PDA

View Full Version : Saddam's rule 'better' for gay Iraqis




Liberty Star
07-08-2009, 08:09 PM
When so called "neocon king of gay porn" Lucas had made news by joining Iraq war drumbeat few years back, he probably did not know what he was supporting. Peoples' sexuality is private matter but there can be dangerous political views among people of any orientation.

Would be interesting to see how folks at LGF and Drudge would cover this result of Iraq war they had also cheerled.


"Investigating reports of the murder and torture of gay men in Iraq, Ashley Byrne found that some gays found Saddam Hussein's dictatorship preferable to the threat of violence they face today.Some readers will find parts of his report disturbing."



Monday, 6 July 2009 09:00 UK

Saddam's rule 'better' for gay Iraqis



There has been so much news of death and destruction from Iraq that the position of sexual minorities is rarely touched on in the mainstream media.

But stories of torture and murder of gay Iraqis, particularly men, have been emerging in the gay press for several years.


Gay Iraqis have revealed they felt safer before Saddam was toppled
Investigating these stories for a BBC Radio 5 Live documentary, Gay Life After Saddam, I've heard a range of views about the deteriorating conditions for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people.

Some say the violence has intensified in the past few months. Others say killings run into the hundreds and have been going on since 2003.

What is clear, and confirmed by separate evidence from various human rights groups, is that some gay men have been subjected to appalling violent abuse.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8133639.stm

Liberty Star
07-09-2009, 10:46 AM
Violence is not limited now to any group it seems. Latest news from Iraq:



Worst violence since US pullback hits Iraq

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer Christopher Torchia, Associated Press Writer – 41 mins ago

BAGHDAD – Bombings killed more than 40 people in Iraq on Thursday in the worst violence since U.S. combat troops withdrew from urban areas last week, and American forces released five Iranian officials suspected of aiding Shiite insurgents.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq


Glenn Beck has been called a neocons' tool and worst names but is it possible that he was actually right when he warned against US exit from Iraq?

jkr
07-09-2009, 12:29 PM
BLOW-back

get it?

Liberty Star
07-09-2009, 04:40 PM
Yea but many innocent people are paying the price there for miscalulations of the misleaders.

Mini-Me
07-09-2009, 05:00 PM
Violence is not limited now to any group it seems. Latest news from Iraq:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq


Glenn Beck has been called a neocons' tool and worst names but is it possible that he was actually right when he warned against US exit from Iraq?

My quick take on this: If the Iraqis want a civil war, they'll have a civil war. Other than staying there FOREVER - which I'd really like to think is a serious option for no one - there is literally nothing we can do to outright prevent their internal conflict. All we can possibly do is delay the conflict and give "our" puppet government time to fortify itself...would that result in more or less future blowback than pulling out immediately? Nobody really knows for sure, but my gut tells me that the more we intervene, the worse we'll make it for ourselves in the future. Depending on when the conflict starts in earnest, when the conflict ends, and who wins (and whether or not that leads to another period of authoritarian oppression), we may very well suffer blowback for decades as a result of the initial decision to enter Iraq in the first place.

However, one thing's for certain: We're paying an ongoing price for our continuing intervention (and occupation) in money, reputation, and blood. We're going to have to deal with the fallout of the Iraq invasion eventually anyway, so I think it's long past time for us to just cut our losses to the best of our ability and let the chips fall where they may...without doing any further damage.

Optatron
07-09-2009, 05:19 PM
and what does Mr. Phelps say about that?

idiom
07-09-2009, 05:28 PM
Yay Liberation!

Liberty Star
07-09-2009, 08:09 PM
My quick take on this: If the Iraqis want a civil war, they'll have a civil war. Other than staying there FOREVER - which I'd really like to think is a serious option for no one - there is literally nothing we can do to outright prevent their internal conflict. All we can possibly do is delay the conflict and give "our" puppet government time to fortify itself...would that result in more or less future blowback than pulling out immediately? Nobody really knows for sure, but my gut tells me that the more we intervene, the worse we'll make it for ourselves in the future. Depending on when the conflict starts in earnest, when the conflict ends, and who wins (and whether or not that leads to another period of authoritarian oppression), we may very well suffer blowback for decades as a result of the initial decision to enter Iraq in the first place.

However, one thing's for certain: We're paying an ongoing price for our continuing intervention (and occupation) in money, reputation, and blood. We're going to have to deal with the fallout of the Iraq invasion eventually anyway, so I think it's long past time for us to just cut our losses to the best of our ability and let the chips fall where they may...without doing any further damage.

Good arguments. I had just posed a rhetorical question, we messed up things be trying to liberate hundreds of thousands of civilians of another people with bombs and bullets.



and what does Mr. Phelps say about that?

He's way too too old fashioned and pretends we're living in times of old prophets when God used to be against modern lifestyles.



Yay Liberation!

Iraqi freedom has set an example for the world.