Daily Kos

Are Women who Support Soldiers as Guilty as Hillary?

Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:31:29 AM PDT

This Iraq Occupation is wrong. I agree wholeheartedly with that. But the finger pointing crosses both ways. The hypocrisy raised is across the board. Any way one chooses to look at war, government, officials, players, or soldiers, women always lose and men still get the green light and a free pass on consequences.
Women Pay the Higher Price no matter what side one is on.

Violations of 'Islamic teachings' take deadly toll on Iraqi women

The killers enforcing their own version of Islamic justice are rarely caught, while women live in fear.

Boldly splattered in red paint just outside the main downtown market, a chilling sign reads: "We warn against not wearing a headscarf and wearing makeup. Those who do not abide by this will be punished. God is our witness, we have notified you."

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion -- some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.

The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other "rules" that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.

"Fear, fear is always there," says 30-year-old Safana, an artist and university professor. "We don't know who to be afraid of. Maybe it's a friend or a student you teach. There is no break, no security. I don't know who to be afraid of."

Her fear is justified. Iraq's second-largest city, Basra, is a stronghold of conservative Shia groups. As many as 133 women were killed in Basra last year -- 79 for violation of "Islamic teachings" and 47 for so-called honor killings, according to IRIN, the news branch of the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Amnesty International has raised concern about the increasing violence toward women in Iraq, saying abductions, rapes and "honor killings" are on the rise.

"Politically active women, those who did not follow a strict dress code, and women [who are] human rights defenders were increasingly at risk of abuses, including by armed groups and religious extremists," Amnesty said in a 2007 report.

Sometimes, it's just the color of a woman's headscarf that can draw unwanted attention.

"One time, one of my female colleagues commented on the color of my headscarf," Safana says. "She said it would draw attention ... [and I should] avoid it and stick to colors like gray, brown and black."

This extremist ideology enrages many secular Muslim women, who say it's a misrepresentation of Islam.

Sawsan, another woman who works at a university, says the message from the radicals to women is simple: "They seem to be sending us a message to stay at home and keep your mouth shut."

After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Sawsan says, the situation was "the best." But now, she says, it's "the worst."

"We thought there would be freedom and democracy and women would have their rights. But all the things we were promised have not come true. There is only fear and horror."

This would have happened whether or not one vote was not cast. Obama was not in the senate and neither were you or I. How fortunate for us to have no guilt by association.

That being said, the ongoing onslaught and the so called surge (which HRC did not support) has made life for women in Iraq horrendous.

But the answer to the Diary question? I have no answer, but I do think about it. I don't understand the choice to fight in a war period. and I don't care whose side you're on. I do believe that people who support, own and have guns have a will to kill. (Have you watched the News lately?)
Laying all this blame on HRC or any one person is bullshit. There's plenty to go around.

Tags: Iraq, murder, guilty, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 87 comments

  •  tips to end brutality please? (13+ / 0-)

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:31:17 AM PDT

    •  wtf! (6+ / 0-)

      why make this shit about gender???

      -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

      by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:35:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm a woman and think and feel like one. (8+ / 0-)

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

        by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:36:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  because, (5+ / 0-)

        it is.

        "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

        by theRoaringGirl on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:46:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  snark? or no? (6+ / 0-)

          how does one's gender affect culpability in being complicit in an ill-advised, immoral military occupation?

          -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

          by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:55:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  simple. (8+ / 0-)

            There are those who blame women for the World's ills. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't. If that woman had just worn her headscarf. If that woman had just voted "Present". The implication is that women are to "weak-minded" to make up their own mind or even realize their mistake, reassess a position on our own.   Particularly if that woman is in politics.

            Seeing error is permitted if the one admitting the error is male, he's a 'flip-flopper; but he is allowed to change. If female, not so much. Had HRC voted against the limited action, there would still be a bias. It still wouldn't matter. Instead of being called a 'warmonger', instead, she would have be castigated for being 'soft'. Had HRC come out and said "I will get us of out of Iraq", she still would be the 'warmonger'

            Scylla and Charybdis with a whirlpool dead center.

            "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

            by theRoaringGirl on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:12:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for seeing my point! (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              macmcd, jimstaro, Owllwoman

              "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

              by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:16:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  wow (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              mattman, Sandy on Signal, El Yoss

              i just don't see it.

              i can't speak for anyone else; only myself.  i disapprove of any/everyone who voted to authorize military action in iraq - regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or even party affiliation.

              -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

              by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:23:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Should Obama have refused (8+ / 0-)

                John Kerry's endorsement then?  And that of other Democrats who voted the same way Hillary did?  I've never gotten an adequate explanation for why it is now OK to vote to continue and fund the war as Obama has done consistently in the Senate.  Sorry, I simply don't buy the BS that we have to keep killing Iraqis endlessly, because Hillary Clinton voted the wrong way on the authorization.  And it would have passed whether she voted for it or not.

                There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

                by Boston Boomer on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:27:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  two things: (5+ / 0-)

                  1. she refuses to acknowledge any wrong-doing on her part.  she refuses to admit it was a mistake to vote for it, much less express any sort of regret for her complicity.  others (kerry, edwards, etc) have.
                  1. to pretend her only influence was as 1 senator out of 100 is..."misguided".  2002 was the time to lead.  she was a former first lady, with much credibility and respect built up domestically and internationally.  are you telling me that, along with bill clinton (a former president only two years removed from office) that the only thing she could've done to prevent the invasion/occupation of iraq was to simply vote against it? i call bs! they/she should have been leading the opposition movement and rallying democrats around the cause of, well, sanity in american foreign policy.  ...

                  but she didn't.  and she has yet to demonstrate any sort of fundamental difference in her decision-making process that would lead me (and many others) to believe she would make the right decision in a similar future situation.

                  -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

                  by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:40:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Did you know Gates testified (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    mattman, Boston Boomer

                    before both the Senate and House Armed Services committees this week about Iraq and funding?  Did you know it was on cspan?

                    Did you care?  Do you think it was important?

                    Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

                    by Fabian on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:26:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  so what if Gates was on Cspan? (0+ / 0-)

                      What is the point?  Gates just follows Bush's doctrine of stupid policies blindly.

                      Gates is Sec. of Defense.  Don't try to make him into something else. He is for war, war, war.

                      •  Democracy is a process (0+ / 0-)

                        A long, tedious, arduous process.
                        One that requires the participation of anyone who hopes to influence the outcome.

                        Now some people might think - hey, we'll just ignore Bush's continuing crimes because in eleven months we'll have a new administration and then things will change for the better.  It's a nice thought.  But if you knew for certain that in eleven months, you were going to divorce your abusive spouse and marry a brand new one  but that you would still have to deal with everything that your current spouse did in the interim, would you simply ignore everything that they did for eleven months?

                        Spending you deeper in debt?
                        Entangling you deeper even deeper into international conflicts?
                        Ignoring decaying infrastructure?
                        And so on?

                        Or maybe you would divorce the bad spouse now.  After all, you know he isn't going to change.  

                        Or maybe you would try to do some kind of damage control, try to stop the bleeding, restrain the damage?

                        There is no knight in shining armor, folks.  Just us.  Our votes, our congress and yes, even our expletives-deleted president.  It's all part of the package that is democracy.

                        Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

                        by Fabian on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:00:43 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree with you. (4+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    mattman, otis704, roseeriter, seattlegonz

                    I don't support what Hillary did and I think Bill Clinton should have spoken out against the war if he thought it was wrong.  

                    I don't care whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama gets the nomination.  I see very little difference between them.  They both have heavy corporate support.

                    While Obama pretends to reject lobbyist money, he still accepts it in roundabout ways and has accepted lobbyist money regularly in the past.  He has lobbyists working in his campaign.  He now has more than 300 wealthy bundlers.  While he did make a speech in which he criticized the war 5 years ago, he has done nothing to stop it since.  

                    It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.  I don't care which corporate candidate wins.

                    There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio

                    by Boston Boomer on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:01:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It was a mistake that she trusted Bush (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    roseeriter, murrayewv

                    as many other Ds and Rs did. Why is it Kerry got a pass in 2004 but not Senator Clinton in 2008?
                    I looked at the AUMF vote as a signal sent to Saddam that the America was done with his games.
                    When Bush sent troops in what was congress to do? Cut the legs out from under them by objecting?

                    We are who we've been waiting for ... to have a drink with then a romantic interlude in the parking lot.

                    by usedmeat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:14:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I have written before that perhaps I understand (5+ / 0-)

                Hillary's position better than others because I have been on quite a few juries.  I know how it is to be forced to vote on evidence as presented and to vote to support the tradition of the law no matter what the "gut feeling" about the defendant.  I still recall one jury I was on almost forty years ago and the sadness I felt at the vote that I cast.  Does the sadness that I feel make that vote a mistake?  I don't believe that it does.  But I will always wish that I could have voted "present" and not have been forced to carry the burden of having voted to send a man to prison for kidnapping when I knew that he was only trying to see his mother before she died.  She did die shortly after he saw her and he turned himself in.  His kidnapee testified for him but he was still guilty of kidnapping.  I suspect that Hillary feels the same about her vote that is so unforgivable.  She voted based on the needs of the "Office of the President" and not on whether this particular President could be trusted with the power.  

                For me the problem is that we have allowed an untrustworthy President to remain in office after we know that he has broken so many laws.  It is not unforgivable to me for Hillary to have voted in a way that is consistent with the Constitutional upholding of the Office of the President.  I respect that I, too, would have voted that way.

                The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

                by macmcd on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:42:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  also, (5+ / 0-)

      i own several guns and am licensed to carry concealed weapons.  by default, according to you, i have an innate will to kill...?  how do you reconcile this with the fact that, somehow, i have never acted on this deep-seated urge to commit murder?

      -4.50, -4.92; Obama '08

      by RSA TX on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:00:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why (0+ / 0-)

      do you think that people are laying the blame solely on Hillary?

      I've seen no evidence that people are saying that Hillary caused the war.

      That she supported it without looking at the NIE file, yes, that she did do.

      And people are right to talk about that.

      To the extent that she supported it, she's complicit.

      At the same time that she was saying that, Obama was running for office in Illinois.  In a time-period where the pressure to "be patriotic" was tremendous, he had the guts and the judgment to say:

      I don’t oppose all wars.

      And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

      What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

      What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

      That’s what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

      Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

      But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

      I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

      I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

      I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

      So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.

      You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

      The entire speech is available at Lawrence Lessig's site.  

      Let's be clear here.  There was as much pressure on Obama to support the war as there was on Hillary.  She had access to intelligence that he did not.

      He made the correct decision.

      She did not and she is STILL NOT WILLING to say that she was wrong.  She has to qualify it, to equivocate, to say well if I'd known then what I know now, I wouldn't have done it.

      That's the point.  Obama has the judgment part down cold.  Hillary does not.

      •  You want her to say this now? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        murrayewv

        To placate you.  I am a pragmatist.  I have no desire for her to say it now.  It would make a wonderful commercial for the right wing if she is the nominee.  

        It amazes how many Obama supporters condemn her for her vote for AUMF and then out the other side of their mouth say they won't vote for her or will vote McCain if she is the nominee.  It is not LOGICAL.

        Not saying you are one of those people, I'm saying it simply amazes me to no end.

        If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him because for sure, he is the better choice than 100 year, bomb Iran McCain.

        I am against all war for any reason whatsoever.  I am appalled by the war in Iraq.  At the same time though, I see that withdrawal has to be done in a way to protect our troops being withdrawn and the Iraq people who have been so totally screwed in this whole process.

        Hillary talked about the intrepters and the people that have helped the occupiers.  Those people need to be helped to get the heck out of dodge, etc.  They are in danger of losing their lives every day because they are heping the US and she talked about that recently.  

        It is going to be a major deal, complicated with many nuances, it's not a matter of just getting the f-ck out.  I wish it were that simple, but it isn't.  

        There is a part of me that understands when McCain says we will be there 100 years.  Our presence in the ME will surely be 100 years, if this planet can survive that much longer, which I have very serious doubts about.

        There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by otis704 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nowhere (0+ / 0-)

          in my comment did I threaten to vote for John McCain.  Rather I'm trying to point out why you should be voting for Obama rather than for Hillary.

          And please note the part that I bolded at the bottom of his speech... he gets how to manage US presence in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. He understands what diplomacy really is and how it should be used.

          Hillary, on the other hand, jumped on the Cheney-Bush bandwagon about Iran with her Kyl-Lieberman vote, demonstrating that she still hasn't figured out the judgment thing.  The Iran NIE that came out shortly afterwards demonstrated just how ridiculous her position was and I haven't seen her acknowledge that either.

          Sen. Kerry and Sen. Obama are both on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and I've watched a number of the hearings. There is no doubt in my mind that Sen. Obama understands very clearly where we need to go in terms of national security and foreign policy. He understands very well the points Sen. Kerry made in the 2004 debates that the NYT editorial board finally acknowledged were correct.

          Senator Obama is the best choice for President of the United States.

           
          Disclosure: I consulted with the Kerry campaign site from 10/2006 - 6/2007.

  •  You took a perfectly legitimate topic... (24+ / 0-)

    (violence against women in Iraq) and stuck it in a diary that makes less and less sense as one reads along.

    And this?  What connection does this have to ANYTHING?

    I do believe that people who support, own and have guns have a will to kill.

    I'm a gun owner.  I don't wake up thinking "I wanna KILL!"

    You're full of crap, and you're very confused.  Your diary makes very little sense.  


    You looked better on Facebook...

    by Plutonium Page on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:38:50 AM PDT

  •  I own guns (17+ / 0-)

    I do NOT have a "will to kill".  I marched against the Iraq War before the first bomb was dropped.  And Iraq has nothing to do with gender, except insofar as those who precipitated the invasion and gave their consent to it made the lives of Iraqi women far, far worse.

    Do you believe that women, including female soldiers, who own guns have a "will to kill"?

    I'll take a gun owner of either gender who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, over a non-gun-owner of either gender who supported it.

    Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

    by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:42:10 AM PDT

    •  Why have a gun then? Why? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Boston Boomer, Owllwoman

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:43:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  self-defense, self-reliance, and target sport (9+ / 0-)

        I would never shoot a living being unless I was in clear and present danger of being killed, or on the brink of starvation.

        That said, having the capacity to defend one's home and knowing how to shoot are quite valuable, especially in extreme situations.  And, in the right context, shooting inanimate targets can be quite fun.

        Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

        by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:47:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Because he has the right to self-defense? (10+ / 0-)

        It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges, although apparently you would have it otherwise.

        Your diary really wasn't about those Iraqi women, now, was it?


        You looked better on Facebook...

        by Plutonium Page on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:48:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, other than the fact that its a RIGHT.. (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        thereisnospoon, NYContrarian, El Yoss

        perhaps some empathy for other people's situations might be in order.

        Personally, having lived a great deal of my life in rural areas, access to a gun was a very reasonable choice for me.

        Its the delegates that count

        by Morgan Sandlin on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:56:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She must REALLY hate me---I'm a combat vet (0+ / 0-)

          Dang!!! Go off and fight the country's wars and then come back and people say nasty things about you. Geez, well it was only what I saw on TV every night while growing up. It was the teevee that made me do it---honest!!

          I must be a really awful person to this writer

          If Liberals REALLY hated America we'd vote Republican

          by exlrrp on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:22:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't hate anyone. I can only imagine what (0+ / 0-)

            or how a soldier thinks. And the burdens, the PTS and god knows what else, as a human being, the toll war takes on everybody.

            I mean no disrespect to you or any other soldier.I understand that sometimes people have to do things that don't make sense to everyone else, or is disapproved of etc.  God knows I've made my share of choices that others don't like.

            I'm guessing if I had to make a choice to fight in a war or occupation I'd be one of those concientous objectors.

            Peace.

            "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

            by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:36:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Why have a gun then? Why? (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        NCrefugee, El Yoss

        Let me explain it to you, in language that even you might understand.

        You are a woman in Iraq. The fundamentalists come to get you because you didn't wear a headscarf. You pull out your gun and waste the motherfuckers, because it is them or you.

        You make sure that the other women in your community are armed so that they can defend themselves.

        Or maybe in your case, you reason with them as they saw your head off.

        "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

        by Ivan on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:59:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know what? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          roseeriter, macmcd

          Your rebuttal about how it is good to have a gun has just so turned me off ever being a woman living in Iraq. Well done.  I still will not ever own a gun. I live in a suburban neighborhood that does have gun violence, but you know what, I am not ever going to be shooting back at anyone that shoots at me first, it is just not going to happen.

          If they get me, so be it. I do not feel threatened where I live. I lived in this area when the DC sniper shootings were going on and there is no way that me being armed was going to save me from some person randomly targeting strangers and shooting them. There are some things that I can't control and the likelihood of me needing a gun to protect myself where I live is so slim that it is not worth owning one. If someone is shooting at me, they are going to get me before I get a  gun out. That is pretty certain.

          •  Yeah, that's you (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            El Yoss

            and it's your choice. Because you know what, I'm not telling you that you need to have a gun, get it, because I am pro-choice on personal self-defense decisions, just like I am on personal decisions of reproductive choice.

            But we were talking about Iraq here, not your suburban DC neighborhood, and the violence against women in Iraq is anything but random.

            The enemy is known, and his actions are somewhat predictable, and in that context someone's personal self-defense options are defined a lot more clearly.

            "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

            by Ivan on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:06:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  eh, (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              roseeriter

              I get your point, I just think it is ridiculous to post it to people that are not living in Iraq. If you are in Iraq, I apologize. Are you? Do you think that there are posters here that are civilian women in Iraq? Is that who you are trying to reach?

              Gun ownership in the US is a completely different issue.

              •  Ridiculous? (0+ / 0-)

                Maybe your complaint should be to the diarist, to whom I was responding, and not to me.

                "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

                by Ivan on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:45:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I posted to her that I think that she (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  roseeriter

                  was missing her mark with the diary.

                  She made a comment about people that own guns that I do not agree with. If you own a gun and are responsible about it, fine. I would rather they were all gone from the world, but that isn't ever going to happen. You posted an inflammatory comment about how a gun would save a woman in Iraq without considering the social issues within the culture that make them wear the headscarf in the first place, and that gets them killed. It is ridiculous to suggest that an oppressed woman in Iraq will have the resources to purchase or steal a gun to protect herself. And your comments have made me realize that there is a huge divide between the experiences of women and men that I thought were getting closer. If you think personal guns are the solution to helping women not be systematically murdered you and I really do not have much in common that would help us each to try to understand each other and help these women. That is sad.

                  •  You can't be serious! (0+ / 0-)

                    It is ridiculous to suggest that an oppressed woman in Iraq will have the resources to purchase or steal a gun to protect herself.

                    What, you think women in Iraq are helpless and lack resources? Iraq is lousy with guns, which are easily available for sale anywhere, and has plenty of tough women, just like every other country in the world does.

                    "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

                    by Ivan on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:05:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  spend some time working in a (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      roseeriter

                      battered women's shelter and then come talk to me about tough, strong women. They are amazing, they are strong and that have fought for their lives and some win, some lose. One woman that I knew was shot to death on the steps of the courthouse by her ex after doing all the right things, getting the restraining order, etc. She did not have the time to defend herself from that gun. He got her from behind, in public.

                      Being strong and amazing does not mean that a person has access to guns, or needs a gun.  I fully admit that the only women that I know who have lived in the middle east don't now, so my knowledge is anecdotal, but considering that it is difficult for abused women in the US to even leave the home of their abuser, let alone get a gun and use that to protect themselves in most cases I can't imagine how difficult it is in the Middle East. This is not about guns. It is about society and misogyny and education and a myriad of other things.

                      I am sad that you apparently don't have much understanding of abused women or psychology or society. It must be nice to live in your world, have a gun, save yourself. Everyone else is weak. Black and white, how nice for you.

      •  there are a number of reasons to own a gun (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Fabian

        ranging from self-defense to the simple fact that some people like shooting them.

      •  You are the reason (0+ / 0-)

        many fear a perpetual Democratic majority almost as much as a perpetual Republican majority.

        The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

        by NCrefugee on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:40:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This diary is seriously off the rails (7+ / 0-)

  •  The diarist is exploiting a horrific, sad, (7+ / 0-)

    tragic situation into a pro-Hillary diary.

    The slaughter and rape of women during times of violent conflict and war is an all to common occurrence that deserves special attention as a gross human rights violation and war crime.

    But to turn the incident into a women rallying, pro Hillary diary is a base exploitation of a tragic situation.

    Who is blaming Hillary for this tragedy? Which man or men "still get the green light and a free pass on consequences?"

    You are attempting to rally women to Hillary's candidacy by using the murder of woman by Islamic extremist.

    Peace.  

    Hillary and Bill ought to exit stage right from American politics

    by pwr2thepeople on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:04:07 AM PDT

    •  and that's pretty much the final word (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      tkmattson, Morgan Sandlin

      on this diary.

      Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

      by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:09:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary was an example in this (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      roseeriter, macmcd, Psychotronicman

      diary. The diary, I believe was about a bigger picture of abuse and control over women. Critical thinking really works.

      "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

      by Owllwoman on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:53:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there won't be a lot of critical thinking here (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        roseeriter, Fabian, Owllwoman

        by many until Labor Day at the earliest

      •  I think violence and discrimination against (0+ / 0-)

        woman is horrific, and a deserves special attention that is all to often ignored.

        Indeed, I have a theory that most violence in the world would be reduced if women are considered and treated as truly equal by male hegemonic societies and religions.

        I think the extreme violence (suicide bombings, beheadings) that are commited by Islamic fundamentalist has as it root cause the dehuminizing of and discrimination of women that Islams as interpreted by men permits and encourages.

        For example, if your religion encourages you to think that women are less than huMAN,  how easy is it to strap on a bomb and walk into a market filled with women and children and kill them and yourself.  Especially when you are promised the great prize after you die for Allah (70 virgins; I guess women who have sex here on earth are much less desirable).  And please spare me any apologies or excuses for Islam as interpreted by men; it is an extremely mysoginistic religion.  Indeed, many religions are mysoginistic (How many female Catholic priests have been ordained?).

        That devaluing/dehumanizing of women by society also allows for the "rape plus destruction" of women the in in eastern Congo, and permitted mass rapes when the former Yugoslavia disintegrated into war.

        A similar argument (devaluing/dehumanizing)can be made for female circumcision practiced in some African and Islamic societies.

        I can go on with example after example supporting this thesis, but this is a comment not a diary or a book.

        I have thought critically "about a bigger picture of abuse and control over women."  I guess that is why I was so sensitive when the diarist blatantly exploited a supremely tragic example of that abuse and control and violence in a blatant non-sequitur attempt to advance Hillary's candidacy.

        Peace.

        Hillary and Bill ought to exit stage right from American politics

        by pwr2thepeople on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:45:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks owlwoman, you're one of very few here (0+ / 0-)

        who understands my diaries. People don't like to connect the dots or think critically. They mostly love being critical and parse and choose their points conveneintly.

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

        by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:27:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Women are ALWAYS (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    roseeriter, thereisnospoon

    victimized by war. That's why Clinton's vote to   authorize the war is especially perplexing.

  •  These really are all different issues (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    roseeriter, Morgan Sandlin, Caoilainn

    Guns-I'm against, maybe the only person here who is

    War in Iraq-I'm against, was always against (unlike one of 2 of the presidential contenders left)

    Violence against women-I'm against, assume HRC and BO are against and everyone here is against

    But there's no easy formula between the three things.

    As for who is complicit in the war--we are NOT all equally complicit--that's silly. The people who planned it and wanted it are most complicit--the people who enabled it are second most complicit, and the people who tried, but couldn't stop it are maybe a little complicit by association, but are hardly in the same category as the first two.

    Barack Obama will only become president if enough people pay attention, so pay attention, dammit!

    by JMS on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:06:30 AM PDT

  •  Wow. Effing wow. (3+ / 0-)

    Good morning, DailyKos.

    •  LOL-Wake up and smell the coffee (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      macmcd, Owllwoman, Psychotronicman

      I think outside the box and just trying to point out that women take the heat and blame for almost everything. And suffer the dire consequences, more than men do.

      How convenient and ongoing is that?

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:13:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But this? (4+ / 0-)

        I do believe that people who support, own and have guns have a will to kill.

        Lord, that so wrong.

      •  I totally agree with you and the point (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        roseeriter

        you are making.  But I will say that people who own, shoot, and carry concealed weapons have the gene for fundamentalism on the gun issue.  My younger brother and I are the closest of my siblings.  I own and want no guns and he is a "gun nut."  He is one of the most intelligent people that I know except on that one issue he has the gene for "nuttery."  He used to try to convince me but now he just accpts and loves me as I am:  not needing a phallic symbol in order to feel safe.  We talk about everything else in the world except guns.  ;-)

        The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

        by macmcd on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:12:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think your heart is in the right place. (5+ / 0-)

    But you really aren't making much sense with your argument. That being said, it is important to bring attention to the violence against women everywhere and how outrageous and wrong it is. There are better ways to do it than this.

    I am an HRC supporter and I will be voting for her on Tuesday. There are better ways to support her and to speak out against violence against women, Rose. take care.

  •  You might as well give it up, (6+ / 0-)

    roseeriter. They stopped listening long ago.  Its still the good ole boys club and that is not going to change anytime soon. They don't want to see it, because it would mean change.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:29:23 AM PDT

  •  I own a gun (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    scrutinizer, bugscuffle

    The diaryist said "I do believe that people who support, own and have guns have a will to kill. (Have you watched the News lately?)

    It is exactly because of the people you mention that I own a gun.

  •  Always remember (0+ / 0-)

    what you read in the media, like the article you posted in the diary is probably propaganda. They were doing the same things to men.

    They take an isolated incident and make it sound like it is happening all over, too.  It is a way to keep the war profits going.

  •  Hillary applauded the surge (0+ / 0-)

    at the State of the Union.

    According to Hillary, "lobbyists are people, too."

    by Prince Georges for Obama on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:45:54 AM PDT

    •  When one supports Obama, Hillary is and (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      roseeriter, Psychotronicman

      can justifiably be blamed for everything.  Every moment of Hillary's and of Bill's lives for the last twenty or so years has been examined under a microscope at huge expense to the population of this country and both have been found to be practically spotless.  Yes, Bill likes sex and he will lie about sex when cornered...of course, no other President has ever been cornered and many i.e. JFK also liked sex.  But if anybody could have found anything more, believe me, Starr would never have been forced to humiliate himself by writing only about sex.  Hillary is a highly intelligent woman who is very ambitious and who will make a great President.  I certainly do not agree with her on every issue but I do not even always agree with myself on every issue.  Further, I am guessing that you do not always agree with yourself on every single issue.  So vote your best judgement in the primary and give up some of the nitpicking.  It just makes you seem and sound petty which you probably are not.

      The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

      by macmcd on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:22:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rather odd detail (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Plutonium Page, roseeriter, macmcd, Fabian

    many of the gun supporter comments in this diary also have pro-Obama tag lines. But, he is easily the most anti-gun candidate on the ticket. Not trying to slam anybody. Just an observation.

    'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

    by Psychotronicman on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:51:04 AM PDT

  •  I just don't get the question in the title. (0+ / 0-)

    "Are women who support soldiers as guilty as Hillary?"

    I really don't get it.  Maybe it's because I'm not a woman, but I think we can leave sex out of it.

    I support the troops and do not feel in the least bit guilty.  I did not vote to authorize anyone to send them to a preemptive war.  I feel the best way to "support" a soldier is to bring her home.  Why should I feel guilty?

    Si se fucking puede! - Melody Townsel

    by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:54:06 AM PDT

    •  If I said people would it make more sense? (0+ / 0-)

      My issue is women, women's rights the constant attack on women and my life experiences are why I prefer Hillary over Obama.

      I am, however, in that 71% of women who will vote happily for either or as I am most interested in empowering those of us who remain oppressed by rich white men.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:30:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What a bizarre diary n/t (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    elmo

Permalink | 87 comments