If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   US Female military personnel in Saudia Arabia no longer required to wear muslim dress. Instead they will go topless   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

11337 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2002 at 8:44 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

125 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-01-23 10:37:46 AM  
2002-01-23 10:39:37 AM  
Stank, if they try to no doubt the US marines will help in wiping out any rebellion.

Bush would just say they were terrorists and so it goes
2002-01-23 10:43:35 AM  
Harmonia Not every culture wants a democracy.
Many cultures embrace different types of government.
Take the USA, we didn't do well under a silly King and Queen.
2002-01-23 10:45:53 AM  
They will no longer be required to perform bukkake?
...that is really sad.
2002-01-23 10:46:14 AM  
Hi Harmonia.

I don't think that anyone here really LIKES the saudi government, I mean, didn't they just behead a few guys for being gay a couple of weeks ago? Lovely people. but that is not so much the issue here, since there is sadly no way we are going to convince our government to relinquish their strategic position in the reigon and jepordize our precious oil that we get from them. I, however, will be the first to admit that I am not extensively educated about saudi arabia and the fine points of their relationship with them. I personally like Stank Hippie's Russia plan. What do you think about that? I'm interested, since you seem by far to be the most politically minded farker here.
2002-01-23 10:48:07 AM  
The only thing keeping us from stockpiling on Russian oil is OPEC. If we ditched the farking saudis and got our oil from Russia, OPEC would scream and biatch and whine. And, unfortunately, OPEC has to many buddies in the Bush administration. And, apparently, keeping your "buddies" happy is more important than even cheaper oil.

That being said, we can fantasize about better relations with Russia, and actually helping a country who deserves our help and would be grateful for it, but the truth is that Peer Pressure in the White House is even stronger than Black Gold.
2002-01-23 10:52:52 AM  
The Arabs have been living under a monarchy (aka dictatorship) for as long as their history goes back.

There will be no such rebellion in Saudi Arabia in our lifetime. Their entire history, their entire culture is based on repression; Keeping the little people down. Why should anyone give a fark if America is over there or not? They'd all be in the same boat, even if we left.
2002-01-23 10:53:06 AM  
"Stank, if they try to no doubt the US marines will help in wiping out any rebellion.

Bush would just say they were terrorists and so it goes"

I'd agree with him, but in this case it's the Saudi royal family funding all of that religious extremism. They're trying to play both sides against the middle, and that's why I keep saying that these people are not our allies.

In an ideal world I'd like to see the federal government mandate to Detroit that they will come up with alternative fuel sources by 2005. When that happens we pull out completely and let the Saudi's bask in the love of their people. I'd also like to see the US invest heavily in nuclear energy which is far cleaner and cheaper than any other viable fuel source we presently have.

But seeing as big oil would fight that tooth and nail, we should attempt a compromise and start working with the Russians. Russia needs a Marshall plan from us and the extra business we throw their way from buying their oil wouldn't hurt matters. Either way, I think it's imperative that we stop dealing with the Saudi's. We definitely have the ability to do it, but whether or not we have the will to do it is a different matter.
2002-01-23 11:03:50 AM  
What's worse than an Arab?

An Arab on a bicycle!

2002-01-23 11:06:33 AM  
"The Arabs have been living under a monarchy (aka dictatorship) for as long as their history goes back."

Not quite true. The Arabs conquered most of Arabia under mohammed and his decendents. However power passed to Istanbul and all of the middle-east became part of the Turkish empire.

The British unified and mobilised the Arabs of the Arabian peninsula to help them in WW1, promising them independence (and of course selling them out after the war) however the dicovery of oil changed the situation entirely so the Western powers (again primarily Britain) installed Faisel as their man in the region, armed him and trained him an army. The British had learned in India that a local ruler dependent on you is far easier to control than just sending in your own troops to get shot at.

Their have been arab uprisings, Oman in the 1970's is a good example where the Britis (again) sent in the SAS to smash the rebellion.

As for the Russia idea, good in theory but as Russia still has nukes and is therefore, at least in those terms, a superpower, I dont think the west would wish to rely on them.

The real alternative is the Caspian basin, the biggest untapped source of oil on the planet. Lucily enough the Recent war has allowed the US to set up bases all over the region.
2002-01-23 11:08:07 AM  
It was Singapore and they caned him less than they were supposed to because it was widely believed that the correct amount might kill him.

I thought we were there protecting our interests. Why the hell would we spend our money on someone elses interests?
2002-01-23 11:14:14 AM  
Well, close, anyway. You still can't deny that their government doesn't keep them down.

People say it's us, but they'd still be under the saudi dictatorship's thumb even if we farked off.

I agree with Stank, we should get our oil from the Russians.
2002-01-23 11:15:24 AM  
Jackie: I'm pretty sure I saw that picture before, also. It was a Chechen landmine on a Russian tank. It was on qoqaz.net, but I can't find it there now.
2002-01-23 11:20:23 AM  
I get the uncomfortable feeling that Saudi Arabia is just another "Iran" waiting to happen. We're propping up an oppressive regime, but when it fails, it will be oppressed by an even more oppressive regime.
2002-01-23 11:24:30 AM  
I thought the US was in SA to be close to Sadam and to protect its oil intrests.

I like the Russia idea, but I doubt it'd happen.
2002-01-23 11:25:15 AM  
Wow Stank, I have never before heard anyone else besides myself tout Nuclear power as our best bet for clean energy. People who smoke a pack a day pick up about five times the rads from their cigaretts in one year as nuclear plant workers get from ten years working their job. And if the lovely government hadn't passed a bill banning waste re-processing (there was a cold war fear that the re-claimed uranium would be bought and used by rogue states) we would have a MUCH cleaner and significantly smaller waste output. there are so many misconceptions surrounding nuclear power.
oh wow, this is VERY off topic, but I will post it anyway. sorry all.
2002-01-23 11:25:59 AM  
3horn: I think she's a warthog driver, not and eagle driver.

An abaya is not a burqa. They are two different things. The US required women to wear abayas not burqas.
2002-01-23 11:31:43 AM  
"Wow Stank, I have never before heard anyone else besides myself tout Nuclear power as our best bet for clean energy."

More work in Fusion needed, Fission sucks in the long run.
2002-01-23 11:33:18 AM  
Placer: Agree with you 100%.

In my opinion the Middle East is just not worth the hassle. The west is for the most part self sufficient; the only thing that we've been relying on the Middle East for is oil. Once we rid ourselves of that dependence we can reassess the situation from a position of freedom.

I'm also reconsidering our position with regards to Israel. I don't feel we should be holding their hands they way we have been, but I also don't want to see Israel just be exterminated like the Palestinians would very much like to. Not to mention, our calls for restraint to them (and to India and Pakistan for that matter) are hypocritical considering our current stance on dealing with terror. This is a no-win proposition. The only way I think this matter would be solved is with one side completely destroying the other. In that scenario, I'd rather see Israel win.
2002-01-23 11:33:23 AM  
Actually, when my mom was there, the law did require the head wrapping thing covering most of the face, and some other junk.
2002-01-23 11:36:18 AM  
An abaya is not a burqa. They are two different things. The US required women to wear abayas not burqas.

Correct. However, there's not a lot of difference.


[image from members.tripod.de too old to be available]


[image from members.tripod.de too old to be available]

and for good measure, a Chador:

[image from members.tripod.de too old to be available]
2002-01-23 11:37:30 AM  
Yeah, Kym. What I find frustrating is that so much of the negativity surrounding nuclear power comes from environmental groups, when really, boosting nuclear power should be their primary concern.

Of course, I'm not an environmental nut, it's just that nuclear power is the most beneficial form of energy we currently have coontil fusion becomes viable, as was also mentioned).
2002-01-23 11:41:49 AM  
I'm a conservative, and I support the country's right to have it's own laws and that visitors, including American servicepeople, should obey them or not leave the bases.

Wearing a head wrapping, riding in the back seat of a car, etc, is not going to kill you, or harm you, if you don't like it, stay on the base where you can avoid such things.
2002-01-23 11:45:53 AM  
NaTaX: Fine, then we have the right to tell Saudi Arabia to keep their medieval bullshiat to themselves and take care of their own problems the next time Saddam gets jumpy. We don't absolutely NEED Saudi's oil. We can get our oil from Russia, or even our own reserves should it come to that.

If you need our help in protecting your country, then you need to make concessions to how the people protecting you dress.
2002-01-23 11:46:34 AM  
43%: Islam soggests conservative clothing for women for exactly that reason, as well as the lack of self control by non-muslims. Prior to Islam women WERE property and rape wasn't even a crime. Women were often not even allowed to wear clothing and had no rights.

Primus: True. the "Saudi" name is a reference to the Monarchy that exists there, so your comment is technically correct. However, Arabia did have a brief period of Democracy, during, and for the few decades immediately following the life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Among other things, he gave women the right to vote - 1300 years before American women did.

Do not cofuse the pratices of a Corrupt Saudi regime with Islam. Vocalizing that ignorance makes you come off no better than those "Chick Tract" cartoons. For instance, some in here have said the US made soldiers wear Burkas. Saudi Women do not wear Burkas, that is a Pashtun thing. The artice clearly states that Saudi Women wear Abaya. (Most of them).

SA is a truly screwed up society and is holistically unrepresentitive of Islam. That said, the US put the policy in place so as not to piss off the Saudi Arabian government, since the US has a clear vested interest in having a military presence on the peninsula. The claim the soldier made that it is "Unconstitutional" is total BS. She is in the military. The military has an objective. the issued the order to their troops to protect the interest. Some parts of the order I have issue with. Such as, not allowing female soldiers to drive off base. I think that is ill advised. However, look at the converse situation. The US has laws which prohibit women from uncovering their breasts in public. As much as many of the posters to this board might like to see that law ammended, it is still the law. In many parts of the world it is acceptable for women to uncover their breasts in public, depending on the situation (at the beach, etc.) When foreign women come to the US, they are expected to adhere to US standards of modesty. It is stupid for Americans to go over to other countries and say that our standards are the only correct way of looking at things.
2002-01-23 11:51:08 AM  
If every SUV came off the road and was replaced by a hybrid, we'd reduced our dependency on foreign oil a significant amount. That's with no ANWR drilling, no more than we already get from Russia, nada. A couple of warm winters, and more emphasis on natural gas for electricity, and we'd be WELL on our way.

If you own an SUV, you're an unpatriotic, selfish, Saudi-supporting bastard. Buy a hybrid, or the you-know-who have already you-know-what. Oh yeah, and you also have a small penis.
2002-01-23 11:51:31 AM  
Ah, fission.....

....*drifts off into happy place*......
2002-01-23 11:53:29 AM  
damn, I meant to type fusion...

.....*searches for brain*.......
2002-01-23 11:58:21 AM  
Harmonia - Everyone knows why we're in Saudi Arabia, just as everybody knew why Britain was in India and HK, France in Vietnam, etc., etc. You sound like there is a problem with this, or that America is indulging in strange and unnatural ways by entering into a mutually beneficial relationship with another country. Sure, the people there might feel they're getting hosed... history says this is par for the course, and also says that they are perfectly free to change things whenever they feel it is worth the effort.

As long as we're there, though, we should respect their laws and traditions as best we're able. This woman helped to flip off the entire nation while wearing a uniform which basically says "this is America". "You backward farks, I am more important than your silly, primitive laws!" This is the kind of thing the world hates America for.
2002-01-23 11:59:56 AM  
let me get this straight (from Islamist apologists). None of these repressive islamic regimes are reflective of islam. No followers of islam are reflective of islam.

Islam, like christianity, is a religion built upon the writings, words, and supposed words of pre-Modern ex-turd worshippers bent on appeasing a cruel, simple minded god in a world they couldn't understand.

Then people act surprised when the followers of these religions do crazy shiat.
2002-01-23 12:01:29 PM  
I dont think you could call the British/Indian relationship:
"mutually beneficial"

We conquered the place and screwed it for everything we could get until the people got sick of and threw us out.
2002-01-23 12:01:54 PM  

The whole point is that she IS wearing the uniform, and should be treated in exactly the same fashion as her fellow male officers.
2002-01-23 12:04:03 PM  

Come on now, you think India would have one of the highest concentration of technology professionals in the world right now if it wasn't for it's British legacy? Here's one example where the Imperialist legacy actually helped. Please refer to entire continent of Africa to refute argument of Imperialism... Thank you, drive through.
2002-01-23 12:04:06 PM  
what a well-thought out and utterly galling post. To which I would like to respond that I think we should be legally allowed to take our shirts off here, too. Nothing I can do about that.
I realize that the servicewomen in saudi might be exposing themselves to ridicule like a nieve topless italian girl on a beach, but OH it galls me to admit it.
....*swallows bitter pill*....
What I would like to know is how much television in Saudi is from the west? do they possibly view us the same way we as americans view a national geographic and are not shocked by the breasts of aboriginal women?

And Hiro Portagonist:
nice name. Very nice. And dead on about the suv's.
2002-01-23 12:05:32 PM  
I gotta revise my previous post a bit: officers need to be treated in the same way regardless of gender: with derision and laughter!

j/k, sir.
2002-01-23 12:07:05 PM  
Scrotar wrote:
"This woman helped to flip off the entire nation while wearing a uniform which basically says "this is America". "

And God bless her for it. Look, I'm no moralist. I really don't care about genocide in far off places, the backwardness of most of the world, etc. As long as it doesn't conflict with US interests the rest of the world can go screw itself.

As far as I'm concerned most of the people in the Middle East are savages. In the grand scheme of civilization, those people are bringing up the rear. So, yeah, I place more value in not insulting our own servicewomen than I do in trying to placate a bunch of backward savages that are going to hate us.

I realize this makes me sound xenophobic, but hey, I never claimed to be a "we are the world" kind of guy. A nation looks after it's own people first.
2002-01-23 12:10:45 PM  
43% : I can't think of a regime in the World today that is representative of Islamic ideals, save, to some extent Western Democracies. The Muslim world is in a horrible state at the moment, and there are a good number of people that need to get their heads out of their butts. However, there are plenty of followers of Islam who are representitive of the faith, they just don't make it on CNN.

Continue Trolling
2002-01-23 12:12:12 PM  
Hiro, if you read anything about the British in India you will know that their legacy was poison, see Kasmir today for an example.

The religous hatred for example has its roots in the British tactic of divide and rule, the British used the minorities (Muslims and sikhs) as their police force and created Pakistan to ensure the sub-continent stayed weak and divided.
2002-01-23 12:12:28 PM  
Hiro_Protagonist - That is a good point, but as we are in their land, they get to say what behavior will be accepted from us and what will not. America could lose a whole lot, and this is probably one of the worst times to lay something like this on the Saudi royal family. If they allow this, it makes them look even more like American lackeys and less like the devout, admirable and strong people they must appear to be to stay in power. The alternative is an even more fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, one that might be hostile towards the US.
2002-01-23 12:13:25 PM  
Stank-hippie, thats the attitude that causes people to hate Americans.

Thank fark you are in a minority.
2002-01-23 12:15:24 PM  
FRM: not trolling, but i disagree. Theocracies always fail in the long run. Regardless, the Muslim world of their 15th century looks a lot like the Christian world of our calender's 15th.

Enlightment, anyone?
2002-01-23 12:15:47 PM  
Scrotar wrote:
"The alternative is an even more fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, one that might be hostile towards the US. "

Huh? Saudi is already hostile towards us. They just put up with us because we're useful to them. There isn't exactly a deep love for the American people in Saudi Arabia, as is evidenced by the huge proportion of Saudi's represented in the 9/11 hijackers.
2002-01-23 12:21:54 PM  
43%: God help me, I agree with you. I think Theocracies are a terrible idea, and this period is definitely the dark ages of the Middle East.
2002-01-23 12:23:12 PM  
Stank_Hippie - right, make that "might be MORE hostile towards the US."
2002-01-23 12:29:13 PM  
I am stitting here wondering if it could really make THAT much of a difference in the long run. Sure, it would scandalize the locals for a little while, but wouldn't everyone just get over it eventually? it is not as though these women are wearing bikinis. they are covered from neck to toe, they just are wearing pants.

but then maybe I am an optimist.
goddamn Theocracies.
2002-01-23 12:31:32 PM  
Harmonia wrote:
"Stank-hippie, thats the attitude that causes people to hate Americans."

Puh-leeze. The rest of the world is going to hate us no matter what we do. Either we're trying to be the world's policeman, or we're not doing enough to help out. Whichever way we turn we get blasted for it. There are very few places in the world that even acknowledge that just maybe things are better with us being the sole superpower rather than say, the Soviet Union.

I understand that we are going to get shiat on for whatever stance we take in any matter. So yeah, I really don't give a damn about the rest of the world. I'm concerned about America first.

Maybe if the rest of the world would attempt to get their own houses in order rather than just knee-jerk blaming the US for every evil that has ever befallen the world, things would be better.

We always get accused of being arrogant and selfish, well maybe there's a reason we're that way. Because quite frankly, we are better than the other whine-tit countries that populate this earth.
2002-01-23 12:36:50 PM  
Did anyone see McSally's interview on 60 minutes Sunday? She was giggling like a school girl through most of it. Wasn't really appropriate concerning the subject matter. Maybe it was nerves, but it was hard to concentrate on what she was saying because of that.
2002-01-23 12:39:49 PM  
FYI - When in Saudi aways make sure to eat using your RIGHT hand, your left hand is for other things. (Hint: they don't have a whole lot of toilet paper in most of the country).
2002-01-23 12:46:55 PM  

This stupid tramp should consider that our constitution is not in effect IN Saudi Arabia. I say, drive her our to the desert and see if she makes it back alive. I'm sure the 'enlightened' Saudi locals will lovingly embrace her "me" attitude and feminist ideals. Right after they beat the shiat our of her tired ass, and drag the corpse to the local bonfire.

Why did our government waste a couple hundred thousand $'s on this worthless creature. She can't be improving the military readiness.
2002-01-23 12:47:24 PM  
"As long as we're there, though, we should respect their laws and traditions as best we're able. This woman helped to flip off the entire nation while wearing a uniform which basically says "this is America"."

And I totally agree. As long as you're on THEIR land, you have to follow their laws and traditions. What if the Arabs had their base in the U.S. and bestowed the soldiers the right to walk around with their dicks and asses naked, or something equally gross, paying no attention to the petty U.S. or state laws? For them, women's bodies uncovered can be considered as offensive as their naked peckers to us. This type of arrogance, pushing the American values and Christianity on them, only serves to pi$$ off the Arabs, and is partially responsible for 9/11 attacks.

I don't mean to say the women shouldn't have equal rights in Arab countries, but it's up to THEM to decide. Not for the arrogant biatches acting like they own the world, on THEIR land.
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.