Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So you're saying that the sole reason for this war is to liberate the Iraqi women?

well thats the thing... im not debating the war or the rationale for war... but being necessary doesnt mean its moral...

i never said anything about necessity being normal.

oops. little typo there i meant moral not normal.

No but how did those people think they were going to liberate the women over there. With diplomacy? HAH!

During the industrial revolution in Britain, women had no rights, but they came about without war, granted a regime change would be needed in Iraq's case, but there are more diplomatic ways to go about that.

You just offered evidence toward my point. The brittish women got it on thier own, people in america protested for iraqi womens rights and are now protesting the war. They couldnt have though that the government would be able to make the iraqi government give the women rights without using force so it is hiocritacal to protest both.

Maybe people who believe in womens rights also believe that loss of life is senseless, and could therefore be dusgusted by the actions of Hussein, but also be disgusted by the destruction and hell of a war.

Maybe they should think through thier opinions before they start protesting when they have no solution to the problem. Beggars cant be choosers.

NO, the US-Iraqi war is about overthrowing the DAMN SADDAMN. simply because he's a corrupted RULER and he rules the country like fuck. lots of his citizen are suffering under poverty and the terror he had done. setting up Secret police force capture and torture everyone who are suspected for treason under the slightest excuse. worst of all, Iraq does have a few terrorist group. that means SADDAM can or may have the chance to sell his destructive weapons to the terrorists. and this must be stop.
and the iraqi women is far ok, compare to SAUDI ARABIA and KUWAIT, the women there are like dogs. the control is ultimatly strict. the men are ruling the women like gangster instead of a gentleman.
for more info, pls read TIME which is 2 weeks ago. there is an article that shows the range of how strict the govt' are in the MUSLIM countries. from the strictest which is SAUDI ARABIA to the slackest INDONESIA.

I think we're having a bit of an issue in differentiating 'ethical' and 'illegal'.

Everyone's ethics are different, everyone's opinions are different. Especially about this war. But regardless of whether you're for or against this war, facts cannot be disregarded. Technically, this war is illegal.

WASHINGTON, DC—Frustrated with the United Nations' "consistent, blatant regard for the will of its 188 member nations," the U.S. announced Monday the formation of its own international governing body, the U.S.U.N.

Above: The U.S. and U.S. delegations.
"The U.N. has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to act decisively in carrying out actions the U.S. government deems necessary," U.S.U.N. Secretary General Colin Powell said. "Every time we tried to get something accomplished, it inevitably got bogged down in procedural policies, bureaucratic formalities, and Security Council votes."

"I predict the U.S.U.N. will be extremely influential in world politics in the coming decades," Powell continued. "In fact, you can count on it."

The new organization will be based in Houston, where a $400 million U.S.U.N. Building is currently under construction. The U.S.U.N. Charter, ratified unanimously by delegates in a four-minute vote Monday, sets forth the mission of the organization as "the proliferation of peace and international economic, social, and humanitarian progress through deference to the U.S."

"The U.S.U.N. resembles the original in almost every way, right down to all the flags outside our headquarters," said Condoleezza Rice, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N. "This organization will carry out peacekeeping missions all over the world, but, unlike the U.N., these missions will not be compromised by the threat of opposition by lesser nations."

In its first act, the U.S.U.N. Security Council unanimously backed a resolution to liberate Iraq's people and natural resources from the rule of Saddam Hussein.

"We gave the old U.N. a go for I don't know how many years, but it just wasn't working," said Dick Cheney, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N. "Really, I have no idea what we were doing sacrificing all that power and autonomy in exchange for a couple of lousy troops from New Zealand."

Added Cheney: "I can't tell you how much easier it is to achieve consensus when you don't have to worry about dissent."

Cheney, along with Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, and George W. Bush, make up the five permanent members of the 15-person U.S.U.N. Security Council.

"The five Security Council members have veto power to block U.S.U.N. resolutions for military action," Rumsfeld said. "Not that anyone would, but it's nice to have, nonetheless."

According to Powell, in spite of the fact that delegates hail from every corner of the U.S., General Assembly meetings have been refreshingly free of rancor.

"We've got Bill Frist from Tennessee, Tom DeLay from Texas, and Dennis Hastert from way up in Illinois," U.S.U.N. delegate Rick Santorum said. "Despite the diverse backgrounds of the delegates, cooperation has not been a problem—unlike at some outmoded, gridlocked international peacekeeping bodies I could name."

The official U.S.U.N. language is English. The official religion is Christianity.

At 3/26/03 07:17 AM, Ted_Easton wrote:
"We gave the old U.N. a go but it just wasn't working," said Dick Cheney, "Really, I have no idea what we were doing sacrificing all that power and autonomy in exchange for a couple of lousy troops from New Zealand."

what? ..there are no New Zealand troops involved! ..only Australian :|

The official U.S.U.N. language is English. The official religion is Christianity.

Scary!

GAHHHHH.....while I enjoy reading the wordplay amongst the people on this BBS yet again another "military expert" proves he should just STFU= Todays winner is "THENARK".

Tell us jonny why does he think that current warfare doctrines should still like in the WW2 movies that he watches since he is a "student/writer thats 16"==>>"I dont know ALEX perhaps he needs to have saddam use his chemical weapons offshore near where he lives or hell somewhere in the area above his country" Ok all sarcasm aside...If saddam decided to either have a terrorist group(hell any mercenary group since he does seem to have alot of money to be offering those large bounties on US soldiers/coalition soldiers) use it somewhere in the world and/or use it within and near his own country--chemical weapons on that large a scale would affect us ALL. A chemical weapon being used in international waters...being used in france....in canada....england...russia...india..even china would have far reaching repercusions that would affect us all directly or indirectly. So lets assume saddam DOESNT use chemicals directly on the US and instead goes for the most significant neighbors--->the UAE. If saddam manages to to "chemically nuke" the oil producing fields enough--->>>all nations (canada,russia.usa.china.north/south korea,etc) would be drastically affected.

I REALLY shoulda ignored his post and look at the ones that spoke not from an uninformed/emotional viewpoint BUT from a well informed/logical view. PERSONALLY--->I was in the last gulf war and my view is the same as it was then===>>>war sucks....it is a necessarry evil in my view...and who are these people wanking about it when they are risking nothing/have risked nothing to defend freedoom?

At 3/26/03 12:02 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: and the iraqi women is far ok, compare to SAUDI ARABIA and KUWAIT, the women there are like dogs.

Saudia Arabia has decent treatment of women, and is more Westernized than Iraq has ever been, and probably will ever be. Besides, this isn't a war over women. It's a war over personal interest and the flexing of American muscle to a country that's fighting back as best it can, and has so far killed 50 American and British soldiers.

Get your facts straight.