81% Approval Rating. God Help Us!

[hobbes]

I just saw on CNN that even if WMD are not found in Iraq, 81% of Americans consider the war on Iraq justified.

Are we really that stupid and brainwashed?

I've been awake for 36 hours and my keyboard has been mysteriously been rearranged, but even I can't believe this.

I was afraid of this, hence my post, "Who cares about the people of Iraq?", which was to keep people focused on the justification of the war, not to be distracted by the "liberation of the oppressed" hype.

Troops returning home, fathers reunited with their children- stock response tripe. I'm embarrassed for my country. You bunch of stupid hicks! Check to see if there is a hand up your ass, because you are nothing but puppets. Don't let the prestidigitators fool you.



Accountability is essential. Freedom means the freedom to think for yourself, not parrot nationalistic propaganda.

[billyfridge]

----Edited due to profound stupidity----

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 May 2003 - 18:45
I just saw on CNN that even if WMD are not found in Iraq, 81% of Americans consider the war on Iraq justified.

Are we really that stupid and brainwashed?

I have to wonder where CNN polled to get such results. A VFW Post?

At our homeowners Assn. meeting last night my sense was that 81% of the people out here think Bush is an idiot. And Colorado is a staunchly Republican state.
We are facing school closures, library closures, lay offs of firefighters ( in the middle of a drought, after the massive wildfires of last year!) and police,etc., etc., etc. and Bush wants a massive tax cut.
He has already spent billions prosecuting the war and proposes to spend billions more to rebuild Iraq ( although much of that will come back here via Halliburton...oh wait, that's right, large corporations don't pay taxes, do they? Nevermind.) and still thinks he can increase his popularity by shoving through a tax cut which even some Republicans gag on.
Many folks around here wish Bush's plane had missed the flight deck last night.

Oddly enough, Bush in a flight suit looks even dumber than Bush in his cowboy outfit.

[myfiles3000]

Percentage of americans who believed in early march that SH was involvedin the 9/11 attacks: 45
weeks before this poll was taken that president bush said that he "can't make the claim" of such a link: 5

[hobbes]

But worse than Dukakis in a tank?

Patriotism is great, we all love the opportunities we have as Amercian citizens, but we must always question and always justify the actions of our government.

Several have stated that the current regime is out to distract the American public of hardships at home, by counting on their patriotic support of troops abroad. Lets hope its not that superficial.

38 hours and 6 beers later, still more insightful than the average beer swilling, Jerry Springer watching, crossdressing American.

[Skillian]

the only thing that's going to result from 'freeing iraq' is hordes of
hairy asse'd arabs coming to uk with their hands out saying 'where's my benefits, house,car, and job. i don't think they get away with it in the US
but they do in the UK, and we're already full to overflowing. pissed off billyfridge

Yeah good one. <_<

The old oppressive regime was the reason Iraqis came looking for asylum. And since when do asylum seekers get a free car? :blink:

As for the topic at hand, that statistic is a little scary if it&#39;s true. I can understand it though, media manipulation is a clever thing. Toppling statues, reuniting families etc. are powerful images and makes it easy to think all is right with the world and a great president does a great job.

[myfiles3000]

Percentage of americans who believed in early march that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks: 45
Weeks before this poll was taken that president bush said that he "can&#39;t make the claim" of such a link: 5
--harpers index, may 03

as far as i&#39;m concerned it&#39;s no coincidence that the world&#39;s most powerful nation has such an apathetic, gullible electorate, nurtured by a lame duck media. there&#39;s just too much at stake to let reality get in the way.

[j2k4]

As usual in this situation, it is late, and I must get up early. I see I am outnumbered, too.....
I&#39;ll see what I can do tomorrow. :D

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 May 2003 - 20:20
As usual in this situation, it is late, and I must get up early. I see I am outnumbered, too.....
I&#39;ll see what I can do tomorrow. :D
Please do j2.

It&#39;s no fun agreeing amongst ourselves. :P

[hobbes]

Clocker,

Get the f*ck out of my head, I PM&#39;ed J2K4 the same message&#33;

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 May 2003 - 21:15
Clocker,

Get the f*ck out of my head, I PM&#39;ed J2K4 the same message&#33;
Well, you know it was inevitable that he&#39;d show up here anyway.

I&#39;m pretty sure that the word "prestidigitator" was a lure he couldn&#39;t resist.

Anyway, j2 is a articulate, thoughtful, occasionally lyrical apologist for the Dark Side.
Without some fresh blood this thread is going to sink like a stone to the bottom of the page.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+2 May 2003 - 23:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 2 May 2003 - 23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@2 May 2003 - 21:15
Clocker,

Get the f*ck out of my head, I PM&#39;ed J2K4 the same message&#33;
Well, you know it was inevitable that he&#39;d show up here anyway.

I&#39;m pretty sure that the word "prestidigitator" was a lure he couldn&#39;t resist.

Anyway, j2 is a articulate, thoughtful, occasionally lyrical apologist for the Dark Side.
Without some fresh blood this thread is going to sink like a stone to the bottom of the page. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;ve been up all night stewing, and still don&#39;t have time until after work.

I&#39;m giving up precious sleep to tell you this:

I wish you to use the intervening period here to entertain, imagine, and revel in the &#39;glory&#39; that we all missed out on when Al Gore lost the last Presidential Election.*

*Speaking of puppetry and presti-whatever, I believe Mr Lieberman would have been required to insert his LEFT hand in Al&#39;s nether regions to activate our armed forces on the occasion of 9/11. From there it would have been all downhill. I mean FURTHER downhill...

[clocker]

Oh plueeeze...

I assume that was just a diversionary post, meant to incite until you could do better.

Speculating how poorly ( or well ) Al Gore might have responded to world events since the election is irrelevant. Interesting science fiction perhaps, but hardly germane to this thread.

I know you can do better than "Well, Bush might suck, but Gore would&#39;ve been worse".

Take your time, j2, we all have time here. ;)

[J'Pol]

If you wish to decide whether US / UK liberation of Iraq was justified ask the Kurds, or the thousands tortured by the old regime, or the families of those in the mass graves.

All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.

Remember before the war started the American people said that if the regime stood down then their would be no need for war. The Saudi&#39;s said they would take them in and the U.S. agreed to this.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 13:43
If you wish to decide whether US / UK liberation of Iraq was justified ask the Kurds, or the thousands tortured by the old regime, or the families of those in the mass graves.

All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.

Remember before the war started the American people said that if the regime stood down then their would be no need for war. The Saudi&#39;s said they would&nbsp; take them in and the U.S. agreed to this.
Jmif,

You&#39;re coming in late here. Your point was covered in another thread, as I cited above.

We are all happy for the free people of Iraq, but if you think Dubya did this for them you are mistaken. They are just a great PR distraction to justify the invasion of a country.

Dubya declared that he was "liberating " Iraq because the UN was worthless and that he knew that Iraq had WMD and links to Al-Queda and he did not have the luxury of waiting until the next terrorist attack before doing something about it.


How do you think other Middle Eastern countries feel about this. Are we next? Will Dubya point his finger at use next, call us evil then invade? Lots of dictators out their suppressing alot of people. Should we just embark on a worldwide "Freedom" tour? Iraq is a drop in the bucket on a global scale.

We invaded Iraq on shaky grounds and as I have said, only the discovery of WMD will retrospectively justify the war. I am no fancy pants liberal. I supported Dubya and took him at his word. I just want him to make good on it and not try to distract me with side issues (freeing Iraq).

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@3 May 2003 - 13:34
Oh plueeeze...

I assume that was just a diversionary post, meant to incite until you could do better.

Speculating how poorly ( or well ) Al Gore might have responded to world events since the election is irrelevant. Interesting science fiction perhaps, but hardly germane to this thread.

I know you can do better than "Well, Bush might suck, but Gore would&#39;ve been worse".

Take your time, j2, we all have time here. ;)
The parallel universe fantasy. What would be happening today if Gore were President? I would be interested to see, just out of curiousity.

Just like in the 80&#39;s, we all had those post-apocalyptic fantasies. Sure, we really didn&#39;t want global nuclear war, but it was kind of fun to think about what it would be like to be among a handful of survivors in a world left mostly intact, but bereft of humans. I think someone even wrote a book about, but using viruses, not war. I think his name was Teven Sing or something like that?

[J'Pol]

I love the who&#39;s next question. The - what are we going to do next, overthrow another evil dictator.

Sorry if you think me naive but why not. I think it was Rumsfeld (sorry about the spelling) who when asked "who next" replied something like, I don&#39;t know we&#39;ll have to spin a bottle.

My point is a simple one. I don&#39;t care about justifying this. The fact is that millions of people&#39;s lives are enhanced and will keep getting better. That is enough for me.

Incidentally I don&#39;t see how I can have come in half way through. I thought I had read the thread from the start. I have also posted similarly to this elsewhere, so I would appreciate it if you were a little less patronising. However that&#39;s a matter for you. It&#39;s a free world, at least for some of us.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 16:32
I love the who&#39;s next question. The - what are we going to do next, overthrow another evil dictator.

Sorry if you think me naive but why not. I think it was Rumsfeld (sorry about the spelling) who when asked "who next" replied something like, I don&#39;t know we&#39;ll have to spin a bottle.

My point is a simple one. I don&#39;t care about justifying this. The fact is that millions of people&#39;s lives are enhanced and will keep getting better. That is enough for me.

Incidentally I don&#39;t see how I can have come in half way through. I thought I had read the thread from the start. I have also posted similarly to this elsewhere, so&nbsp; I would appreciate it if you were a little less patronising. However that&#39;s a matter for you. It&#39;s a free world, at least for some of us.
By late, I meant the forum, in general. Notice, I said this was discussed in another THREAD, not post. I was not attempting to patronize, but I just hadn&#39;t seen your name in this forum before. I had two prior threads on this subject: http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act...ST&f=41&t=25999 (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=25999) and http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act...ST&f=41&t=26819 (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/bb/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=26819)

In these threads, I stressed that we keep focused on the justification, and not be lead astray by emotional distractions. I wanted the US to come out of this loking like "the good guys" and that could only come from full accountability.

The people of Iraq are free and that is nice, but if we cannot justify our invasion of a Muslim country, how do you think that will fare longterm with countries in the Middle East and elsewhere who don&#39;t trust us to begin with. Very destabilizing.


I posted this thread to acknowledge that my fears had come to fruition. People no longer care about WMD and have been lead by emotion. Pawns, simple minded sheep. So easily distracted.





If you don&#39;t care about justification, then you are saying that the means justify the end. I discussed this before:

"So, at this point, the US is justifying its means to the end, which is the same logic given to many historic atrocities. Heck, we could just round up all near sighted people and kill them, and justify it by saying that all future generations will have children with perfect vision. Small price to pay for such a long term benefit."


Hope you don&#39;t wear glasses ;) . But if you do, you will die gladly knowing that someday nobody will need them, and that&#39;s enough for you.


Anyway, that is why I feel that justification is so important and why I am so disappointed in the labile emotions of the American people.

[J'Pol]

I think I said I don&#39;t care about justifying this.

If you chose to quote me please also read what I have written, within it&#39;s context.

I was merely expressing my opinion, which is obviously very different to yours.

I genuinely am more interested in the people who are liberated and how their lives have improved. I understand that you may feel your sense of discomfort is more important than that, however I tend to take very simplistic views.

Atrocities and terror, subjected on an entire nation, by it&#39;s own rulers has been ended. This is a good thing.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 17:46
I think I said I don&#39;t care about justifying this.

If you chose to quote me please also read what I have written, within it&#39;s context.

I was merely expressing my opinion, which is obviously very different to yours.

I genuinely am more interested in the people who are liberated and how their lives have improved. I understand that you may feel your sense of discomfort is more important than that, however I tend to take very simplistic views.

Atrocities and terror, subjected on an entire nation, by it&#39;s own rulers has been ended. This is a good thing.
I see your point.

You favor the removal of an oppressive government to liberate the people. You don&#39;t care about "political justifications" to assuage the UN and neighboring countries.

That&#39;s fine, but I think somewhat shortsighted.



It&#39;s just that I live in America. I go to the ballpark, the mall, to work without a thought in my head of terrorist acts. I don&#39;t worry about car bombs or suicide missions and I&#39;d like to keep it that way.

I fear that irresposibile acts by my government, may cause short term gains in Iraq, but effect long term consequences where I live.

Any nation with a dictator can now see the US a potential threat. We will make up some excuse for the media(WMD), invade to achieve a hidden agenda (oil, uranium, whatever), and then woo our populace into approval by showing the liberated people of the country. Nice little racket.

This type of perception by the world would really cause a serious increase in the risk of another 9/11. Not only that, but consider China. They have WMD, an oppressive government, maybe they will see us as a threat. You don&#39;t want to piss off the Chinese because these gangsta&#39;s don&#39;t play.

I don&#39;t want to get Russia against us again, we have come so far.

Well before this turns into a total ramble, my point is that short term gains can become long term disasters because of the ripple effect. I want us quell that wake, by delivering to the world what we promised.


A luxury I enjoy is pretending that soccer/baseball/add your sport matches are important. That&#39;s the kind of secure world I want to live in. No bombs in the bus station and blimps of death at the Super Bowl.

[J'Pol]

I see the problem, you are looking at this totally on the basis of how it will effect America&#39;s standing on the world stage. Either short term or long term.

I am seeing it from the point of view of the people you / we liberated. I think the risks we took were acceptable given the results we achieved. There may be longer term rammifications, I accept that. It is how we deal with the future that will determine how that works out.

In the meantime go to sleep tonight thinking of the milllions of people who can now do the same without worrying quite so much about what tommorrow will bring.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 18:58


I think the risks we took were acceptable given the results we achieved.
You and I, we didn&#39;t take any risks. We just watched other people die on TV while we sat around musing risk vs. benefit. Would you hold the same opinion if your boy had died there.

If George Bush had come to my door and said, "Saddam Hussein is abusing his people, we need to free them. Get your gun and follow me". I would have shut the door in his face, just like the parents of all those who have died would of. I&#39;d tell him that there are lots of bad men, I don&#39;t have any interest in Iraq and there is a self help option available called, "revolution". Give them my best.

If he said that Saddam Hussien was a threat to my way of life and the safety of my children (which is what he said), I would have gone.


Do you want to suit up and fire the first bullet to free the Congo or do you want to sit at home and talk about acceptable risks? If you say "yes", I salute you for your idealism and valor.

[J'Pol]

Again with the selective quoting.

If you look at the context, particularly just before that sentence, when I say "you / we" it is obvious that I am using the words as plural and talking about our nations. The "we" immediately thereafter is quite obviously referring to the USA and the UK. I never said or implied you and me.

Incidentally I have taken serious risks (including life threatening ones) for what I believe in. I am now 42 and it is unlikely that I will be required to fight for my country, though I do continue to take risks for what I believe in.

If someone is old enough to be called to arms, then they are old enough to decide how to respond.

I hope you aren&#39;t just using emotional topics and language to validate your point of view. Now that would be wrong, wouldn&#39;t it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 06:43


All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.
That is, to put it mildly, a pile of crap.

Prove it.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 20:03
Again with the selective quoting.

If you look at the context, particularly just before that sentence, when I say "you / we" it is obvious that I am using the words as plural and talking about our nations. The "we" immediately thereafter is quite obviously referring to the USA and the UK. I never said or implied you and me.

Incidentally I have taken serious risks (including life threatening ones) for what I believe in. I am now 42 and it is unlikely that I will be required to fight for my country, though I do continue to take risks for what I believe in.

If someone is old enough to be called to arms, then they are old enough to decide how to respond.

I hope you aren&#39;t just using emotional topics and language to validate your point of view. Now that would be wrong, wouldn&#39;t it.
I intentionally reduced the "we" down to the extreme (you and me), to make a point, not to distort what you were saying.

Anyone can talk philisophically about what should be done by someone else. But at some point, idealism meets reality, and that is when a gun is put in your hand. Are you willing to take it for THIS cause (freeing the Iraqi people)?

I am not, are you ( I have magically made you 21 again)? How about the Congo. Oppressed people, just like Iraq.

I respect you for endangering you life for what you believe in, I&#39;m just asking if you believe in dying for Iraq?

I agree with you that evoking stock response sympathy to win favor is cheap (women, children, puppy dogs), and I don&#39;t engage in it. I just wanted to test your philosophical resolve.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+3 May 2003 - 20:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 May 2003 - 20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@3 May 2003 - 06:43


All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.
That is, to put it mildly, a pile of crap.

Prove it. [/b][/quote]
Clocker knows crap, that&#39;s for sure&#33; He is the avatar ass-master.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+3 May 2003 - 20:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 May 2003 - 20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@3 May 2003 - 06:43


All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.
That is, to put it mildly, a pile of crap.

Prove it. [/b][/quote]
Which part is crap erudite boy.

I base this statement on a debate I listened to, which included a couple of political commentators from the Middle East. By that I mean from the region, living in it and commentating on it. They expressed the belief that the anti war marches would give Hussain reason to believe that the USA would not go into Iraq as it would be unpopular, on a worldwide basis.

The big marches in the UK would also mean that we would not support you (plural) and as such you would not wish to go to war, as you would be totally isolated.

They expressed the strong opinion that this would lead to him being even more recalcitrant then usual and would not step down. ergo the war would become more likely.

I listened to this, from people who seemed to know what they were talking about and concluded that it was probably correct.

You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.

[j2k4]

It seems the boat may have sailed :o

I&#39;ll try to.....respond....to...ah...well...

After having missed so much, I can only do this on the cheap, as time is still short.

An array of you are insisting, in this case, on a resurrection of segregation-as it applies to the fly-specks and pepper of Dubya&#39;s foreign-policy.

I won&#39;t attempt that, but:

Hobbes-

You demand accountability, attack from several fronts (lives lost, big oil, imperialist tendencies, ad infinitum), then meekly admit you&#39;d be satisfied if we&#39;d only find WMD?
If the WMD is eventually found, whether it be somewhere in Iraq, or Syria, or wherever else, will you still be satisfied?
The media has been making a collective ass of itself by demanding, from the backseat, "ARE WE THERE YET?" Please don&#39;t tell me you wish to join THAT chorus?
Don&#39;t you find it the least bit curious that (depending on which poll) between 60-80% of U.S. citizens (which, given polling practices in the U.S., constitutes a majority of Democrats-most polls are conducted in urban settings, phone polls, too) have said they supported the effort, period, and 80% of THEM had no qualms about the pretext for Saddam&#39;s removal?
Blood/oil/empire lust must be awfully catchy.
Anyway, they&#39;re not done looking, and as the Libs are demanding that we effectively police and rebuild the entire country of Iraq, set up a new government, find Saddam and his cronies, involve the U.N., apologize to France, Germany, Russia, AND the Hollywood left, drastically reduce the on-site presence, stay out of Syria, establish Palestine, calm Israel, hunt for terrorists, and keep Afghanistan propped up, just to cite a FEW objectives, the hunt for WMD is, for now, necessarily and justifiably compromised.

I&#39;m afraid I&#39;ve gone a bit afield here; but why is everyone so quick to condemn the U.S., and Dubya in particular?
Under the best of circumstances, no president has more than eight years to enact, or try to enact, his platform. I&#39;ve forgotten what his platform was, it&#39;s been so long since he&#39;s had anything on his plate that didn&#39;t have as it&#39;s genesis the horrible events of 9/11. In effect, he&#39;s had to make it up as he goes along.
I AM NOT AN APOLOGIST for the short-comings of this administration; there are plenty, especially on the domestic side, but some of these things are lacking nothing other than stewardship (such things as judicial appointments, border control, etc.) that can only come from the man himself. The Democrats are attempting to capitalize on this lack of oversight, and are, for the most part, showing how philosophically barren and bereft they are.
They bitch alot, but where are the ideas (Opening HERE for proud Democrat to step to the plate)?

I could go on (and will attempt to, later), but you jerks ran this thread onto the second page, thus precluding me from continuing without reviewing your posts :angry: .

You guys..........you&#39;re just exercising me, aren&#39;t you? :D

[hobbes]

What is that meek about WMD? That is all I want, period.

I am neither for nor against Bush, he just happens to be in charge.

Bush justified the coalition attack on Iraq by declaring firmly that it has weapons of mass destruction, as well as chemical and biological weapons. He was not willing to wait for the next 9/11 to do something and was tired of listening to the impotent UN.

Ok, fine. Iraq is a threat to US security, linked to Al-queda- Go, George go&#33;

Ok, where are the weapons, where are the links?

Meanwhile, we see stirring images of freed people, statues toppling, and humanitarian aid on the way. We start to get the warm fuzzies and before you know it, 81% don&#39;t think we need to find those weapons anymore. Got distracted by the shining baubles.


I am not condemning Bush at all, I&#39;m just waiting to see what he told they had to justify his invasion. It is not really me, that needs to see them, it is those countries who don&#39;t trust us to begin with. If they aren&#39;t there, it will just confirm that we are the liars that they already think we are. Imperialists set on raping Iraq of it&#39;s oil. What is our defense?



The sole point of this thread was to point out that people can be so easily distracted. I am willing to give George all the time he needs, and I still have trust in my government. So I haven&#39;t closed this case file yet, just jotting down interesting notes about a very distractable populace and the fact that I predicted this would happen.


J2, you know I don&#39;t join choirs, they would just obscure my lovely voice.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@3 May 2003 - 13:35


You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.
Oh, I arrived at my position after watching some guys on tv.

They seemed to know what they were talking about.

[clocker]

Falling Back to Taliban Ways with Women
By Zama Coursen-Neff and John Sifton
International Herald Tribune
Tuesday, January 21, 2003

NEW YORK -- In the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, the government of the warlord Ismail Khan recently applied new rules rolling back educational opportunities for women and girls. Men may no longer teach women or girls in private classes. Girls and boys are no longer allowed to be in school buildings at the same time. The effect of the ban will be to block many women and girls from attending private courses. There is a shortage of women teachers; almost all the teachers in private courses are men.

The new rules are especially cruel now. Many women and girls are studying hard to make up for the six years lost under the Taliban. They have been using private classes in English, computers and basic subjects to supplement formal schooling.

The order has created a local uproar. As one Afghan woman said, "It is a very strong kind of discrimination against women getting education." She was resentful of the authorities&#39; suspicions. "All the time they suspect girls of immorality," she said.

Unfortunately, the situation in Herat is not unique. All over Afghanistan, especially outside the capital, progress on female education is being compromised by the behavior of ultra-conservative local leaders, allies of the U.S.-led coalition in the war against the Taliban. They used their connections to the United States to seize power but then embraced some of the Taliban&#39;s most odious restrictions.

Hundreds of thousands of girls and women have returned to schools and universities across the country. But "only the doors to the schools are open," a young women in Herat told us. "Everything else is restricted." Even education is now under assault. In the north and east, girls&#39; schools have been burned or shelled (luckily, when closed). Leaders in some southern provinces have allowed police forces to threaten women and girls going to school. Pamphlets have been secretly distributed warning families against sending their daughters to school.

Attacks on female education are linked to the growing power of fundamentalist groups. In many areas, police are imposing supposedly Islamic rules on women and girls, many of which appall ordinary Afghans.

Officials in the north and west have pressured women not to work for foreign organizations. Herat police have forced women to wear the all-encompassing burqa and have subjected women and girls seen with unrelated men to forced "chastity" examinations at the local hospital.

Local police in several areas near Kabul have shut down wedding parties for playing music, harassed shopkeepers selling music or movies, and beaten up musicians.

Donor countries involved in Afghanistan should increase their pressure on the Afghan warlords to stop targeting women and girls. The right to education, and women&#39;s rights generally, should be emphasized by donors as Afghanistan&#39;s new constitution is drafted and then elections are held in 2004.

Donors should make sure that Afghan women&#39;s groups get adequate support and funding, not just in Kabul but throughout the country. Women and girls must have the right to use their education: to work, speak publicly about the government and women&#39;s rights, and participate in the decisions that affect them.


The writers, who have traveled widely in Afghanistan, are researchers for Human Rights Watch and authors of its recent report on women in Afghanistan.


Home | Current Events | News | Publications | About HRW | Documents by Country | Global Issues | Campaigns | Contribute | What You Can Do | Community | Book Store | Film Festival | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | Press Contacts | Privacy Policy

© Copyright 2003, Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA



Given how well we&#39;re doing in Afghanistan, I can hardly wait to see how the Iraqi people enjoy the freedoms we just endowed upon them.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+3 May 2003 - 23:07--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 May 2003 - 23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@3 May 2003 - 13:35


You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.
Oh, I arrived at my position after watching some guys on tv.

They seemed to know what they were talking about. [/b][/quote]
Oh well I can&#39;t argue with that.

Unfortunately the debate I referred to was not on television, so I can&#39;t put the same stock in my sources as you can in yours.

Excellent proof by the way.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by JmiF+4 May 2003 - 00:02--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JmiF @ 4 May 2003 - 00:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -clocker@3 May 2003 - 23:07
<!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@3 May 2003 - 13:35


You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.
Oh, I arrived at my position after watching some guys on tv.

They seemed to know what they were talking about.
Oh well I can&#39;t argue with that.

Unfortunately the debate I referred to was not on television, so I can&#39;t put the same stock in my sources as you can in yours.

Excellent proof by the way.[/b][/quote]
He was poking fun at you. You heard it from some commentators, so he countered by saying that he saw it on tv. He mimicked your expression as well, "they seemed to know what they were talking about".

Understated humor, he didn&#39;t even throw in a smiley or wink, the bastard.


The interesting point is that our freedoms are different than freedom under Islamic law. You will find no freedom of the press, freedom of religion, women on par with men.

So at best, basic freedom, no HBO, no Showtime.

Goes back to my point, do you want to die for this type of freedom? For a bunch of people who regard anyone not sharing their religious beliefs to be infidels.

I think Iraq will fare better than Afghanistan as the US has a vested interest in creating a stable government before they leave, lest Iran come over the border to assist. Too much oil there to leave the country in the hands of Ethnicity based warlords.

Anyway, I&#39;ve said more than my share.

Jmif....With Clocker around, watch out for sarcasm.


I can only stay serious for so long, then I start to ponder things like........What if Ross Perot were incharge, or is he........ hmmmm. Running the country from a bunker in Texas.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 May 2003 - 21:20
It seems the boat may have sailed :o

Hobbes-

You demand accountability, attack from several fronts (lives lost, big oil, imperialist tendencies, ad infinitum), then meekly admit you&#39;d be satisfied if we&#39;d only find WMD?
If the WMD is eventually found, whether it be somewhere in Iraq, or Syria, or wherever else, will you still be satisfied?
The media has been making a collective ass of itself by demanding, from the backseat, "ARE WE THERE YET?" Please don&#39;t tell me you wish to join THAT chorus?
Don&#39;t you find it the least bit curious that (depending on which poll) between 60-80% of U.S. citizens (which, given polling practices in the U.S., constitutes a majority of Democrats-most polls are conducted in urban settings, phone polls, too) have said they supported the effort, period, and 80% of THEM had no qualms about the pretext for Saddam&#39;s removal?
Blood/oil/empire lust must be awfully catchy.
Anyway, they&#39;re not done looking, and as the Libs are demanding that we effectively police and rebuild the entire country of Iraq, set up a new government, find Saddam and his cronies, involve the U.N., apologize to France, Germany, Russia, AND the Hollywood left, drastically reduce the on-site presence, stay out of Syria, establish Palestine, calm Israel, hunt for terrorists, and keep Afghanistan propped up, just to cite a FEW objectives, the hunt for WMD is, for now, necessarily and justifiably compromised.

I&#39;m afraid I&#39;ve gone a bit afield here; but why is everyone so quick to condemn the U.S., and Dubya in particular?
Under the best of circumstances, no president has more than eight years to enact, or try to enact, his platform. I&#39;ve forgotten what his platform was, it&#39;s been so long since he&#39;s had anything on his plate that didn&#39;t have as it&#39;s genesis the horrible events of 9/11. In effect, he&#39;s had to make it up as he goes along.
I AM NOT AN APOLOGIST for the short-comings of this administration; there are plenty, especially on the domestic side, but some of these things are lacking nothing other than stewardship (such things as judicial appointments, border control, etc.) that can only come from the man himself. The Democrats are attempting to capitalize on this lack of oversight, and are, for the most part, showing how philosophically barren and bereft they are.
They bitch alot, but where are the ideas (Opening HERE for proud Democrat to step to the plate)?

I could go on (and will attempt to, later), but you jerks ran this thread onto the second page, thus precluding me from continuing without reviewing your posts :angry: .

You guys..........you&#39;re just exercising me, aren&#39;t you? :D
J2,

What is up with these word bricks? C&#39;mon give us some spacing, make your posts both eloquent and aesthetic.

In a hurry or something? I picture you hammering the keyboard with one hand, a cup of coffee in the other, a sandwich in your mouth, with a jacket half-way on.

I think it&#39;s a shame that we all have jobs that interfere with out time on this forum. It&#39;s just not right.

[clocker]

Democracy&#39;s push, theocracy&#39;s pull

In war&#39;s wake: Is the Middle East bound for resurgence of radical Islam?

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – The startling explosion of Shiite passion in Iraq is forcing US officials to contemplate the possibility that by toppling Saddam Hussein they have made the region safe for theocracy rather than democracy.
There are many reasons to believe that Iraq will not end up as a mullah-controlled state - the next Iran. Shiites, while a majority in Iraq, must still strike some governing arrangement with sizable Sunni Muslim and Kurdish minorities. Iraqi Shiites are themselves split over how much religion should be intertwined with civil affairs.




But at the least the end of Mr. Hussein&#39;s police state has opened a land bridge between Iran&#39;s ruling clerics and Hizbullah and other Shiite-dominated terror groups to the west. The new boldness of Iraq&#39;s religious leaders could inspire long-oppressed Shiite populations from Syria to Saudi Arabia.

"Suddenly the Shia are feeling their time in history has arrived," says Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University in Washington.

On Wednesday Shiites celebrated the final day of their pilgrimage to a holy shrine in the central Iraqi city of Karbala. The pilgrimage was long banned by Saddam Hussein, who also murdered many leading Shiite clerics and brutally suppressed an uprising in the Shiite-dominated south of the country following the end of the Gulf War of 1991.

The pilgrimage has been marked by an eruption of piety among the faithful, and by chants of anti-Hussein, anti-American, and anti-Israeli slogans.

Asked about the demonstrations, retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, civil head of Iraq until a new government is established, said Wednesday that they were evidence of the new freedom that Iraqis have to dissent. He also said a number of them were staged - presumably by Iranian agents said to have infiltrated Iraq in the wake of US forces."A majority of the people realize we&#39;re only going to stay here long enough to start a democratic government for them," General Garner said.

Shiites are a minority in Islam as a whole, making up some 10 to 20 percent of all Muslims. They believe that Islam&#39;s leader should be a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, while the majority Sunni branch of Islam has held that the religion&#39;s leader should be chosen by consensus.

In Iraq, Shiites are a majority of around 60 percent. Yet Sunnis have dominated the country from its founding in the wake of World War I through Hussein&#39;s tyranny.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq US officials seemed most worried that it was the Kurds, in the north, who would be the country&#39;s most independence-minded population. CIA and Special Forces officials did try to make contact with Shiite leaders, but had only moderate success.

One Shiite cleric who was working with the US, Abdul Majid Khoei, was murdered in Najaf earlier this month after returning to the country from exile in London. In retrospect this seems a sign of the turmoil to come.

Kept down by history and Saddam, the Shiites were bound to erupt, says Akbar Ahmed of American University. "The centrifugal forces have been released," he says. "If there is a democracy in Iraq ... the president will be Shia."

Furthermore, if Shiites do dominate the government, they might propose some sort of federation with Iran, Mr. Ahmed says. The result would be twin pillars of Shiite Islam - a nightmare for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and other Sunni-dominated states.

Iraq&#39;s neighbors are indeed watching the rise of the Shiites with trepidation, say sources in the region. Many worry that if the US is not careful, religious extremism could spread from the Israeli-occupied territories through Lebanon and the Gulf states, and into Syria and Jordan.

"The worry is there. We would be as displeased as the Americans," says a Jordanian government official.

But there are many reasons to believe that the current demonstrations do not reflect the full will of Iraq&#39;s Shiites, say experts.

Many Shiites in the country are followers of clerics who call for separation of "church and state" - though many others are indeed influenced by the Tehran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an exile group that has resisted US entreaties.

Furthermore, Iraqi Shiites are largely Arabs, while Iranians are Persians. And many are nationalistic enough to have fought without rebelling in Hussein&#39;s brutal war with Iran.

"Some Shiite leaders question whether Western democratic values are right for Iraq," says a Western diplomat in Jordan. "But the Shiites are not a unified group, and others have expressed openness to democracy."

FOR the short run, the US will probably try ensure that Iraq&#39;s government is a tripartite Shiite-Sunni-Kurd arrangement that allows all a measure of freedom, as in a federation. For the long run, the US is counting on the experience of sharing power, and the power of education, to accustom Iraqis to democracy instead of theocracy.

But if such civic life is seen by others in the region as being imposed on Iraq, the consequences could be very negative. The result could be further radicalization of Islamist groups, as is happening to some extent in Pakistan in response to the US expulsion of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"The clock is ticking, and the Americans have to quickly transfer power to the Iraqi people," said Jordan&#39;s King Abdullah in a broadcast interview on Tuesday. "The US has only one chance to get it right and win the peace."

• Danna Harman in Amman, Jordan, and Jane Lampman in Boston contributed to this report.









So, let&#39;s see...

As yet no evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry.
No credible links to al-Qaeada or 9/11.
Saddam Hussein seems to have disappeared.

We plan on gifting the blessings ( and benefits) of democracy on a part of the world which has shown zero interest in attaining them for themselves.
Somehow we are going to have free and open elections whilst preventing the Shiites, who just happen to be the majority, from gaining control and forming their own theocracy.
We have undermined any remaining credibility left to the U.N. and alienated many of our major (past) allies.
We have committed support, both monetary and personnel, for a as yet to be revealed amount of time.

Yup, sure smells like victory to me.
And 81% of my fellow sheep.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 May 2003 - 14:20


You guys..........you&#39;re just exercising me, aren&#39;t you? :D
Yup.

I was afraid that the vast quantities of bourbon and horsemeat you were planning to consume would leave you dazed and confused.

Back in the traces there Daisy, ya gots a long row to plow here... :P

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes+4 May 2003 - 00:30--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 4 May 2003 - 00:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -JmiF@4 May 2003 - 00:02

Originally posted by -clocker@3 May 2003 - 23:07
<!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@3 May 2003 - 13:35


You obviously disagree (given that you said it was crap). So how do you arrive at your position.

In other words - You prove it.
Oh, I arrived at my position after watching some guys on tv.

They seemed to know what they were talking about.
Oh well I can&#39;t argue with that.

Unfortunately the debate I referred to was not on television, so I can&#39;t put the same stock in my sources as you can in yours.

Excellent proof by the way.
He was poking fun at you. You heard it from some commentators, so he countered by saying that he saw it on tv. He mimicked your expression as well, "they seemed to know what they were talking about".

Understated humor, he didn&#39;t even throw in a smiley or wink, the bastard.



Jmif....With Clocker around, watch out for sarcasm.

[/b][/quote]
I find it interesting that you see sarcasm in his reply to me, while failing to see the irony in my reply to him.

Unless of course you thought I was serious when I described his proof as excellent.

I have conversed with clocker on several occasions and recognised his style instantly. An old diversionary tactic he uses, he hasn&#39;t actually answered the question, instead chosing to use humour as an effective tool.

I thought I could smell something strange in your first reply to me. It should have been obvious at that stage that you felt this thread was for the cogniscenti alone. My apologies for having wasted both your time and my own. I shall leave the debate to those who can more easily cope with it&#39;s intricacies.

Oh and yes I do understand sarcasm, but prefer irony (I never thought that clocker intended to hurt or offend me, which would be a pre-requisite for his post to be sarcasm).

[clocker]

JmiF = JPaul?

New member = 1460 posts?

I see that your participation in this topic has caused an overnight metamorphosis.

What have you become? :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by JPaul@3 May 2003 - 06:43


All your fancy-dan liberal debates, clever as they are, did not stop one rape or murder, or child living in constant terror.

In fact they along with the marches caused the situation where war became inevitable. They made the tyrant think that he had popular world support. Making the position impossible.


I&#39;ve gone back through the posts and realized where I made my error, JPaul.

I took the "in fact" statement literally.
Clearly, what you meant to say was "in my opinion".

I&#39;m sure that we can both agree that we are all entitled to hold any opinions we care to.

I shall simply remember in the future that you use the two phrases interchangably.

[j2k4]

Here&#39;s another short one (Hobbes: right about the jacket, wrong about the coffee; I don&#39;t have that much time, plus I do need the extra hand, as I am NOT a typist).

I&#39;ll apologize upfront for &#39;word bricks&#39;-I&#39;ve been to the Doctor: he prescribes ENTER key/SPACEBAR usage.

Clocker-you poor beast, having to attend those meetings of snooty people.
Boy, if I had to do THAT to live anywhere...
Re: your remark about "Staunchly Republican Colorado":
Colorado MAY exhibit some Republican tendencies on occasion, but they are strictly of an elitist/neo-con nature; the rest of the country looks upon Colorado as merely one time-zone short of California, kind of Marin-county Lite (no adware?).

As to budget concerns, a tax cut, in addition to intelligent use of available local monies, would be sufficient.
Problem being, no one wants to spend only that amount that accomodates inflation: "If we don&#39;t spend more this year, we&#39;re failing our children&#33;&#33;-OH, LORD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;" (Please excuse gratuitous religious reference).

Given everyone&#39;s general distaste for numbers, I&#39;ll recount only one very important statistic:
The federal government is projected to collect &#036;27.9 TRILLION dollars in tax revenue over the next ten years. This is based on "normal" growth, and assumes no catastrophic occurrences, i.e. total economic collapse (believe it or not, the war in Iraq doesn&#39;t qualify).

IF Congress and the Senate passed Dubya&#39;s entire &#036;750 BILLION tax cut, the government would still pull in &#036;27.2 TRILLION over that same ten years-hardly a "major" tax cut.

So, to be as polite as I can be, those who cry budget crises are jerking us off so they can keep what they have come to regard as their "folding money", which is, in reality, your tax &#39;contribution&#39; (LOVE that word).

I wish I could stay longer, but I&#39;m off to see a wizard (something about my &#39;heart of stone&#39;?) :P

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@4 May 2003 - 13:40


So, to be as polite as I can be, those who cry budget crises are jerking us off so they can keep what they have come to regard as their "folding money", which is, in reality, your tax &#39;contribution&#39; (LOVE that word).


I&#39;ll do my best to explain that to my parents who are losing their senior citizen homeowners tax rebate.
And who&#39;s prescription costs have nearly doubled in the past three years.
Who&#39;s HMO pulled out of the state 2 months ago.

It&#39;s likely that their definition of "folding money" differs slightly from yours.

On second thought, maybe that&#39;s a discussion I will leave for later.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+4 May 2003 - 17:47--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 May 2003 - 17:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@4 May 2003 - 13:40


So, to be as polite as I can be, those who cry budget crises are jerking us off so they can keep what they have come to regard as their "folding money", which is, in reality, your tax &#39;contribution&#39; (LOVE that word).


I&#39;ll do my best to explain that to my parents who are losing their senior citizen homeowners tax rebate.
And who&#39;s prescription costs have nearly doubled in the past three years.
Who&#39;s HMO pulled out of the state 2 months ago.

It&#39;s likely that their definition of "folding money" differs slightly from yours.

On second thought, maybe that&#39;s a discussion I will leave for later. [/b][/quote]
Clocker-

I apologize for the confusion; those who are loathe to give up the &#39;folding money&#39; I hereby identify as the politicians, and the bureaucrats who administer the programs which are presumed to be affected.

They are more concerned with justifying their existence by continuing to broaden their constituent base via cash injection in good times, and threatening that same constituency with oblivion when it becomes apparent that their own budgetary strategy is suspect.

As with everything today, it&#39;s always someone else&#39;s fault; in this case, it&#39;s Dubya&#39;s. :(