[crandc]

So now the US needs to occupy Iraq to protect women's rights?

Hmmm...this from the government that put the global gag rule back in place, cut off family planning funds, petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene in women's medical decisions, opposed equal pay, opposed sex education, replaced a moderate woman with a far right opponent of equal rights on the Supreme Court, oh yeah, but they love Iraqi women's rights.

The ever-shifting justifications for invading Iraq. They had illegal weapons, except they didn't. They attacked us on 9/11, except they didn't. To create a democratic stable country, except it isn't. To provide space for a political solution to emerge, except it hasn't. And now to protect women's rights.

News flash: women's rights ALWAYS go downhill during military occupations.

And let us not forget one in three American servicewomen report being raped or sexually abused by American servicemen. Yet, these men are supposed to protect Iraqi women's rights.

Here women in Iraq is a detailed, annotated study of the position of women in Iraq. I realize it is not as authoritative as a conspiracy theory web site or a 3 year old email. Here are some of the survey results:

• 71.2% of respondents said they do not feel protected by U.S./U.K. soldiers, and 65.3% of
respondents said that, overall, the presence of U.S./U.K. security forces in Iraq is
making security in the country worse.

• 67.9% of respondents stated that their ability to walk down the street as they please has gotten
worse since the U.S. invasion.

76.2% of respondents said that girls in their families are not allowed to attend school, and
56.7% said that girls’ ability to attend school has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion

And that does not begin to cover Afghanistan, where observers have said the position of women and girls is the worst it has ever been. Even worse than under the Taliban, although that did not seem possible.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by crandc

So now the US needs to occupy Iraq to protect women's rights?

Hmmm...this from the government that put the global gag rule back in place, cut off family planning funds, petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene in women's medical decisions, opposed equal pay, opposed sex education, replaced a moderate woman with a far right opponent of equal rights on the Supreme Court, oh yeah, but they love Iraqi women's rights.

The ever-shifting justifications for invading Iraq. They had illegal weapons, except they didn't. They attacked us on 9/11, except they didn't. To create a democratic stable country, except it isn't. To provide space for a political solution to emerge, except it hasn't. And now to protect women's rights.

News flash: women's rights ALWAYS go downhill during military occupations.

And let us not forget one in three American servicewomen report being raped or sexually abused by American servicemen. Yet, these men are supposed to protect Iraqi women's rights.

Here women in Iraq is a detailed, annotated study of the position of women in Iraq. I realize it is not as authoritative as a conspiracy theory web site or a 3 year old email. Here are some of the survey results:



And that does not begin to cover Afghanistan, where observers have said the position of women and girls is the worst it has ever been. Even worse than under the Taliban, although that did not seem possible.

Okay then. I'll mark you down for preferring the Taliban and the Iranian Mullahs to govern how women are treated. My opinion is that women will be treated better under strong democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we'll agree to disagree.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Okay then. I'll mark you down for preferring the Taliban and the Iranian Mullahs to govern how women are treated. My opinion is that women will be treated better under strong democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we'll agree to disagree.

A fallacy a fallacy..I think I see a fallacy....a fal-la-see!

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Hap

A fallacy a fallacy..I think I see a fallacy....a fal-la-see!

Notice how crandc didn't disagree with my contention. It's pretty clear that she'd prefer us to leave because women would be safer. If we split the scene, is there any doubt as to what would fill the vacuum? So, where's the fallacy?

[Dan]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Notice how crandc didn't disagree with my contention. It's pretty clear that she'd prefer us to leave because women would be safer. If we split the scene, is there any doubt as to what would fill the vacuum? So, where's the fallacy?

The fallacy is a clear and present example of a false dilemma. Her bringing up that things currently aren't all peaches and cream in regards to women, does not therefore mean that she (or anyone who shares her belief about how poorly things are for women) prefers or supports the previous regimes or how they treated women.

That is a tried and true fallacy that people use. Well, you must obviously support how things were BEFORE (when things were bad) if you think things are bad now. It's not a case of supporting it.

If the argument is made that things are doing really good right now (as thats what this email is about), and she brings up that things for women are as bad (if not worse) now than how they were before, that doesn't mean she prefers that style of government. It just means she's pointing out that A: the email is out-dated and B: if things ARE good/better, it's not universally better for both men AND women.

It's like in the episode of M*A*S*H, where Hawkeye vows to stop drinking for a week. Everyone else gets tired of how he is off the bottle, and tell him about it. So after Hot Lips tells him that they've had it "up to here" with his tea-totaling ways (he's being real presnickity about things), he barks back "Oh, I get it...you want me to start drinking again, don't you?"

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Hap

The fallacy is a clear and present example of a false dilemma. Her bringing up that things currently aren't all peaches and cream in regards to women, does not therefore mean that she (or anyone who shares her belief about how poorly things are for women) prefers or supports the previous regimes or how they treated women.

That is a tried and true fallacy that people use. Well, you must obviously support how things were BEFORE (when things were bad) if you think things are bad now. It's not a case of supporting it.

If the argument is made that things are doing really good right now (as thats what this email is about), and she brings up that things for women are as bad (if not worse) now than how they were before, that doesn't mean she prefers that style of government. It just means she's pointing out that A: the email is out-dated and B: if things ARE good/better, it's not universally better for both men AND women.

It's like in the episode of M*A*S*H, where Hawkeye vows to stop drinking for a week. Everyone else gets tired of how he is off the bottle, and tell him about it. So after Hot Lips tells him that they've had it "up to here" with his tea-totaling ways (he's being real presnickity about things), he barks back "Oh, I get it...you want me to start drinking again, don't you?"

I understood the point she was trying to make. And the argument isn't that everything is swell in Iraq, just that it's not the Hell on Earth that many claim it to be.

She even brings up the following point:

And that does not begin to cover Afghanistan, where observers have said the position of women and girls is the worst it has ever been. Even worse than under the Taliban, although that did not seem possible.

Is it unreasonable that she would prefer us leaving to us staying? She's seemed to have been pretty solidly on one side of that issue. Of course, speaking for her is somewhat insulting. She's perfectly capable of speaking for herself. In fact, in this thread she has already done so. I prefer to take her at her word.

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by hoojacks

Good news about Iraq!

Did you know Iraq has the highest population of unicorns per capita?

And if you don't believe that, then you just refuse to accept any good news coming out of Iraq.

[Fish Guy]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Gee, what a surprise. Any good news from Iraq is always greeted with skepticism and scorn around here. Sorry to disturb. Go on about your lives.

Oh what a shock you would take it like that!

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Call KXL on me pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!!!!!

















Whatever.

[crandc]

Instead of arguing over who speaks for me, why not just read the report?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by crandc

Instead of arguing over who speaks for me, why not just read the report?

Because I'm more interested in your position than that report. To help you to reveal it, I'll ask you a simple and direct question: Do you believe that it is in the long-term interest of Iraqi and Afghani women for us to withdraw leaving the status quo in both countries? Furthermore (since you had addressed it earlier), do you think the plight of women in our own military would be improved in the long run if we left Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Hector]

This is the dumbest argument over the Iraq War I've seen. Maybe there should be one thread for how women have fared, using Mash episodes to illustrate, and another thread for all the other issues.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Hector

This is the dumbest argument over the Iraq War I've seen. Maybe there should be one thread for how women have fared, using Mash episodes to illustrate, and another thread for all the other issues.

It's called an analogy.

[mook]

Side observation: the people who have been dead wrong the most about the Iraq occupation also seem to be the ones most dead certain about the results of us ending the occupation. If you were wrong about your rationale for going into the war (WMD), and you were wrong about how to occupy (greeted as liberators, small footprint, de-Baathificaiton), how can you expect to have any credibility on what will happen when we leave?

There's a reason why Republican fund raising is in the pits and they just lost three seats in the House that had been in districts that were solidly