[speechlesstx]

Iraq, "former home to a genocidal dictator that engaged in ethnic cleansing, use of WMD's, oppression, torture, environmental disasters, broken promises, threatened peace and stability elsewhere...
You know, until I realized that you were talking about genocide and Iraq, I was thinking of a completely different country... as far as I know, the States has engaged in torture, environmental disasters, broken promises, has actually broken peace and caused instability elsewhere. Interesting parallels there.

Well first of all I've never said the US was completely innocent, but I find it difficult - outrageous actually - to parallel the modern United States with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In my 47 years I can't recall the type of oppression of women here as they faced under Saddam; "honor killings," dates with "professional rapists," beheadings for suspicion of being a liar or prostitute, etc.

Quotes from Amnesty International, see if you can point out the parallels in official, systematic US treatment of prisoners (and no, 5 minutes of waterboarding and loud music don't count).

Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists for long hours. Electric shocks have been used on various parts of their bodies, including the genitals, ears, the tongue and fingers. Victims have described to Amnesty International how they have been beaten with canes, whips, hosepipe or metal rods and how they have been suspended for hours from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole often in contorted positions as electric shocks were applied repeatedly on their bodies. Some victims had been forced to watch others, including their own relatives or family members, being tortured in front of them.

Other methods of physical torture described by former victims include the use of Falaqa(beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus. In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and have been deprived of sleep. Some have stayed in solitary confinement for long periods. Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out...

Some women have been raped in custody. They were detained and tortured because they were relatives of well known Iraqi opposition activists living abroad. The security authorities use this method to put pressure on Iraqi nationals abroad to cease their activities. For example, on 7 June 2000 Najib al-Salihi, a former army general who fled Iraq in 1995 and joined the Iraqi opposition, was sent a videotape showing the rape of a female relative. Shortly afterwards he reportedly received a telephone call from the Iraqi intelligence service, asking him whether he had received the ''gift'' and informing him that his relative was in their custody.

In October 2000 dozens of women suspected of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process in Baghdad and other cities after they had been arrested and ill-treated. Men suspected of procurement were also beheaded. The killings were reportedly carried out in the presence of representatives of the Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Women's General Union. Members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994 by 'Uday Saddam Hussain, used swords to execute the victims in front of their homes. Some victims were reportedly killed in this manner for political reasons.

Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded in October 2000 apparently on suspicion of prostitution. However, she was reportedly arrested before the introduction of the policy to behead prostitutes and was said to have been critical of corruption within the health services.

A woman known as ''Um Haydar'' was beheaded reportedly without charge or trial at the end of December 2000. She was 25 years' old and married with three children. Her husband was sought by the security authorities reportedly because of his involvement in Islamist armed activities against the state. He managed to flee the country. Men belonging to Feda'iyye Saddamcame to the house in al-Karrada district and found his wife, children and his mother. Um Haydar was taken to the street and two men held her by the arms and a third pulled her head from behind and beheaded her in front of the residents. The beheading was also witnessed by members of the Ba'ath Party in the area. The security men took the body and the head in a plastic bag, and took away the children and the mother-in-law. The body of Um Haydar was later buried in al-Najaf. The fate of the children and the mother-in-law remains unknown...

N 1994 Iraq, through a series of decrees issued by the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), the highest legislative body in the country, introduced judicial punishments amounting to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments for at least 30 criminal offences, including theft in certain circumstances, monopolizing rationed goods, defaulting or deserting from military service and performing plastic surgery on an amputated arm or leg. The punishments consisted of the amputation of the right hand for a first offence, and of the left foot for a second offence, or the severance of one or both ears. People convicted under these decrees were also branded with an ''X'' mark on the forehead.(5) The Iraqi Government argued that the introduction of these severe punishments were in response to the rising crime rate resulting from worsening economic conditions as a result of the UN imposed sanctions. The punishment of amputation of the auricle of the ears and the branding of the foreheads were suspended in 1996 by the Iraqi Government, through RCC Decree 81/96.

Just like Gitmo, eh?

And regarding the money that the USA is putting into Africa, again, please note that there is a genocide going on. Money alone will not end that; troops will.

Right, and the African Union has insisted over and over that outside troops would not be needed and in that spirit the U.S. has offered since at least 2004 to help other African nations get their troops to Darfur. We have offered and furnished logistics support for this mission and our UN Security Council efforts have often been thwarted by other council members. As I noted originally we've offered to pay for 26 percent of the total cost of the mission, and seeing as how we're presently engaged in 2 countries and there are at least 192 other recognized countries in the world, how about they step and do something for a change?

Finally, if you were reading the news, you would see that many are now suggesting that paying millions for retrovirals is somewhat irrelevant, given that the big killers in Africa are malnutrition and mostly, a lack of potable water.

You can also throw Malaria in there, which could easily be controlled had the EPA not capriciously banned DDT. Besides the aid given by the U.S. - which has often been squandered by African 'leaders' and not directed to the people in need - Americans have privately contributed untold millions through groups like World Vision who have boots on the ground working directly with the needy providing clean water, food, seeds, education, shelter, etc.

Oh, and of course, one wouldn't need as many retrovirals if the Bush administration hadn't killed funding to any African clinics that so much as mention contraception (let alone offer it, my goodness!).

Facts, I say, facts. You may not want to delve very deeply into this subject with me. Being the father of a daughter suffering from AIDS, it's never irrelevant to provide antiretrovirals to one infected with HIV, and trust me, those purveyors of "protection" - Planned Parenthood - didn't do a thing to help her except allow her HIV to go undiagnosed until she had acquired full blown AIDS, lying in a hospital in San Diego with a CD4 count of 4 and aborting her only child. Antiretrovirals saved her life and I'm sure there are many an HIV sufferer in Africa grateful that Bush didn't consider giving them to be irrelevant.

Bush's funding to Africa only bars funds to groups like International Planned Parenthood that perform abortions. I'm sure there's enough private money here to go around to make up for that if it's that important to you. Otherwise, it promotes abstinence and faithfulness first, along with "correct and consistent condom use." Unlike PP Bush gets it, throwing condoms at people and facilitating abortions is not nearly as effective as changing the culture. Even the media and Bush critics have offered praise for Bush's aid to Africa:

Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa

Bush AIDS Fund Credited With Saving Lives

In Africa, Bush AIDS effort shines

It seems that we'll have to agree to disagree, but I suggest you may want to tune in more often to PBS' Bill Moyers more often and the main American national "newscasts" less. He has a free vodcast (available on iTunes) that is somewhat depressing but a good eye opener about current issues.

Thanks for the Moyers suggestion Jennifer, but Moyers is more than slightly a bit too biased for me. I do appreciate your input though, even if we don't see eye to eye. :)

Steve

[Jennifer Purdy]

Hi Steve,
"Abstinence and faithfulness". The issue, as always, is that it is not the men who endure unwanted pregnancies, and are blamed for getting pregnant, it's the women. And there is insufficient funding to enable clinics to provide contraception and abortions.
Even here in Canada, where abortion, just like a colostomy or any other procedure, is legal, only 15% of our hospitals provide the service. Our hospitals, and our provinces, are breaching Canadian women's Charter rights (to equality), as well as violating the Canada Health Act. Unfortunately, I don't even have to look outside my own country to see that women's rights still have a long way to go.
As a future doctor, I have my work cut out for me... but I have a lifetime left to help change Canadian society. Hopefully I'll be able to eke out a bit of change.
I am very sorry for your daughter, and I hope her CD count is able to rise again. In Canada, as devastating as AIDS is (a good friend of mine's sister has it), at the very least we are starting to see it as a chronic disease, retrovirals have been so successful. However, I do maintain that in developing countries potable water and access to basic needs (food, shelter, health care including contraception) probably go further than retrovirals. Obviously, if someone is in an urban setting where there is basic infrastructure, then retrovirals may be of use. But in a rural and impoverished setting, I am not so sure. At the end of the day, we can only start to see a decline of the need for retrovirals in developing countries, by educating against horrific myths (eg if you rape an infant girl it is protection against HIV: South Africa), and funding clinics that make condoms so prevalent that they are used as water balloons in addition to their primary use :) Oh, and working towards a future where women have the legal and social standing to say "no", and where rape is not used as a weapon of war. I can dream, can't I?

[speechlesstx]

Jennifer, we all have a dream. :)

I dream of a culture that doesn't cheapen the value of human life, where relationships and faithfulness are desired and sexuality is more than something to be explored by children that should be playing baseball and ice skating. I also dream of a culture that finds more outrage in oppressive Islamic societies that treat women as sub-humans than they do at a supposedly stolen election almost 8 years ago. I could go on and on but I won't. Yes, potable water and nutrition are crucial to developing nations. Education and defeating the myths you describe are important as well, and "a future where women have the legal and social standing to say "no", and where rape is not used as a weapon of war" as you say. Not only that, but where sex is no longer used as an element of "peacekeeping."

Maybe one day the assistance we give to these nations will reach the people instead of the oppressors themselves, and those charged with protecting human rights and keeping the peace will do their jobs.

[N0help4u]

The USA is damned if they do damned if they don't. Look at Katrina.
Look at how the media refuses to publish the good the military is doing good in Iraq

[purplewings]

This makes me wonder why the US is responsible for resolving problems of every country in the world. Not only are we expected to send more money than any other but also to send more military than any other.

Sure Darfur is lousy, but so is human rights in Tibet, China, North Korea, and others. How far must we stretch?

Skell: "And my answer is, if the reasons they gave for going in to Iraq were to rid it of Hussein then why isnt the same priority given to Darfur?"

It wasn't the 'reason' given for going into Iraq. It was in response to WMD's that would be a threat to the free world. Getting rid of Hussein was a bonus.
It may be even more so that we need civilized allies in that part of the world.

Darfur has no starting point. Between the dirty leaders and the uncontrollable rebels, who would we be fighting? We'd do better to airlift all the children out and let the rest of the country finish itself off.

[Skell]

Oh I forgot.. The WMD's.. Bwa hahahahahaha (sorry Excon)

Who are you fighting in Iraq? I don't see much difference.

You look like a sweat old lady purplewings in your avatar but with tha last statement clearly you are not.

If you read the thread you would have seena call for consistencey. Im not saying you must go to Darfur, but an argument has been made here that going into Iraq to oust Hussein was one of the reasons. If so then surely this man, Mugabe in Zimbabwe and any other terrorist must also be on the hit list at some stage.

[purplewings]

Gee thanks. Every woman dreams of being called a 'sweat old lady' - NOT! As for the rest of your statement, I read that remark from someone who had lived there and left Africa. I don't think it makes me any less of who I am to believe it might be true.

[Skell]

Maybe we should just let this happen!

Spurned Mugabe opts for violence as run-off looms - World - smh.com.au

It's Mugabe or death, voters told - World - smh.com.au

Just come consistency please!

Sorry about the "sweet old lady". Your photo isn't very clear on my PC. :)

[speechlesstx]

Sorry about the "sweet old lady". Your photo isnt very clear on my PC. :)

I thought maybe there was something lost in translation, if you guys would just speak English down there. ;)

[speechlesstx]

Skell agrees: We speak Australian Steve!!! Fair dinkum mate. Get it right!

What in the world is a dinkum anyway? Is that something you spread Vegemite on?

[purplewings]

Skell: "Sorry about the "sweet old lady". Your photo isnt very clear on my PC."

*Well, truthfully I don't mind the 'sweet' part.

BTW, I thought Australians spoke British? I've got lots of studying to do. :rolleyes:

[Skell]

What in the world is a dinkum anyway? Is that something you spread Vegemite on?

Haha. Not quite Steve. Have you tried vegemite?

Australian slang dictionary

[speechlesstx]

haha. Not quite Steve. Have you tried vegemite?

No I have not, I haven't had the pleasure of a trip down under and I've never seen it on the shelves here. It sounds a little odd but I'd give it a burl. If I don't like it I'll just give it to my Bluey ;)

[Galveston1]

This may be a different level, but as to credit for the USA, this the only country that I know of that will defeat another country and then put up the money and technology to rebuild that country. Some nations are better off now than when they went to war. Contrast this with history when nations conquered others and added them to their empires, or worse, eradicated them. No human government will ever be perfect, but let's get off this undeserved guilt trip.

[speechlesstx]

This may be a different level, but as to credit for the USA, this the only country that I know of that will defeat another country and then put up the money and technology to rebuild that country. Some nations are better off now than when they went to war. Contrast this with history when nations conquered others and added them to their empires, or worse, eradicated them. No human government will ever be perfect, but let's get off this undeserved guilt trip.

Most of us aren't on that guilt trip Galveston... self-flagellation is a mainstay of the left.