombian one, and Chavez is in VERY obvious way attempting to disintegrate the hard-gained progress Colombia has made in recent years. Very, very nasty.
Or, in simpler terms, I think the guy’s a prick.
Philip,
What you think of Chavez is exactly what I think of the Bush!
Philip,
I am not sure you are right about ‘the comodity’ that you claim FARC has to sell. As far as my understanding, FARC is not involved in drug traficing per se, but get their funding by extorting money from legitimate and especially illegitimate (read coca growers) as ‘protection money’. Naturally, this does not vindicate FARC as they remain a terrorist organization.
I am not sure I completely follow you on your claim that Chavez has been trying to disintegrate anything in Colombia either. In the begining of last year, the Colombian government sent military forces into Venezuela where they ‘arrested’ a FARC leader and ‘transferred’ him to Columbia. I use brackets, because it was a clear violation of Venezuelan sovereignty by Colombian military, so they had no jurisdiction to make an arrest and, technically, the transfer was an abduction. The Venezuelan Ministry of Interior established that the covert operation involved recruitment and bribery/bribery attempts of Venezuelan military and scurity officers and that high ranking Colombian officials were involved. When Venezuela asked Colombia for an official apology for their violation of Venezuelan sovereignty the Columbians responded in a less than diplomatic manner which led to Venezuela to temporarily pull back their ambassador to Colombia.
Naturally, you would fully support the Colombian actions, because they are being a very good follower of Bush; and what I see as destabilizing actions you see as ligitimate unilateral intervention (as long as it is to the benefit of the Bush or his supporters).
,varo Uribe seems to be the prick in this conflict!
By the way, you know that I have no particular love for Socialists, but I resent un-democratic behavior even more than Socialist behavior. Besides, in third world countries I do see justification for limited amounts of socialism. In both Denmark and Hungary I am very much against socialism because I know that most of the people being supported by the excessive taxation do not really need it. In a country with large very poor parts of the population it is a different matter.
As a spectator I am enjoying your arguement. Here’s the latest for you two gentlemen to chit-chat about:(with permission to chime in when I see the opportunity SHOULD you decide to discuss the latest contraversy)
“US is aiming to block Venezuela’s Role in the UN”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-venezuela19jun19,1,7090902.story?coll=la-headlines-world
VERRRRRRY interesting how my very own “prick” bush likes to manipulate things ALL OVER the world and in particular our hemisphere. Fast forward as to how bush’s shenanigans alter power balances globally. The only problem is, in his attempt to “seed the clouds” he cannot always forecast the outcome of the weather!
Here also is an EXCELLENT article on “neoconservatism”. What is particularyly interesting and VERY true within the information included is that “neoconservatism” has it’s roots in “liberalism” Briefly, the liberal believes in his “product” so wholeheartedly that he takes it one step further and seeks to spread it around the world, even with force when necessary. Sound familiar? This movement that is present day neoconservatism had it’s roots in the cold war and can be seen in it’s “liberal” (not) form in the US fight to contain the global spread of communism. Recall, LBJ on social issues was a COMPLETE liberal ie. in his legacy known as the War on Poverty which produced many programs such as Medicare and civil rights legislation. HOWEVER, (note, this is where the liberal link to modern day neoconservatism comes in) LBJ was willing to MANUFACTURE a false event, the Gulf of Tonkin affair, in order to use it as an excuse to “spread democracy” to Southeast Asia in order to fight the impending “domino effect” HMMMM. Let’s see here. Currently we have a present day neoconservative administration with an outspoken Christian prick as a president willing to manufacture lies (wmds, Al-Queda connections etcl)in order to justify a war in Iraq. Somewhere in between there the social programs got dropped altogether but the outcome and the parallels are undeniable. Viet Nam then, Iraq now. Same reasons used, BOTH willing to use force to spread their ideals around willy-nilly. Throw in the defense contractors making big bucks off the whole venture and you’ve got a tidy little connection. Here is the article should you desire to read it. Most of what I just said was my own analysis of the subject and other matters. http://www.policyreview.org/oct04/lindberg.html. Thomas, you will like this article better than Philip I am sure because it holds “liberalism” up to be the ideal end goal. Sample:
“Unless such a person is prepared to try to secure his or her freedom by force, the only way to secure it is through mutual recognition of the freedom of another, notwithstanding the difference of the other. A person recognizes the freedom and equality of the other as the condition of the other?s recognition of his or her freedom and equality. The mutual recognition of each as free and equal I take to be the constitutive characteristic of liberalism.” Since I agree that liberalism is the ideal, it certainly leaves no room for the introducition into law any one religious tenet.
Sorry for bringing up so many issues.
I wish to clarify “neo” which is defined as “new and different”
Whereas LBJ was definitely a liberal democrat giving the US a widerange offering of new social programs, I think he might very well be defined as a “neo” liberal BECAUSE of his so-called fight against the global spread of communism. george bush and his cronies are definitely “neoconservatives” and many “true” conservatives lament that their philosophy has been hijacked by those eager and willing to spread it world-wide forcibly. For the sake of the arguement comparing Viet Nam to Iraq I did not mention that neo-liberalism can trace it’s roots back to the Truman doctrine. But needless to say, what I am saying is that the “neo” part is where both LBJ and GWB converge in their policies. So Philip, I dare say this, you like to say that the term “neoconservative” is a useless and meaningless term but it is NOT. I suggest that you qualify for the moniker in the fact that you ARE conservative and you DO support the US going into Iraq, a forceful invasion and spread of US dominance into the Middle East if ever I saw it. I suspect you don’t like the term because of the perjorative connotation attached. But I think you should wear it with pride just as you offer your opinions with pride in your adoration of our “prick” president.
I don’t like the term, because it is simplistic. It paints a tiny picture with a large brush. Although, all in all, I don’t find the general connotation negative. It just loses meaning quickly as it joins the vast land of labels. If it means those who have a generally conservative philosophy of capitalism combined with social responsibility and who favor spread of democracy/liberty, then the broad brush does sweep across me, though not encompassing me entirely. On a scale of 1 to 10 as far as national policy goes, I’d give Bush a 6.5 (so adoration is a strong word, though I do “like” him. I like his brother even more; I’d just about turn gay for him. Of course, “admiration” appears to be defined as “not considering Bush to be the source of all evil). Reagan would get an 8. Bush Sr. would get a 5.5. Clinton would get a 4.5. Walter WIlliams is not President, but he gets a 9 for being brilliant and a badass.
As for the article, it is not bad, fairly well reasoned, though flawed philosophically. But it beats most of the stuff you throw at me!
Oh, and one thing that probably gives the impression that I am a Bush admirer is that I find myself regularly defending him here, against statements like, “Bush hates women because of his religion.” If someone had said that about Bill Clinton, I would’ve defended him, too. And, obviously, Mr. C is a big fan of the ladies, but I just don’t think religion has much to do with that, unless it’s one of those weir sex cults.
Thank God! you are 35% right, about equal to bush’s poll numbers!!
Since Reagan, is long gone rip, I don’t really have to much to discuss about him vis a vis Iraq and the Mideast accept that maybe GWB COULD take a line from Reagan, “Tear Down that WALL!!!” MR OLMERT. (Aren’t I clever sometimes 
)
There IS some hope for you Philip after all
Well I don’t hear you mentioning if you read the LA Times article about Venezuela but Reagan”s past policies DO come to light in this incident. Our past meddling in Latin American affairs has gotten us into some hot water with our neighbors. Over and over again the US has declared hegemony over the Western Hemisphere due to sheer geography. The NIMBY affect put into place with the Monroe Doctine in 1823. Here is a concise list of our military involvement in LA since that time http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/USA-In-Latin-America13apr03.htm And if you really want to see what was behind much of our involvement there you need look no further than the United Fruit Company, now known as Del Monte. Ever heard the term “banana republic”? This is the genesis of that name and also means that these countries were beholden in all they did to a US business that exploited and raped them of their resources.
Nicaragua and El Salvador and Chile and several other countries dared to mess with United Fruit/Del Monte and what did they get? US invasion. So once again Philip (with a tip to Kimmy and his hatred of big business), the US invaded our neighbors to the south on the behest of a CORPORATION and did a very flimsy job of covering up their intentions by calling in a “fight against communism”. EVERY SINGLE TIME our military has invaded another country in our history there have been our own businesss interests at stake. THAT is why we are not taking care of Africa and the humanitarian needs there, there is NOTHING for us to gain there. Now we have Chavez, whom I agree is a bit of a red herring buzzing his mouth off at bush. What do I think? I think it is HYSTERICAL!! He has OIL though in OUR territory so he better darn well be careful What is Iran doing right now? Buzzing their mouths off at us. What do I think? Well kinda scarey. We have North Korea readdy to test a nuke that can reach our shore and what do I think? THAT scares me. But why has this administration ignored the threat of North Korea for so long? Because we have NOTHING TO GAIN form them but now realize we have EVERYTHING to lose. Philip, our military and our resources CANNOT rule the world. We do not have the ability to do this and even trying as we are now has run our deficit into the trillions. If you even say that the deficit is no big deal let me tell you this: We are borrowing that money by selling US treasury bonds abroad and Saudi Arabia and China are the largest holders of those bonds. What’s going to happen if they call them? I’ll tell you what, total collapse of our economy. Nothing in life is free and this “noble gesture” to save the world while investing more and more of our BORROWED money in our defence industry that has an ever growing appetite for profit is NOT going to last forever.
Now that I have finished that rant, let me say this, since I am a woman and this thread is SUPPOSED to be about Iraqi women, I wish to apologize to them on a personal level for my country totally f–ing up their country in pursuit of imperialistic insanity.
Short response: Yes, we typically only respond where US interests are at stake. Otherwise, we would be spread well beyond our means. I would love to go in and have sub-Saharan Africa become a model of stability. I would relish the thought of eliminating the last vestiges of Communism. But we have to limit it to where our internal interests meet others’. And, like it or not, that is from where we operate.
Robin,
Thanks for the Lindberg link. I have had a blast with it
The definition of liberalism that Lindberg discusses differs greatly from the international (or at least European) definition of liberalism. His explanation of liberalism as a political ideology matches the social-democratic approach, which is considered a socialist idelogy outside the USA rather than a liberal ideology. It seems to me that Lindberg is confusing economic equality (policy of forced/un-free redistribution of wealth) with personal equality (equal accept of personal freedom for all). I cannot recognize his description of neo-conservatives either as he is positioning them somewhere between liberals and conservatives, but his description of their ideas and their political actions place them further out on the far right wing.
From my knowledge of political ideologies, a rough comparison between the European and Lindberg politics would be something like:
Communists
Marxists
Socialists
Social-Democrats (Lindberg Liberals?)
—Centre—
Social-Liberals (US-Democrats)
Liberals
(Lindberg Neo-Conservatives?)
Conservatives (US-Republicans)
Nationalists
(US-Neo-Conservatives)
In European terms the different political ideologies follow three socio-economic trends: Egalitarian (Marxist, Socialist, and Social-Democratic ideologies), Libertarian (Social-liberal and Liberal ideologies), and Elitarian (Communist, Conservative and Nationalistic ideologies).
Strictly speaking, liberalism is not an ideology in its pure form, but rather a principle (everybody has the right to do what they desire as long as it does not infringe on the same right of others) - no more, no less.
The so-called liberal ideologies are all ‘polluted’ with either socialism or conservatism to some degree. Socialism and conservatism are ideological approaches to distribution of power and wealth in society (either workers or capitalists exert power over the other group). Both are incompatible with the prinicple of liberalism, which has no social conscience or democratic ideal as such.
Lindberg seems to have missed that, in terms of economic policy, liberalism (as ideology) goes hand-in-hand with the theory of free markets, which does not argue for intervention in supply and demand. Market intervention as promoted by Keynes is followed the most strictly by socialist influenced governments rather than conservative governments which tend to be more radical liberals in terms of market economy (capitalism). Arguing for a strong military and foreign intervention (neocon policy) is contrary to liberal ideology supporting a strong defense only! In terms of religion, both conservatives and neo-conservatives are placing way too much attention on religion in order to be considered liberal ideology which treats religion as a strictly personal issue!
Actually, it was by mistake that I called neocons for neo-liberals, because the ‘neo’ in Neo-Conservatism is that it is a new hybrid of conservative ideology based on forcefully spreading the conservative concept of freedom (the freedom of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth in order to exert more power over those with less wealth) outside national borders (the political borders of a democracy). When neoconners talk about spreading freedom they do not talk about libertarian freedom, but about their own elitarian freedom to exert their power over others.
The neoconners will often quote the ’survival of the fittest’ concept, but in their terms it does not mean that the one who is the most intelligent and work the hardest will be the ’survivor’ but rather that it is the one who has access to wealth and power from parents or friends. In the midieval times it was the aristocracy who was fit for survival, in the neo-midieval times it is the neocons who are the most fit for survival. Both aristocrats and neocons are born or espoused into wealth and power, so things have not really changed that much.
Thomas,
If your final assertion about neoconservatives and what they desire economically is correct (”new hybrid of conservative ideology based on forcefully spreading the conservative concept of freedom (the freedom of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth in order to exert more power over those with less wealth”), then you really shouldn’t call me one! I am a far cry from wealthy and barely even middle class!
Lindbergh’s use of the term liberal is the more contemporary term. I’m happy to call myself a classic liberal, but the implications based upon contemporary use of “liberal” are contrary to my beliefs (hence socialist in nature).
The idea of removing a “progressive” tax is not to help the wealthy, but to male taxation fair and not punitive. Money in the hands of individuals and private institutions will always be more productive than that in the hands of government. If that means the rich pay no more, proportionally, in taxes, then I’m for it. But using nationalism and neoconservatism as synonyms … frankly, it’s more than a little silly.
Thomas, you said:
“Actually, it was by mistake that I called neocons for neo-liberals, because the ?neo? in Neo-Conservatism is that it is a new hybrid of conservative ideology based on forcefully spreading the conservative concept of freedom (the freedom of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth in order to exert more power over those with less wealth) outside national borders (the political borders of a democracy). When neoconners talk about spreading freedom they do not talk about libertarian freedom, but about their own elitarian freedom to exert their power over others..The neoconners will often quote the ?survival of the fittest? concept, but in their terms it does not mean that the one who is the most intelligent and work the hardest will be the ?survivor? but rather that it is the one who has access to wealth and power from parents or friends”
PRECISELY!!!!Neoconners wrap themselves in the cloak of spreading democracy and freedom while the underlying goal is the accumulation of wealth. One need look only to the statement of PNAC titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” the ULTIMATE CORE MISSION STATEMENT of the neocon agenda to see what the true goals are. http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
No where in this foreign policy agenda of theirs is the emphasis on freedom abroad. On the contrary, it is about creating spheres of influence of the American version of a New World Order. If you have not read it before it is some pretty darn wacked out stuff. And now we have our current neocon administration also cloking itself in Christian righteousness. Actually, they are both missionary philosophies so that is why I think they make such great bed partners.
Philip,
“…then you really shouldn?t call me one [neocon]! I am a far cry from wealthy and barely even middle class!”
This is difficult to answer without sounding condescending, but I rather be honest than polite
The main goal of propaganda is to generate support for a cause among people (the subjects of a state). Several means of communication are applicable, but propaganda is the number one tool of preference if the cause being promoted is not in the best interest of the people, very controversial, or in direct conflict with the prevailing ethics of the people.
“Lindbergh?s use of the term liberal is the more contemporary term.”
I am conservative, but NOT in the political sense. I believe that the best way to communicate is when both sides speak the same language. That is why I am reluctant to accept any form of Newspeak or ‘localized’ modification of terminology. In the game of manipulation, the best way to make people reject an idea or a concept is not to forbid it, but to promote that the idea or concept means something that is undesirable and completely opposite of what it has always meant!
If I was an oppressive government and I wanted to shut up all the people talking about human rights, then I would not directly admit that “I do not recognize human rights”, but I would promote that “human rights is unpatriotic nonsense designed to make our country volnerable to attacks from those who seek to destroy us”. “unpatriotic” is already recognized as ‘undesirable’, it is also ‘undesirable’ to be “volnerable”, and nobody wants to support somebody who is a threat to “us” which is the concept of everything that should be ‘desireable’.
This kind of psychological manipulation is so transparent when you know what to look for. Why do you think that I do not buy into that the Bush is promoting ‘freedom’? ‘Freedom’ should be something good for everybody, shouldn’t it?
“The idea of removing a ?progressive? tax is not to help the wealthy, but to male taxation fair and not punitive.”
I agree with you fully. Personally, I am in favor of a flat tax rate and a reasonable non-taxable base amount to benefit those on the lowest salaries. However, I was not talking about the domestic policies of the USA in general as they are none of my business.
The only US policies, regardless of whether they are domestic or foreign policy, that are my business are those that are likely to have an affect on me - either directly or indirectly. If the Bush wants to prohibit two-piece swimsuits in the USA that is none of my business, but if he wants to invade yet another country and further destabilize the world then it is my business, because I live in the world and my life and the situation in my country is influenced by what happens in the world.
“But using nationalism and neoconservatism as synonyms ? frankly, it?s more than a little silly.”
I did not say that neoconservatism is equal to nationalism, but that it is somewhere between nationalism and fascism
Why? Because http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm you are not fully there yet, but pretty damn close!
Robin,
I read the PNAC nonsense several years ago. It did not trigger my resentment of the Bush and the US government, it only made it much stronger than it already was.
What those guys are promoting is some seriously sick shit; not much different from the sick shit in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”.
When I Scroogled for the study/article about fascism for Philip I tripped over this site: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/ that you may find interesting. I just found it, so I cannot rate its reliability and whether it is objective or biased.
Thomas,
THANK YOU! What a GREAT Source. Read this article, dated 1944,
“The Danger of American Fascism” http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm
Last night there was an EXCELLENT two hour Frontline program on about how the Iraq war was “cooked up” by these neocon fascists.
Unfortunately, I fell asleep in the last half hour but up til that point it was a concise history of just how the manipulations of Chenry and Rumsfield have worked. Cloak and dagger, war and death the end product. There has been a great deal of uncovering of these fascists done by the press here so as an American, if one does not take the responsibility of “being an American” seriously they will ignore the truth. You know the crap, the stuff that boils down to “You are a hater, a bush-basher, a conspiracy nut etc.” The fact is that these are top people within the administration and other offices that are actually coming out and admitting how these monsters have gotten away with it. Honestly, I cannot begin to tell you or others how this makes me feel. Germans looked away as Hitler did his thing just as Italians looked away when Mussolini did his thing. The utter power of evil in the hands of a few is chilling to the bone. The US has ALWAYS been a manipulator of world affairs from way back when with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 which declared US hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. We have never been content to stay within our own borders as we have sought to control world affairs. Add to this the fact that our educational system is set up to create total allegiance to our country and you’ve got an American public which is brainwashed in nationalism/fascism. This particular thread is about what Iraqi women and what they are suffering since the invasion. I know Thomas that you are an atheist, but I also see that you are a humanist. It does not matter from where we get our morals, it only matters that we have them and that our love and concern for mankind outweighs our desire to do harm and control. These women in Iraq are my sisters and they are suffering unthinkably because of my country’s invasion of theirs. My heart, my very soul mourns for them and weeps. It is a switch off between my brain searching for answers and my heart reaching out to them in prayer. It is painful to be an American if one has any sense of morality at all.
On my brain side: One of the first things that the bushies did was to try to undercut the funding for PBS (Public Broadcasting Services) which is solely run on contribution and government funding through the NEA (National Endowments for the Arts) This channel is only available through cable and carries programming ranging from Sesame Street to Frontline and other news programming such as the Leher Report, Frontline and a few others. These news programs are not perfect by any means, but they are really the only programs we have that offer any voice of truth. They are not watched NEARLY as much as say CNN or Fox, but the content is so much more substantial. In the end they are American products, but they ARE willing to speak up. Frontline in particular has had several programs about the war and the Palestinian issue. On the Palestinian issue they were assaulted for bias against Israel and then had to come back with some other programming to balance what some said was biased against Israel. Long story short, the way that any fascist government is able to get away with what they do is with propaganda. Control the press, and you control the hearts and minds of the people. When we were on the verge of invading Iraq my daughter and I, knowing what we do of the Middle East could NOT believe how this administration was selling this war. We also sat and said to each other, “They REALLY don’t know what they are taking on messing with Iraq, the Iraqi’s are some of the baddest assed people out there and there is no way the people of Iraq are going to put up with this and lay down the red carpet.” It’s not about Saddam, it is about the Iraqi people themselves and their dislike of America. Americans are so FREAKING STUPID it makes me puke!!
Anyways, here is the link to Frontline programs which can be watched online http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
The one from last night is not available yet but it will be eventually. They are not perfect, and they ARE American, but it is an attempt by some aware Americans to speak up against the wrongs in our country.
More stupid Americans die. The two missing soldiers who were kidnapped were found dead with signs of torture. They are the sons of stupid Americans who are willing to put their family members on the line to fight for our fascist state. I mourn their death as a human being myself, but ask what they were doing there in the first place. No more death please God.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bodies21jun21,0,2625235.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
Haitham, Thomas and all others: Have you heard about the “Crazy Ramadi” rap video done by two US soldiers? This is a perfect example of my country’s insensitivity and utter lack of respect for Iraqi lives. Here it is http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1979301 Enjoy the SICK music of my fellow country men