Iraqi women speak out

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Too bad our soldiers had to fight and die for their freedom instead of them fighting for it. Of course every time it gets dicey the Iraqi National Guard lays down their arms and heads for the hills or switches sides. As an American speaking for a lot of other Americans I can say that I could give a sh!t, that wasn't the reason I initially supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If it had been presented to us honestly I doubt that most of us would have supported it in the first place.

Did you know that in WWII 60% of US Troops were too scared to return fire when fired upon? A little statistic the history books leave out. We won by sheer numbers and industrial production. Iraq would have never fought for thier own freedom under Sadamm, that would be like saying the french could have freed themselves from Hitler.

You mean like they tried in 1991?

exactly. Even after the US wiped out his military, he still put the smack down on his oponents. Mant of them were subsequently tortured, murdered, and buried.

Uhh...but the U.S. *didn't* put the smackdown. Much of the Republican Guard was still intact. That's why the Shiite uprising was squashed.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Too bad our soldiers had to fight and die for their freedom instead of them fighting for it. Of course every time it gets dicey the Iraqi National Guard lays down their arms and heads for the hills or switches sides. As an American speaking for a lot of other Americans I can say that I could give a sh!t, that wasn't the reason I initially supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If it had been presented to us honestly I doubt that most of us would have supported it in the first place.

Did you know that in WWII 60% of US Troops were too scared to return fire when fired upon? A little statistic the history books leave out. We won by sheer numbers and industrial production. Iraq would have never fought for thier own freedom under Sadamm, that would be like saying the french could have freed themselves from Hitler.

You mean like they tried in 1991?

exactly. Even after the US wiped out his military, he still put the smack down on his oponents. Mant of them were subsequently tortured, murdered, and buried.

Uhh...but the U.S. *didn't* put the smackdown. Much of the Republican Guard was still intact. That's why the Shiite uprising was squashed.

because Saddam kept them in Baghdad, do you have a point?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Too bad our soldiers had to fight and die for their freedom instead of them fighting for it. Of course every time it gets dicey the Iraqi National Guard lays down their arms and heads for the hills or switches sides. As an American speaking for a lot of other Americans I can say that I could give a sh!t, that wasn't the reason I initially supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If it had been presented to us honestly I doubt that most of us would have supported it in the first place.

Did you know that in WWII 60% of US Troops were too scared to return fire when fired upon? A little statistic the history books leave out. We won by sheer numbers and industrial production. Iraq would have never fought for thier own freedom under Sadamm, that would be like saying the french could have freed themselves from Hitler.

You mean like they tried in 1991?

exactly. Even after the US wiped out his military, he still put the smack down on his oponents. Mant of them were subsequently tortured, murdered, and buried.

Uhh...but the U.S. *didn't* put the smackdown. Much of the Republican Guard was still intact. That's why the Shiite uprising was squashed.

because Saddam kept them in Baghdad, do you have a point?

You were implying they never tried to fight for their freedom. That's completely inaccurate. In fact, the Bush administration allowed the rebellions to be squashed as they had no idea who would be leading Iraq after Saddam was taken down. The Shiites were largely seen as pro-Iranian and the Kurds were seen as anti-Turk. Not a good combination to have, eh?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Too bad our soldiers had to fight and die for their freedom instead of them fighting for it. Of course every time it gets dicey the Iraqi National Guard lays down their arms and heads for the hills or switches sides. As an American speaking for a lot of other Americans I can say that I could give a sh!t, that wasn't the reason I initially supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If it had been presented to us honestly I doubt that most of us would have supported it in the first place.

Did you know that in WWII 60% of US Troops were too scared to return fire when fired upon? A little statistic the history books leave out. We won by sheer numbers and industrial production. Iraq would have never fought for thier own freedom under Sadamm, that would be like saying the french could have freed themselves from Hitler.

You mean like they tried in 1991?

exactly. Even after the US wiped out his military, he still put the smack down on his oponents. Mant of them were subsequently tortured, murdered, and buried.

Uhh...but the U.S. *didn't* put the smackdown. Much of the Republican Guard was still intact. That's why the Shiite uprising was squashed.

because Saddam kept them in Baghdad, do you have a point?

You were implying they never tried to fight for their freedom.

No, I implied that they had no chance of winning. Why do you argue so much over semantics and leave the real issues alone? Your like a pirahna sniffing a drop of blood in the water. You jump on typos like fly's on sh:t

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
You were implying they never tried to fight for their freedom.

No, I implied that they had no chance of winning. Why do you argue so much over semantics and leave the real issues alone? Your like a pirahna sniffing a drop of blood in the water. You jump on typos like fly's on sh:t

Iraq would have never fought for thier own freedom under Sadamm

Hmm...that's pretty plainly stating they ... uhh ... would have never fought for their own freedom.

😕

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
You were implying they never tried to fight for their freedom.

No, I implied that they had no chance of winning. Why do you argue so much over semantics and leave the real issues alone? Your like a pirahna sniffing a drop of blood in the water. You jump on typos like fly's on sh:t

Iraq would have never fought for thier own freedom under Sadamm

Hmm...that's pretty plainly stating they ... uhh ... would have never fought for their own freedom.

😕

and you know what I meant. Yes we all know about 1991, thank you mr historian.

Like I said, attacking my typo like a pirahna while the real issue is ignored. you are the master thread steerer.

 

[conjur]

Hey, all I did was bump the thread with an article showing another perspective.

You didn't have a typo. You made a false allegation.

 

[DealMonkey]

I think this is a skewed story, AKA the worst/best-case scenario. I mean we could quite easily tell a similar story about the U.S. using dmcowen674. I mean, you're familiar with his PoV on this country and what's going on under Bush, right? Should we fly him around the country to attend Democratic functions (or whatever) and describe how bad things are? 😉

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Iraqi women try to help Americans see the country through their eyes

Before Iraq's liberation, Ahood al-Fadhal spent her days preoccupied with how she and her husband would feed their three children.
The rice and flour they could get was buggy. Three brothers were killed by the regime of Saddam Hussein, and her husband was imprisoned for three years. In her lifetime, she never expected to see a free Iraq.

Since Saddam's overthrow, al-Fadhal finds life moving in directions previously unimaginable. She teaches literacy classes and writes a biweekly newsletter for women; she was elected to a district council seat in Basra as an advocate for women's rights.
Al-Fadhal sat at Cafe Bernardo in Sacramento on Monday morning, describing how her life has changed since the war in Iraq began in March 2003.

"You (Americans) see (television images of) a lot of violence" in Iraq, and there is violence, she said. "But a lot of good things are happening to us. ... Un der Saddam, we had no rights, especially women. Women could not speak openly, even to their children, not even in their own homes."

Al-Fadhal is part of a group from Iraq touring the United States to tell Americans about the democratic "transformation," albeit slow, in their country. Their opportunity to give voice to the Iraqi experience comes at the invitation of the Iraq-American Freedom Alliance, a project of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Founded two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, FDD is a conservative nonprofit providing research and education on the war on terrorism.

Al-Fadhal, a real Iraqi woman speaking to the situation in her homeland, says most Iraqis are overwhelmingly grateful to the United States for freeing their country from tyranny.

With her is Zainab Al-Suwaij, executive director of the American Islamic Congress, and a frequent contributor to op-ed pages in her adopted country, America.

At age 19, Al-Suwaij was forced to flee Iraq after participating in a 1991 failed uprising against Saddam and resettled in the United States. Now she writes to try to explain to Americans why their presence in Iraq is needed.

Because television images focus on the negative, Americans have a distorted view of what's happening in Iraq, both women said.

"When I come here and watch TV, I think this is the end of Iraq. It's over," al-Suwaij said. In Iraq, however, she sees a country "taking baby steps" toward democracy. She says the economy is booming. Schools are improving. Women fill 25 percent of elected positions, a milestone not seen even in the United States.

"Yes, security is a problem and sometimes there is no electricity and no water," al-Suwaij said, "but at the end of the day when we put our head on the pillow, Saddam is gone and that alone brings us great satisfaction. That allows us hope."

Much of the anti-American sentiment is by those who lost power, together with foreign terrorists who've come into the country through unsecured borders, and the disenfranchised young, the women said. "There is a large population of young Iraqis who don't have jobs, didn't receive schooling and now they are getting money to fight against the Americans and the new democracy," al-Suwaij said.

One of the United States' biggest mistakes, they said, was not securing the borders to keep radical extremists out. To hear them tell it, America's presence is not a mistake.

"A lot of (Iraqi) mothers come to me and say to tell the mothers in America thank you for sending us your sons and daughters, the soldiers, to help us," she said. "We pray for them, the soldiers."

The changes are nearly impossible to comprehend by someone whose country is free, they said. As a young oppressed woman, al-Suwaij recalled wondering, "When is my life going to start?"

Al-Fadhal's three children no longer struggle with the same question. Their father owns a small kitchen and appliance store. The children are mesmerized by computers and the Internet.

More evidence of how their world has changed: Today, their mother meets face-to-face with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

CsG

Nice find, Cad. The part that strikes me most deeply is

The changes are nearly impossible to comprehend by someone whose country is free, they said.

I recall seeing a video of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities during the 1950's, where they interviewed a young woman who had immigrated to the US only 9 years after the Bolshevik Revolution. She testified about her experience as a young woman in Russia:

In my time we were a bunch of ragged, starved, dirty, miserable people who had only two thoughts in our mind. That was our complete terror -- afraid to look at one another, afraid to say anything for fear of who is listening and would report us -- and where to get the next meal. You have no idea what it means to live in a country where nobody has any concern except food, where all the conversation is about food because everybody is so hungry that that is all they can think about and that is all they can afford to do. They have no idea of politics. They have no idea of any pleasant romances or love-nothing but food and fear. That is what I saw up to 1926.

It is almost impossible to convey to a free people what it is like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship. I can tell you a lot of details. I can never completely convince you, because you are free. It is in a way good that you can't even conceive of what it is like. Certainly they have friends and mothers-in-law. They try to live a human life, but you understand it is totally inhuman. Try to imagine what it is like if you are in constant terror from morning till night and at night you are waiting for the doorbell to ring, where you are afraid of anything and everybody, living in a country where human life is nothing, less than nothing, and you know it. You don't know who or when is going to do what to you because you may have friends who spy on you, where there is no law or any rights of any kind.

Every time I read that I have the hardest time holding back tears. It's impossible for me to understand how people--and we even have some on this forum--who can know and understand in essence (though not in absolute terms, obviously) what people in dictatorial nations live like, and yet they still stand in defense of those nations and call them "Sovereign." This is the height of ignorance, the pinnacle of a person with no regard for what is moral or just or true. That people should suffer under dictatorships is to me the grossest sin, and the refusal to help those we can help is the greatest moral negligence.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Too bad our soldiers had to fight and die for their freedom instead of them fighting for it. Of course every time it gets dicey the Iraqi National Guard lays down their arms and heads for the hills or switches sides. As an American speaking for a lot of other Americans I can say that I could give a sh!t, that wasn't the reason I initially supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If it had been presented to us honestly I doubt that most of us would have supported it in the first place.

Because hey, we've *got* our freedom, fvck the rest, right?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Here's a bump for a topic that deserves to be read *again*.

Jason