Originally posted by InsaneSith
actually only prisoners of war slaves werent allowed to vote. women were held equal as men if not greater.

That was only in some city-states such as Athens. Sparta however was a huge military city-state and the women didn't get much freedom there while in Athens they got more.

But we're getting way off topic aren't we? :D

actually i think sparta was part of rome. i cant remember. but still that doesnt matter because of course a military run area is gonna be against women voting. in the US army they dont really want women. they dont even give women seperate training areas or anything thats why they continue to get raped and they dont even have court martials against the rapists.

I will admit that it's been a long time since I thought about any of this stuff, but here's a few articles I grabbed quick to support my earlier statement.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/ARCHAIC.HTM)

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa121200a.htm)

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/SPARTA.HTM)

Athens and Sparta were two GREEK CITY-STATES. Athens is remembered as being a "democracy" and Sparta as being a militaristic society. Neither of which is remembered for giving women exceptional rights (they would probably be comparable to neighboring city states, or other cultures in that part of the ancient world, most of which were male-centered or dominated).

It was commonly held that a woman's place is in the home (wealthy women probably had it alright, but usually only prostitutes or slave women were seen in public... the public sphere being the "man's place"). These values may have carried over into Roman society, since they upheld Greece in very high esteem (they romanticised the period, much like it was in later periods by other cultures).

Allowing men and women to work together is no excuse for rape. Men and women work together in other professions, and it isn't seen as inviting rape. Perhaps if this is a problem in the military something should be done about it, but when you look at it that way, it shouldn't somehow be expected.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
1) Iraq is a periphery nation-state with "weapons of mass destruction" and therefore must disarm or face military action.

2) Iraq is a nation-state that has one or more United Nations resolutions imposed upon it that it has failed to acknowledge. Military action is necessary to enforce these resolutions.

3) Iraq is a periphery nation-state that is ruled by a dictator/tyrant that has commited atrocities against his own people and violated human rights of his own people.


1) Israel is a periphery nation-state with "weapons of mass destruction" and therefore must disarm or face military action.

2) Israel is a nation-state that has one or more United Nations resolutions imposed upon it that it has failed to acknowledge. Military action is necessary to enforce these resolutions.

3) Israel is a periphery nation-state that is ruled by a prime minister that has commited atrocities against his own people and violated human rights of his own people.

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

-Ariel Sharon, in an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

The us has since 1967 used its veto power to reject sec counsil proposal demanding israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and a stop in the building of settlements in the same areas.

It looks like the war has started... God help us all.


I was having a discussion with a family member the other day about what might change if Saddam Huessin's government is replaced with a democratic "US friendly" government.

We figured that in fact we would allow them to keep their WMD or sell them new ones. After all, how many of our "allies" have we disarmed or forced to surrender all of their "goodies?"

Other than Japan, I can't think of a one offhand. Israel has WMD, as do many of the countries of Europe and of course our old buddies Russia. Now granted, these aren't allies who we conquered in military actions, but still.

I don't see any reason why we'll disarm Iraq, once we've put somebody in power there that we like and likes us.

I can understand what the rhetoric about disarmament is supposed to mean, but I don't see the goal of ousting Saddam being accomplished alongside this "disarmament" business. And yes, the same arguments used against Iraq could apply to several other nations, including allies.

I hope it all pans out... even though this has been brewing at least since the last Persian Gulf War, it seems more than a few people were shocked that it finally really happened.

I have relatives that may be sent into harm's way, and I can't help fearing for their safety, even though it's probably selfish, because in a war, nobody is really safe on either side. I hope whatever happens, it's over quickly and with the fewest deaths possible.

Either - Or.. If Saddam steps down, they should be allowed to have any weapons they want, right? :)

North Korea, China, Pakistan, Russia, France, USA... and who knows how many other countries got nukes.

If all the US wants is to "disarm", then I guess they got a few dozen other countries to bomb as well. (including themselves)

I just drove my parents to the airport. They're going to Goa (India) and the plane will be flying on a distance of just a few hundred kilometres from Bagdad and it will even make a stop in Dubai.

I'm really worried... :( Damn war. :(