The situation for women in Iraq has become a "national crisis" since the US-led invasion in 2003, a report by an international women's group has warned
It has been five years since the American invasion of Iraq and still no-one has stopped to listen to what this critical mass of the population, women, have to say about solving the problems

Zainab Salbi, Women for Women International
For more information
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282064.stm

Wow ASymeonakis you have done it again. Here is what it was like for women under Saddam –

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0211.html

I don’t recall any cases recently of 50 young women having their heads cut off and then hung in the doorways of there homes!

For women in a country that transforming its tough! But hey I think it is tough on everybody not just women and we hope in the long run things get better for them!

Sanctions by the USA in the mid 90s led to the deaths of approximately 500000 children........ take a minute to try and comprehend that number....... And what did the Secretary of State of the USA have to say about that decision at the time? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8

Lots of Myths floating around this thread also.

1/
BEFORE: (Invasion)"they had had relative autonomy and security"

AFTER (Invasion) but now faced violence, controversial leadership and poor infrastructure.

Lets upack this in real world terms rather than manipulative socialist terms.

a) Yes, relative to a stint in the fires of HELL... they had 'relative' "autonomy and security". If you were a cute girl in a poor neighbourhood, you could expect one of Saddams animal sons to come along any tick of the clock and after scanning the class say "YOU.. come..now" and the rest defies description.
Well said EAsytimes for giving balance there.
Or..if they were involved in anything political, or their brother, or father, they could expect to be dragged to Abu Ghraib, have their eyes gouged out with the offending family member watching, simply as a 'lesson' to their father or brother "Don't mess with Comrade Saddaam."

b) NOW...
-'controversial leadership' ? err.. is ANY leadership not contoversial? What a stupid thing to say.
-Violence? ummm and it was not the case before ?
-POOR INFRASTRUCTURE? r u kidding!? why is this so? Hmmmm because Al Qaeda and other IRAQI's are blowing it all up! To try to show the very thing this survey found, in order to get some cheap propoganda points.

2/ SANCTIONS KILLED.
Utter drivel and rubbish. What killed was that Saddam was diverting, and using 'Oil for Food' money for NEW PALACES. He didn't care SQUAT for the people.. and deliberately let the children die so that IDIOTS would say stupid, moronic shallow things like 'Sanctions killed'.

Now.. the next mindless bit of verbal drool and drivel here is unspoken, but implied.

Sanctions were bad...
Invasion was bad.....
So.. SADDAM was GOOD?

What do you take us for ? Just for the record.."No, we are not intellectually or information challenged"

This thread Antonios was nothing more than a Socialist 'Whack-USA' exercise.

"This thread Antonios was nothing more than a Socialist 'Whack-USA' exercise."

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Matthew 7:3

Heaven forbid, Boaz, that you actually read the article. Much easier to invent your own reality.

Boaz: >>Yes, relative to a stint in the fires of HELL... they had 'relative' "autonomy and security". If you were a cute girl in a poor neighbourhood, you could expect one of Saddams animal sons to come along any tick of the clock and after scanning the class say "YOU.. come..now" and the rest defies description<<

Article: "According to the report, 63.9% of those [1,513 women] questioned said violence against women was increasing."

Even if your imagined "Saddam's animal son" scenario is accurate, the women are saying that today, it is worse.

Which part of that do you not understand?

>>Sanctions were bad... Invasion was bad..... So.. SADDAM was GOOD?<<

Your black-and-white view of the world takes you to some very strange places sometimes, Boaz, few stranger than this.

Is it not possible for you to accept that it is possible that Saddam was evil, but that the "cure" turned out to be worse than the disease itself?

Are you so accustomed to knee-jerk a reaction to anything that you see as "a Socialist 'Whack-USA' exercise", that you proceed to write anything that comes into your head, without bothering to weigh up the pros and cons?

"...in 2004... despite the fact that none of the women felt their families' most basic needs were entirely met, 90.6% were optimistic about the future. But in late 2007, the nationwide poll of 1,513 Iraqi women found only 26.9% continued to be optimistic about the situation in their country."

Can't you simply look at this and feel sad for these people? Having been overjoyed that the evil dictator was toppled, and excited at the prospect of being able to live free and safe, these people feel disappointed, let down, betrayed.

Instead, you take aim at the poster and his "mindless bit of verbal drool and drivel"

Christian charity at its finest.

I hope you have a great day.

Or at least, a better one than the women of Iraq are experiencing.