....where there wasn't one before. I wonder if the Bushtwat understands this
at all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3605610.shtml

Iraqi Policewomen Ordered To Turn In Guns

NEW YORK, Dec. 11, 2007

Just in case there's anyone out there still unsure about the whether
nation-building is a bad idea, the Los Angeles Times brings a gem of a story
about how you can lead an Iraqi horse to the water of equal-opportunity
employment, but you just can't make him drink. Not even when your country is
paying the water bill.

The Iraqi government has ordered all policewomen to hand in their guns for
redistribution to men or face having their pay withheld, the Times reports.
The move thwarts a U.S. initiative to bring women into the nation's police
force.

The Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, issued the order late last
month, according to ministry documents, U.S. officials and several of the
women. Probably sensing this was going to tick off the Americans, ministry
officials refused to pick up the phone or return messages when Times
reporter Tina Susman called asking for an explanation.

Critics say the move is the latest sign of the religious and cultural
conservatism that has taken hold in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein ushered in a government dominated by Shiite Muslims. Other recent
signs include a dozen women killed by religious militants in Basra for not
covering their hair or dressing modestly. In Baghdad, once a secular
metropolis, it is rare to see women without scarves covering their hair.

U.S. trainers began recruiting women in early 2004 and were so swamped with
applicants they had to turn many away. By the end of that year, about 1,000
women had graduated. Since U.S. authorities handed over responsibility for
police recruitment and training to Iraqi authorities in February 2006, the
number of female recruits has dropped to virtually zero.

U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to recruit
female officers, said an official in the Interior Ministry told him:
"Females are taken care of by men in our country. They are not out there
being police officers."

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> ...where there wasn't one before. I wonder if the Bushtwat understands this
> at all.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3605610.shtml
>
> Iraqi Policewomen Ordered To Turn In Guns
>
> NEW YORK, Dec. 11, 2007

snip / / / /
> Critics say the move is the latest sign of the religious and cultural
> conservatism that has taken hold in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam
> Hussein ushered in a government dominated by Shiite Muslims.

> U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to recruit
> female officers, said an official in the Interior Ministry told him:
> "Females are taken care of by men in our country. They are not out there
> being police officers."

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit
crimes and do bad things."
Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.export.gov/iraq/bus_climate/faq.html

JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,12:10:50 PM, wrote:

> U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to
> recruit female officers, said an official in the Interior Ministry
> told him: "Females are taken care of by men in our country. They are
> not out there being police officers."

Call me a chauvinist if you must but I am not very comfortable with
putting women in harm's way, whether in combat roles or public defense
such as police. It's not that they aren't capable of performing just
as well as men given the same weapons, but it's that the antagonist
will view them as a much easier target and direct their attention
toward the female first. They will be attacked before the men will in
most circumstances. On average women are also physically less capable
of hand-to-hand combat than men. Another aspect to consider is that
the fellow male partners will risk their own lives much more readily to
save a wounded female than a male soldier/police. This is a tactic
that can be easily used against them.

--
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad
judgment." ~ Will Rogers

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fetwtkshi3e001@news.east.cox.net...
> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,12:10:50 PM, wrote:
>
>> U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to
>> recruit female officers, said an official in the Interior Ministry
>> told him: "Females are taken care of by men in our country. They are
>> not out there being police officers."
>
> Call me a chauvinist if you must but I am not very comfortable with
> putting women in harm's way, whether in combat roles or public defense
> such as police. It's not that they aren't capable of performing just
> as well as men given the same weapons, but it's that the antagonist
> will view them as a much easier target and direct their attention
> toward the female first. They will be attacked before the men will in
> most circumstances. On average women are also physically less capable
> of hand-to-hand combat than men. Another aspect to consider is that
> the fellow male partners will risk their own lives much more readily to
> save a wounded female than a male soldier/police. This is a tactic
> that can be easily used against them.



Bullshit.

JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,10:45:50 PM, wrote:

> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0fetwtkshi3e001@news.east.cox.net...
> > JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,12:10:50 PM, wrote:
> >
> > > U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to
> > > recruit female officers, said an official in the Interior Ministry
> > > told him: "Females are taken care of by men in our country. They
> > > are not out there being police officers."
> >
> > Call me a chauvinist if you must but I am not very comfortable with
> > putting women in harm's way, whether in combat roles or public
> > defense such as police. It's not that they aren't capable of
> > performing just as well as men given the same weapons, but it's
> > that the antagonist will view them as a much easier target and
> > direct their attention toward the female first. They will be
> > attacked before the men will in most circumstances. On average
> > women are also physically less capable of hand-to-hand combat than
> > men. Another aspect to consider is that the fellow male partners
> > will risk their own lives much more readily to save a wounded
> > female than a male soldier/police. This is a tactic that can be
> > easily used against them.
>
>
>
> Bullshit.

Exactly which part of my statement do you disagree with?

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fetwy5so50e003@news.east.cox.net...
> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,10:45:50 PM, wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0fetwtkshi3e001@news.east.cox.net...
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,12:10:50 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> > > U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to
>> > > recruit female officers, said an official in the Interior Ministry
>> > > told him: "Females are taken care of by men in our country. They
>> > > are not out there being police officers."
>> >
>> > Call me a chauvinist if you must but I am not very comfortable with
>> > putting women in harm's way, whether in combat roles or public
>> > defense such as police. It's not that they aren't capable of
>> > performing just as well as men given the same weapons, but it's
>> > that the antagonist will view them as a much easier target and
>> > direct their attention toward the female first. They will be
>> > attacked before the men will in most circumstances. On average
>> > women are also physically less capable of hand-to-hand combat than
>> > men. Another aspect to consider is that the fellow male partners
>> > will risk their own lives much more readily to save a wounded
>> > female than a male soldier/police. This is a tactic that can be
>> > easily used against them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Exactly which part of my statement do you disagree with?


Since your statement supports the practices of a religious theocracy, I
disagree with every word of it.

JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,11:13:33 PM, wrote:

> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0fetwy5so50e003@news.east.cox.net...
> > JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,10:45:50 PM, wrote:
> >
> >>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:xn0fetwtkshi3e001@news.east.cox.net...
> >>> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,12:10:50 PM, wrote:
> > > >
> >>> > U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to
> >>> > recruit female officers, said an official in the Interior
> Ministry >>> > told him: "Females are taken care of by men in our
> country. They >>> > are not out there being police officers."
> > > >
> >>> Call me a chauvinist if you must but I am not very comfortable
> with >>> putting women in harm's way, whether in combat roles or
> public >>> defense such as police. It's not that they aren't capable
> of >>> performing just as well as men given the same weapons, but it's
> >>> that the antagonist will view them as a much easier target and
> >>> direct their attention toward the female first. They will be
> >>> attacked before the men will in most circumstances. On average
> >>> women are also physically less capable of hand-to-hand combat than
> >>> men. Another aspect to consider is that the fellow male partners
> >>> will risk their own lives much more readily to save a wounded
> >>> female than a male soldier/police. This is a tactic that can be
> >>> easily used against them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bullshit.
> >
> > Exactly which part of my statement do you disagree with?
>
>
> Since your statement supports the practices of a religious theocracy,
> I disagree with every word of it.

What a tremondous retort.

badgolferman wrote:
> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,12:10:50 PM, wrote:
>
>> U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to
>> recruit female officers, said an official in the Interior Ministry
>> told him: "Females are taken care of by men in our country. They are
>> not out there being police officers."
>
> Call me a chauvinist if you must but I am not very comfortable with
> putting women in harm's way, whether in combat roles or public defense
> such as police. It's not that they aren't capable of performing just
> as well as men given the same weapons, but it's that the antagonist
> will view them as a much easier target and direct their attention
> toward the female first. They will be attacked before the men will in
> most circumstances. On average women are also physically less capable
> of hand-to-hand combat than men. Another aspect to consider is that
> the fellow male partners will risk their own lives much more readily to
> save a wounded female than a male soldier/police. This is a tactic
> that can be easily used against them.

Translation:

The difference between your perspective and that of the Muslims you love
to disparage is an illusion.

badgolferman wrote:
> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,11:13:33 PM, wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0fetwy5so50e003@news.east.cox.net...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,10:45:50 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:xn0fetwtkshi3e001@news.east.cox.net...
>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,12:10:50 PM, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to
>>>>>> recruit female officers, said an official in the Interior
>> Ministry >>> > told him: "Females are taken care of by men in our
>> country. They >>> > are not out there being police officers."
>>>>> Call me a chauvinist if you must but I am not very comfortable
>> with >>> putting women in harm's way, whether in combat roles or
>> public >>> defense such as police. It's not that they aren't capable
>> of >>> performing just as well as men given the same weapons, but it's
>>>>> that the antagonist will view them as a much easier target and
>>>>> direct their attention toward the female first. They will be
>>>>> attacked before the men will in most circumstances. On average
>>>>> women are also physically less capable of hand-to-hand combat than
>>>>> men. Another aspect to consider is that the fellow male partners
>>>>> will risk their own lives much more readily to save a wounded
>>>>> female than a male soldier/police. This is a tactic that can be
>>>>> easily used against them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>> Exactly which part of my statement do you disagree with?
>>
>> Since your statement supports the practices of a religious theocracy,
>> I disagree with every word of it.
>
> What a tremondous retort.

Brevity *can* sometimes suffice. He is exactly right.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fetxyktzo64004@news.east.cox.net...
> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,11:13:33 PM, wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0fetwy5so50e003@news.east.cox.net...
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,10:45:50 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> >>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:xn0fetwtkshi3e001@news.east.cox.net...
>> >>> JoeSpareBedroom, 12/11/2007,12:10:50 PM, wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>> > U.S. Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, who has led the effort to
>> >>> > recruit female officers, said an official in the Interior
>> Ministry >>> > told him: "Females are taken care of by men in our
>> country. They >>> > are not out there being police officers."
>> > > >
>> >>> Call me a chauvinist if you must but I am not very comfortable
>> with >>> putting women in harm's way, whether in combat roles or
>> public >>> defense such as police. It's not that they aren't capable
>> of >>> performing just as well as men given the same weapons, but it's
>> >>> that the antagonist will view them as a much easier target and
>> >>> direct their attention toward the female first. They will be
>> >>> attacked before the men will in most circumstances. On average
>> >>> women are also physically less capable of hand-to-hand combat than
>> >>> men. Another aspect to consider is that the fellow male partners
>> >>> will risk their own lives much more readily to save a wounded
>> >>> female than a male soldier/police. This is a tactic that can be
>> >>> easily used against them.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Bullshit.
>> >
>> > Exactly which part of my statement do you disagree with?
>>
>>
>> Since your statement supports the practices of a religious theocracy,
>> I disagree with every word of it.
>
> What a tremondous retort.

Nothing further was needed. I don't debate with people like you who support
terrorists and the intentional mistreatment of women. You must be a
religious man.