These are quite 'special' circumstances.

Post #20,772 by Ashton 12/8/01 6:21:30 AM Reply	These are quite 'special' circumstances. We are there at their request (no matter how the King needs to spin that fact - for internal consumption of the Taliban-besotted locals VS his tenuous grasp of their own internal strife. Gods tend to create strife everywhere, notice?) I like Mike Huber's sensible solution. If they want our firepower - we need not slink around, pandering to the local weirdness: which very much helped create the need for our presence now, and previously. (then there's Iraq). Now as visitors under normal conditions? Of course! you play by their rules, or you spend your tourist $ somewhere else. Hmm what's to see there besides sand + Western techno paid for by Murican UAV-[oil]-$ ?? Don't suppose there are.. very many actual Western tourists; do you (??) [I turned down my 'offer' flat - for all above reasons. This woman can't.] Try for just 47 seconds to imagine: You are in a group, commanded by a Colonel. Who just left covered in a black sack, sitting in the back. Needing a Male Chaperon\ufffd. THAT is what this is about. Not nice-nice tourism to look at the sand. Demeaning is the nice word - this is fucking INSOLENT. Ashton
Post #20,776 by imric 12/8/01 8:46:48 AM Reply	Insolent? We are there at their request You don't think that our forces are there for any reasons but our own, do you? I grant you that they may be good reasons, but 'serving' the Saudis, being there as a 'favor' is disingenuous at best. I'm surprised you would swallow that. Gods tend to create strife everywhere, notice? ROFL. No, MAN creates strife. God is just a handy excuse. Heh. As if mankind wouldn't squabble without religious excuses... pandering to the local weirdness: C'mon, Ash! You are revealing your cultural bias/prejudice, here. Guess yer jest a reg'lar 'Murican Joe, after all! grin I turned down my 'offer' flat - for all above reasons. This woman can't. Yeah. Because she's a SOLDIER, damnit! She's acting like a spoiled tourist, though. Now she's gonna sue? Over orders? During a time of war? Bahahahahaha! You are in a group, commanded by a Colonel. Who just left covered in a black sack, sitting in the back. Needing a Male Chaperon?. THAT is what this is about. Ok. I'm imagining. Is this a combat situation we are talking about? No? Is it on base? No? Is it on patrol? No? Is it off duty? Yes? Guess what - it's fscking TOURISM. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #20,797 by Ashton 12/8/01 7:25:16 PM 12/8/01 7:37:23 PM Reply	Ah how EZ it would all be if.. logic alone were enough! No more worries about 'quality', just [quantity of $] - just nice spreadsheet numbers - with Economists ruling the world: like Right Now. Everyone goes on leave there. Everyone has the same er leader, on/off base. You are reaching to imagine there is this nice neat dichotomy. 'Respect' in the military is a chimerical thing and it Sure as HELL - takes in the total experience of Our Colonel.. who was seen at ___ in a___ Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. J'accuse thee! of sophistry here. This is a [er by definition] regimented caste system - which you would ignore, to lump this into [involuntary] "Tourism". BS - unless she stays confined to base [virtually] - this is STILL Murican Leadership (all the way to Dubya) trading a Colonel's abject humiliation for [oil] and also: full contradiction of our Principles. (Hah - they are ever For $ale) She is being forced to don a RELIGIOUS SYMBOL. [see below] Yes we are there for -what we imagine to be - self-interest. But we are not prohibited from being smart: Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Afg. all the stans: who want the King replaced with a Troglodyte. We want the [oil] King there [oil] for obvious reasons. But all the BS in Afg. today! is about the denunciation of Fundamentalist repressive regimes. And we now work in that direction by? HONORING THE REPRESSION. <<< [oil][oil][oil] Good Murican policy-nonthink there, Imric. It likely WILL be decided on just [oil] the same [oil] rationale as has besotted us since forgetting the 1973 GAS lines. So you're nicely aligned with current dumbth. Nice to be with the Establishment- 'Rightness', huh? Screw Murican "Principles" again. A. ;-) PS - let's posit that the King, to assuage a few local Troglodytes, says next that: mere covering of hateful females is not quite enough to demonstrate their abject servility. They must also hourly salaam* wherever on the street, in a store etc. With that merely slight increase in the overall absurdity: are you yet ready to acknowledge a RELIGIOUS ritual being imposed on an Official Representative of the United Consumers\ufffd of Murica? Too bad there are so few FEMALES in IT - you guys have no empathy WhatSoEver -- even about Murican Puritocracy -- and not even when, as here: it bites you on HER ass. Edited by Missing User 70 Dec. 8, 2001, 07:37:23 PM EST Expand All History
Post #20,886 by imric 12/10/01 10:26:18 AM Reply	Logic alone? Or logic at all? You accuse ME of sophistry? chuckle SO - when reason doesn't work to support a view, that means the logic must not apply? And that if logic or reason is used in discussion I support "Economists ruling the world: like Right Now"? Everyone goes on leave there. Everyone has the same er leader, on/off base. Uh-huh. So, tell me. When did you go in for cultural imperialism, Ash? You ARE, after all, insisting that our values, mores, and laws should be applicable to Americans living in 'furrin' countries, aren't you (or is it just Muslim countries)? Our laws and customs should be binding upon whatever country we happen to be in at the time? Oh - Maybe it's OK to respect other quaint customs as long as we approve of thier culture overall, right? all the BS in Afg. today! is about the denunciation of Fundamentalist repressive regimes Funny, I thought it was 'about' ending the threat of terrorism, and the threat it holds for US citizens. Gee, if it IS the war of cultural imperialism that you hope for, we should just take over, rather than leave those durn A-rabs in charge - they'll only continue on the path that thier culture has set them on, after all. Under our benighn guidance, I'm sure that they would take to western culture, even if we have to shove it down thier throats. Hey - and that would end terrorism, too, right? Too bad there are so few FEMALES in IT - you guys have no empathy WhatSoEver -- even about Murican Puritocracy -- and not even when, as here: it bites you on HER ass. Now I have to say, Ash - you are completely full of it. I think you may want to rethink your classification IT 'types' into those old cartoonish stereotypes. Personally, I think the treatment of women 'over there' is deplorable. I would support whatever trade sanctions or other political solutions used to ameliorate and eventually eliminate the plight of women in the Middle East - but I do NOT think that we have some international imperative or right to suspend cultural mores, laws or regulations just because we happen to be there! As to the EMPATHY statement - ya know what? I have empathy, but little sympathy. SHE'S A SOLDIER. SHE DOES UNPLEASANT THINGS for a LIVING. She could be required to live in a muddy trench for months at a time (the uniform would be ruined - that might undermine her authority, since that comes from what she's wearing according to you anyway)- and THAT'S OK, but wearing clothes required by the culture and law of the 'indigenes' when off base is out of the question? No, Ash. The time for her protests is not during a time of war. If she is so offended, let her apply for a transfer. Oh - that might damage her career, though - and it is the duty of whatever people we happen to be 'protecting' to adjust to our presence and support our own cultural imperatives. And if foreign policy seems to require our presence in a country where the individuals within the military are not treated in a manner that can disregard the laws and mores of those poor barbaric indigenes, well foreign policy must take a back seat to your American Principle of cultural imperialism. Pfeh. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #20,896 by Silverlock 12/10/01 11:42:49 AM Reply	Piffle She's saying that she is required to wear a burkha when other females in Government service are not. The local culture argument is beside the point and a red herring. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #20,897 by imric 12/10/01 11:50:54 AM Reply	chortle Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #20,898 by bepatient 12/10/01 11:58:19 AM Reply	Not quite. Servicewomen are required, but not any "other federal employees". It'd be interessting to see how many federal employees there are over there that aren't in the service. And it says nothing about whether those "others" are even women. So...its not as "beside the point" as you would like it to be. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #20,909 by Silverlock 12/10/01 12:50:21 PM Reply	anti-piffle Just did a little googling trying to find some kind of number for federal female employees in Saudi Arabia. Nothing. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that the Saudi law requiring foreign females to dress in traditional garb is honored more in the breach than in strict adherence to the law. Overall however, I can find nothing backing her assertion that only federal servicewomen are required to dress in this manner. So, I retract my "piffle" comment. BTW, I found a most interesting draft analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies -quote CSIS_______________________________ Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 775-3270 Acordesman@aol.com Islamic Extremism in Saudi Arabia and the Attack on Al Khobar Review Draft \ufffd Circulated for Comment Anthony H. Cordesman Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy June 2001 Introduction This draft analysis is be circulated for comment as part of the CSIS \ufffdSaudi Arabia Enters the 21 st Century Project.\ufffd It will be extensively revised before final publication. Those interested in commenting, or in participating in the project, should contact Anthony H. Cordesman at the address shown on the cover sheet at Acordesman@aol.com. This draft is copyright. It may be referenced, or quoted at lengths of less than one page, with proper attribution to the author and CSIS, and to the fact it is a draft document. -endquote Lot's of background and thoughtful analysis. A coherent read without obfuscating languge [link\|http://www.csis.org/burke/saudi21/saudi_alkhobar.pdf\|Here]. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #20,942 by CRConrad 12/10/01 5:03:20 PM Reply	Reinstate it - BeeP (of all people) corroborated it! Don: Just did a little googling trying to find some kind of number for federal female employees in Saudi Arabia. Nothing. BeeP found it for you. From his linked [link\|http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-04-24-mcsally.htm\|article:] The State Department policy ... "Embassy women are not expected to wear... Apparently there are at least SOME women in U.S. federal employ in Saudi Arabia, and they are NOT required to wear sacks. Furthermore, from that article, what major McSally suggested seems to have been not that she be allowed to run around in halter-tops or bikinis, but "that women should be able to wear their uniforms on official business and dress in long pants and long-sleeve shirts when off-duty". Oh yeah, and she isn't there Attacking A Son Of Saudi for purely US-egotistic reasons -- well, at least not officially -- either, but "flew her A-10 Warthog jet 100 hours over southern Iraq enforcing the no-fly zone [, and] now runs search and rescue for that operation"; i.e, she is -- at least officially -- there on their request, defending them from Big Bad Saddam. Does it still seem reasonable to anyone that they be allowed not only to shelter under the wing of her country's generous protection, but also to impose their disgusting old superstitions on her while she goes about providing that very protection for them? If so, then how the fuck do you define "reasonable"?!? Actually, it seems to me BeeP found total corroboration for his opponents' original view, and rebuttal for his own... Big of ya to post it, Bill! :-) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #20,949 by imric 12/10/01 6:01:58 PM Reply	Yup. And I must say after reading about the State Dept. and Saudi policies, the US military does seem more restrictive than necessary. I agree that it doesn't seem fair, and it sounds like the military is being arbitrary. I don't know what sort of deal was cut for/about our presence there, either. Having foreign military on your soil just might be considered a big deal... I don't know whether or not it entered into negotiations at all or not, though. Unless I hear/find out more about it, I would have to say that she might have a point, and as long as she's not disobeying orders, she is justified in taking this through the appropriate channels. If the Saudis do not require it, why should the military, after all? Of course, if the Saudis DO require it, all I said before still stands. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #20,954 by bepatient 12/10/01 8:59:03 PM Reply	not really... The State Department policy, updated in an embassy memo last August, says men and women should dress conservatively. Women, it says, should wear long dresses and avoid trousers. It adds, "Embassy women are not expected to wear abayas when out on official business. ... The guidance issued by the Saudi Embassy in Washington states that non-Muslim women are not required to wear an abaya but should dress conservatively" when in public, including loose-fitting dresses draped well below the knees with long sleeves and a high neckline. The memo notes that some Western women, especially those living in the more conservative areas such as Riyadh, wear an abaya "in order to avoid harassment" by the mutawa. Even so, "harassment still occurs," the memo says. Of course...bold added to highlight the appropriate section. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #21,138 by CRConrad 12/12/01 7:36:18 AM Reply	Seems it only notes that they DO; doesn't say HAVE TO. And, "wear an abaya 'in order to avoid harassment' by the mutawa. Even so, 'harassment still occurs,' the memo says"?!? So you are saying she should be forced, _by her own superiors_, to go out of her way and humiliate herself -- in order to avoid APPARENTLY _NON_-SANCTIONED "harassment" from an out-of-control organ of the very state she's there to help defend? Wouldn't it make more sense for those superiors to say, "She's a US soldier here to defend you country. Since you seem to have 'issues' with clothing, we'll order all our soldiers (male as well as female) to wear uniform -- an outfit that clearly states this is a member of your greatest ally's military, here defending YOU on YOUR request -- at all times, on duty as well as off."? And then add, under their breath, "So reign in your fuckwit 'mutawa', or bear the consequences: if they DARE to harass a member of your greatest ally's military, here defending YOU on YOUR request, then they'll be treated just like any other rag-head in the world that pisses us off." The fact that they're NOT already saying exactly that (which has nothing at all to do with Saudian oil, oh no, nooo...) is why America is seen as such a gigantic hypocrite by the world. If only you guys could get your act together and act a little more consistently, I'm sure at least a lot more Europeans would respect you a little more -- and, heck, for all I know, so would probably quite a few rag-heads, too! Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #21,143 by bepatient 12/12/01 9:32:10 AM Reply	So you are all in favor... ...of our continued lack of respect for other cultures. Thats cool. I'm not. I've seen "ugly American" syndrome. I'm not a big fan. When were you indoctrinated into different cultures? When was a 2nd language demanded of you? We used to be able to afford ignorance...because so many of us stayed within our borders. Now its a penalty...and a very big problem. And this kind of crap just makes that issue more pronounced. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #21,147 by Silverlock 12/12/01 10:01:00 AM Reply	Nice two step Elegantly side stepping the point there Beep. Instead of addressing the issue that only the military female employees are ordered to wear a sack, you bring up the ugly american argument. Slick. Hard to defend against when it isn't the point that was being discussed originally. The State Department itself has guidelines for dress that are less restrictive than the military orders. -quote Dress. Although Westerners have some leeway in dress and social contacts within company residential compounds, both men and women should dress conservatively in public. Women's clothing should be loose fitting and concealing, with high necks, skirts worn well below the knee, and sleeves below the elbow. It is recommended that women not wear pants. -endquote [link\|http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/sa1/wwwhcn29.html\|[link\|http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/sa1/wwwhcn29.html\|http://usembassy.st...wwhcn29.html]] From what I remember of dress uniforms, they should fit the bill. Of course, work uniforms don't make it, the "no pants" guideline rules that out. The thing is, I agree with a lot of what you say, but the way you belittled and ridiculed the pilot trying to change what she sees as unfair treatment does you no credit. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #21,152 by bepatient 12/12/01 10:19:35 AM Reply	Upthread [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=20954\|My previous post] where even the State Department recommends wearing the "sack" in the Riyadh area...where the military compound just happens to be located. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #21,156 by Silverlock 12/12/01 10:46:24 AM Reply	Yeah. And? I read it. Recommend vs. order. You still did the logic two step in the post I was responding to. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #21,153 by CRConrad 12/12/01 10:21:23 AM Reply	You're making Marlowe's mistake: Conflating... ...Multiculturalism/Cultural Diversity with Moral Relativism; only, you're making it in reverse, compared to him. Where he needlessly blasts "Multiculturalism" because he abhors Moral Relativism, you are allowing Moral Relativism out of a needless zeal to promote Cultural Diversity. If only you -- both of you -- could see that they aren't the same thing, maybe you'd realize it's possible (and just and good and righteous too, BTW) to defend the one and at the same time condemn the other. (And no, I don't mean defend Moral Relativism and condemn Cultural Diversity! :-) HTH! Oh yes, almost forgot: At age five, as I'd think you very well know. Why -- what does it have to do with anything? Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #20,798 by Ashton 12/8/01 7:41:16 PM Reply	Hey Maggie! What's Your take on this 'little pecadillo\ufffd' ?? Got any testosterone anti-venin in stock? Ashton
Post #20,807 by slugbug 12/8/01 10:29:20 PM Reply	Hey Ash! I like your idea of having everyone wear a burkha when off base :) I don't know this woman or what she is thinking. Yes, she could have obtained a transfer to a more equalistic country, but she chose to stay and take a stand, I guess. I doubt if she'll be successful in her lawsuit though give the current regime and the implementation of the new world order. Given that we are experiencing a systematic reduction in individual rights -- particularly among women and minorities -- her timing is particularly bad. However, as one of just a few women with her rank and position, she may actually be able to pull it off. Will be interesting to watch. -Mags
Post #20,814 by Ashton 12/9/01 12:57:38 AM Reply	Thanks. Share the pessimism. And given the in-US trends, is it too much to hope that not just a few women try to offer more than moral support (and the less-wimpish men too)? Maybe only on West Wing are such issues dealt with - in fiction. She's our highest-ranking female fighter pilot; that oughtta galvanize some standard just-plain chauvinistic support. Martha McSally - she be My kinda Colonel! Cheers, Ashton Is that 100% of the zIWE female(s) on record then?
Post #20,816 by slugbug 12/9/01 1:08:21 AM Reply	not 100% I think there are a few other lurkers and a few who post occasionally. Would be interesting to start a thread and see how many of my sisters are actually here. -Mags
Post #20,836 by Andrew Grygus 12/9/01 5:12:30 PM Reply	Well, then, start a new topic. Call it "Hen House" - that oughta shake 'em out of the woodwork :) [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #20,803 by Brandioch 12/8/01 8:47:54 PM Reply	Even easier solution. No military personnel will ever be out of uniform. That way, she can walk outside, IN UNIFORM. If some local idiot decides that she's affronting him, he will KNOW that she's US military before he throws the first stone. If we can't handle that situation, the NO ONE leaves the base. Solidarity with your own people FIRST. No male will leave the base, no female will leave the base. On the base, you wear the uniform. But we do not have two standards for our own people.
Post #20,813 by Ashton 12/9/01 12:40:47 AM Reply	"The play's the thing wherein we'll catch the conscience of the King" - theirs and ours. Yep, add your variation to Mike's delicious one; now they have several ways to actually deal with the implications. Personally I believe this small tempest cuts close to the heart of our [oil-] and our Principle- follies, of many years (if not decades) duration. Seen on that scale; if we weasel and just trash her (and thus her suit) with State force: Add that to Jimmy Carter's (even!) neat encapsulation of the effects of our new 'justice' upon the rest of the world's opinion of the "character of the Lone Superpower"? This tiny 'suit' might emulate the effects of another tiny thing: an Anthrax spore, noted within every next negotiation with each local despot we wish to seduce: For Us or Agin Us. As to what our home-grown women come to think of how this is finally handled, and the implications? And how the theology lobby likes Muricans adopting religious camouflage for [oil] and comfort? Let the games begin. Ashton now.. how to follow this - see if it gets buried with the truss ads. After all: this was a 12/3 story which BeeP dug up. Wonder if I can contribute to her lawsuit expenses?

Welcome to IWETHEY!