Iraqi reconstruction
Find a Conversation
Iraqi reconstruction
| Sat, 07-31-2004 - 11:14am |
Given the gross mismanagement of the how US funds are rebuilding Iraq, I have to ask one question:
Why are Bush and Bush supporters against other EU nations getting contracts and rebuilding Iraq?
I thought we were there to make life better for the Iraqi people. It's as clear as glass, the current so-called plans aren't working and is not the ideal situation for the IRAQI people.
And even if we did allow these EU nations to assist in rebuilding, they probably wouldn't come anyway: Security is worse now than at any other time in 2004.
Iraq == a miserable failure even for a humanitarian mission. A failure because of pride and arrogance.

Pages
"Any given day, between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis are working on the 1,200 reconstruction projects currently under way"
Yes that is commendable isnt it? That is alot of jobs, you would think, until you read that the population of Iraq is 25,374,691 (July 2004 est.).
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
Even by using the highest number given at 60,000 it still doesnt even come up to 1% of the population given jobs under the Iraqi reconstruction. So is that good news? Is that something to be happy about? Unemployment is the highest it has been in Iraq for a while, not even mentioning that women(who were supposedly oppressed by Sadaam) were working more when he was there then they are now. This is a good thing?
Just asking, becuase I do not see anything to get so excited about. On average about 2 U.S. soldiers a day are dying there, things go from bad to worse, and you are happy that less than 1% of the population is actually being helped by us with jobs.
I'll aply that on the relationship between SH and the Iraqi citizens.>
Really? Then you would think that Jewish people would already gotten over the Holocaust years ago, but they have not. There are things that happen that we should never forget. For the Iraqis, they should never forget Sadaam. To many of the Iraqis he was the epitome of evil, as Hitler was to the Jews. I wonder too if they will get over being occupied by the U.S.
What I tried to point out, is that reconstructing a country takes time as it is a process of rebuilding and healing. Of cóurse it's not "done" yet.
I'm aware
Awhile ago, I did post something exactly pertaining to this, sorry if you missed it. I am unable to find it, it is somewhere here. However, all women were able to work and find a job if they so desired. They held many important jobs in the government as well. Now the basic jobs available to women is prostitution. I am sorry if you think this is a good job choice, but I surely do not. Who do you think are going to get jobs first, men or women?
Secondly, Iraqi companies are growing in numbers? What happened to them in the first place? Going into the second year anniversery of the war's end, with the actual war only taking a few months, and it is going to take years? How many more years do you think in your opinion? Wow the U.S. must have really bombed like crazy in a few months to totally disenable most of Iraq's businesses that were already there. Or were those business illegitmate, and that is why so many Iraqis are without jobs? I heard that a large portion of the males went without a job after the U.S. broke up the orginal army, and they have said that was one of the biggest mistakes they made.
Sorry if you feel that Iraqis and Arabs have only recently felt the sort of hatred that has been directed at Jews for so long. Very very presumputios of you to suggest that I would not like the Iraqis to forgive the Americans. Won't even comment on that, becuase I would not be very nice.
You know alot of the fighting going on right in Iraq is done with people not even from Iraq. Supposedly it is being done with help of al-quaida, the very same al-quaida that the U.S. said they have stripped of power and made them weak. Someone said on another post, al-quaida is not weakened at all, the U.S. just took away their main base and now they are spread out all over the world. I say that deserves a 'hip-hip-hooray!" United we stand divided we fall just doesn't work with an organization like that. By not staying the course in Afghan, the U.S. has given al-quaida much more power.
Sorry if I can't see a dying rose and think this is good news becuase maybe there is a solution that will save it.
I started this thread, because I feel with that unilaterism has failed in Iraq and that Internationalism would work better.
So, you have not convinced me that going it alone is the best cause.
When the soldiers stop dying, maybe the news will talk about these success stories in Iraq, but you just don't see them on a normal 30 minute local newscast.
Instead of cutting and pasting, why not say in your own words why Unilateralism is better than Getting other countries involved, that is after all, the point of the thread.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0211.html
Iraqi Women Brutalized by Saddam
February 11, 2003
by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.net
Before and after Sept. 11, politically correct feminists crusaded for Afghan women oppressed by the Taliban. By contrast, little outrage has been expressed over the treatment of Iraqi women under Saddam Hussein.
The silence may be currently appropriate -- feminist goals should play no role in forming foreign policy. But the contrast between the two reactions is puzzling, especially in the face of horror stories coming out of Iraq.
Amnesty International has documented the brutal executions of Iraqi women accused of prostitution. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded in October 2000 after criticizing corruption within local health services. According to another report, in October 2000 "a group of men led by Saddam Hussein's son Uday, beheaded with knives 50 young women in Baghdad. The heads of these women were hung on the doors of their houses for a few days."
The Iraq Foundation joins Amnesty International in chronicling human rights violations, such as the methods of torture in prison, which include rape and "bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee."
Why then does the Feminist Majority site have a "Help Afghan Women" button but no "Help Iraqi Women?" Why does an Oct. 10, 2002 press release from NOW warn, "A U.S. invasion of Iraq will likely entail ... dangers to the safety and rights of Iraqi women who currently enjoy more rights and freedoms than women in other Gulf nations, such as Saudi Arabia."
Why does Women's eNews run an article by Yasmine Bahrani who states, "As it happens, women's equality is one of the few aspects of the nation's ruling ideology ... that has survived the brutality that has marked Iraqi political life."
The theme seems to be that Saddam may brutally violate human rights but his presence is good for women. For example, the Bahrani article mentions "a recent report" compiled under the auspices of the United Nations in which Iraq "scored highest in women's empowerment" for that region. (Saddam's motives are not mentioned. "Advances," such as mandating five years' maternity leave for women from employers and equal pay with men allowed him both to curry favor with the West and to regulate the economy.)
Without making a case for or against war, I question PC feminism's comparative silence on Iraqi women. The Bahrani article reveals one reason why. It points readers who wish more information to the Iraq Foundation site, which contradicts the article by stating: "The rights of women in Iraq are going down the drain, along with everything else ... In 1998, Saddam ordered all women secretaries working in government agencies be dismissed. Now there are new laws barring women from work altogether."
What is the truth of the situation? The horror stories are starting to mount. On Oct. 4, 2002, seven Iraqi women of different regional, ethnic and religious backgrounds sat on a panel entitled "The Unheard Voices of Iraqi Women." They recounted their personal stories of brutalization under Saddam's regime.
One of the women eloquently stated, "The Iraqi woman has endured torture, murder, confinement, execution, and banishment, just like other in Iraqi society at the hands of Saddam Hussein's criminal gang." She added, "the Iraqi woman has lost her loved ones -- husbands, brothers and fathers." So much for the notion that Saddam can massively violate human rights while protecting those of women.
PC feminism has not ignored such testimony but neither has it embraced the cause of women in Iraq as it did those in Afghanistan.
Several reasons may underlie this apparent reluctance. A condemnation of Saddam may be viewed as an admission that Bush is correct on Iraq. And hatred of Bush runs deep in most feminist circles.
Moreover, the sheer cost of war with Iraq is seen to threaten funding to "pro-woman" causes within the United States in a manner that the Afghanistan conflict did not. This threat was one of two arguments presented against war with Iraq in NOW's Oct. 10 press release. (The second: Invasion might disrupt the rights women allegedly enjoy.)
Regarding money, NOW Action Vice President Olga Vives stated: "As has happened during previous wars, funds will be diverted from ... vitally needed social programs from an already downsized budget. Women will bear the greatest burden of any decrease in domestic spending in order to finance war."
Another source of reluctance could be that condemning Iraq's treatment of women could raise doubts about the accuracy the United Nations' reports, such as the one cited by Bahrani. PC feminism is deeply invested in such U.N. agencies as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CEDAW) to which Iraq became a signatory in the '80s.
Activists like Katrin Michael may force feminism to ask uncomfortable questions. Born in a Kurdish area of Iraq, Michael survived the infamous chemical attacks that Saddam used against his own people. Now lobbying in the United States, she is starting to receive attention from PC feminists.
Perhaps they will realize that to roundly condemn Saddam is not to argue for war. It simply gives justice to those Iraqi women who can no longer speak for themselves.
24 October 2002
Iraqi Women Speak Out, Build Network of Support
Organizer sees "coalition of Iraqi women" in the making
Washington -- On October 4, seven Iraqi women gathered at the National Press Club in Washington to share their first-hand accounts of the violence and intimidation used against them by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Approximately 30 American and international journalists attended their press conference, "The Unheard Voices of Iraqi Women."
According to organizer Safia Al Souhail, the group's outreach has generated not only press coverage but also a wealth of supportive emails from other Iraqi victims. Encouraged by what she is hearing from other Iraqi women living in exile, Souhail plans to facilitate similar press conferences in London and other European cities.
"Many friends have offered to facilitate a meeting, but finding a venue for a conference is still a major concern," Souhail explained in an interview October 21 with the Washington File. "But even if we cannot find a conference space, it is just as important to meet, discuss and build an international network in support of Iraqi women," she said.
"Until now, there has been no coalition of Iraqi women. We are very conservative inside Iraq, rooted in our family traditions, yet I have been overwhelmed by the support coming from our families to move forward with this idea," Souhail said. "They say ‘do this for yourself, for your father (murdered in Lebanon in 1994 by Iraqi diplomats) and for your history.'" With this support, she said, women who have never met before are connecting with each other. It takes courage, she said, to speak publicly about the horrors of rape, murder, poverty, deep humiliation and fear suffered by Iraqi women.
Sabria Naama, one of the seven women to tell their stories October 4, explained later to the Washington File that it also takes resources. Many of the Iraqi women, like herself, were forced into exile after the Shi'a uprising of 1991, and are refugees whose modest resources go toward sustaining and educating their families in a new land. Despite these challenges, Naama said she feels compelled to speak out for nameless, faceless women who are the victims of Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Naama, who rescued her five children from the Iraqi military onslaught into southern Iraq in 1991, told the Washington File about women who were kidnapped by regime elements, raped, and abandoned in the prison system. According to Naama, there are over 300 prisons in Iraq, many underground. To her, the recent "amnesty" for prisoners in Baghdad is a mockery given what she knows about women who have been left destitute and maimed, their husbands and children murdered while the women were jailed.
"In thinking about Iraq's future," Naama said. "I want to ensure there is a seat at the table so that the voices and needs of these women are heard."
<< It is not only about women either, it is about religion also. At least under Sadaam, Christians were able to go to church, and now they can not. Kind of surprising since, Bush has GOD on his side huh? >>
And who is causing the trouble in Iraq? http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
Monday, August 02, 2004The Ugly Barbarism
The news about Zarqawi was just rumours! Al Zarqawi thugs carried out one of the most barbaric ugly acts against the worship places in Iraq. After the attacks against the Shiaa holy places in which hundreds were massacred he and his thugs directed their devilish intention yesterday against the Iraqi Christians' holy and historical places (Churches) in Baghdad and Mosel.
The aim is not to try to knock the Iraqi unity only but to kill as many as they can among the Iraqis who are not belonging to their doctrine of Wahabism and Salafism. The last two of course are two faces for one coin monetized in Saudi Arabia.
We saw that ugly face not against the US targets alone but in Afghanistan where Talabans trying to convert the people there into monkeys living in a jungle. They not only hate the others who don't think like them but they hate the history which is not suiting their retarded mentality. They started destroying the historical places in Najad and Hijaz (Saudi Arabia now). They destroyed all the historic places belonged to the first Muslims and Arabs!
The Christians of Najran came to see Prophet Mohammad for a dialogue and it was a Sunday! They asked the Prophet that they would like to do their prayer and he offered them his Mosque to use it for their prayer! This is the real Islam not Islam of the Mohammad Bin Abd Al Wahab which gave birth to Bin Laden and Zarqawi thugs.
In Iraq we are one nation, Christians, Sabians, Muslims as Sunni & Shia, and other religions. The Churches which were hit by the barbaric thugs are not holy places for the Christians alone but they are holy places for all of the Iraqis irrespective of their religions. They are holy for being used by human being and by Iraqis our brothers and sisters. They are now holy places for every Iraqi!
Our brothers and sisters who have been killed in the attacks of the Iraqi Churches are not only Christians but Muslims as well. The Iraqi blood mixed together to tell the thugs that we are one body and the foreign bodies are them. Sooner the Iraqi body will expose and destroy them for ever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And under Saddam? http://www.falange.us/iraq5.htm
Christians Under Saddam Suffered Persecution
by Lorenzo Fazzini
An interview with Msgr. Jean Benjamin Sleiman, Latin rite archbishop of Baghdad
Verona – Now that tyranny is under lock and key, Iraqi Christians are now open with about their tales of suffering and persecution during the Saddam Hussein era.
Msgr. Jean Benjamin Sleiman, Latin rite archbishop of Baghdad said: “Even if in the West Saddam Hussein’s regime was referred to as a secular state, civil society was ruled by Islamic law, with serious consequences for non-Moslems.”
Tareq Aziz, Christian Vice Minister, was often referred to in the West as an example of a positive situation for Christians…. Is this true?
Tareq Aziz was not the Vice Minister because he was a Christian, but because he was a long and great childhood friend of Saddam Hussein, with whom he carried out some of his first massacres in their first years working together. Aziz rose in the Iraqi political arena only because he was a friend of Saddam Hussein. I must say, as part of the Christian minority community, we often obtained concessions not from Aziz, but from other Moslem ministers. I remember, for example, the case of a school book containing offensive statements about Christianity: Aziz did nothing in light of our protests. Finally a Muslim minister ordered the book removed from school shelves. Moreover, when Tarek Aziz met the pope just before the war, his haughty behavior scandalized Christians….
What consequences does the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime have on religion?
The era of horizontal co-existence is over between various religious groups, all crushed by the same power. But the step toward an inner acceptance of living together with different people still has not happened. A Moslem will never speak bad about a Christina in his presence; yet this doesn’t mean he’s convinced of living together with someone of a different faith. Provisional government authorities suppressed the Ministry of Religious Affairs; now there is a religious council for Shiites, one for Sunnites, and one for Christian minority communities. This change, however, is causing great difficulties for relationships between Christians: on the minority council, for example, there are three Chaldean representatives, but no Orthodox one. What’s more, their representation is often carried in terms of their ethnic as opposed to religious background, and this creates problems.
What mark did Saddam Hussein’s policies leave on religion?
No religious community in Iraq today knows what freedom means; to learn what freedom is, this is the great challenge to all faiths in Iraq today. For example, we compare ourselves with the great activism of the seven Evangelical Churches, which are politically well protected and have great economic resources: (yet) they proselytise, both bothering and irritating Moslems greatly, and thereby risking a reaction of fundamentalism.
Iraqi Islam risks being fundamentalist?
Fundamentalism is penetrating greatly into Iraqi society. I can give you an example from our schools: children are narrowly educated and often end up saying to their Christian classmates: “Your are Christian and will go to hell, because only us Moslems will go to paradise.”
Pages