JerrySeinfeld

Do you feel the same about those who've been awarded the Victoria Cross? In the good old wars, they gave medals to those who weren't afraid of dying. Besides, how many suicide bombers have there been in history? Modern-day suicide bombing only really started in the 1980s, and they certainly haven't averaged more than a few a month. How can you take the actions of maybe a thousand and say it is a commonality among a religion of over a billion people? I didn't say that. I used the word "Islamists" which is different than the word "Muslims". Islamists is a fairly well accepted word to describe the more - ahem - vigorous end of the Muslim religion. ie. "Radical Islamists" - of which certainly Ahmedinejad and his ayatollah puppetmasters belong. "There was a prominent British Muslim who in a recent debate at Trinity College, Dublin announced that the Prophet Mohammed’s message to infidels was “I am here to slaughter you all.” (cite: Mark Steyn)" That about sums up their mission.

Islamists? Absolutely.

I see, so in your reality, questioning your motive in singling out one nation is the equivalent of excusing or justifying the actions of that nation - is that what you're saying? LOL You really need to ask questions if you're having difficulty comprehending something instead of putting words in my mouth. Putting words in yuor mouth? That's rich considering what YOUR saying...and I quote: "so in your reality, questioning your motive in singling out one nation is the equivalent of excusing or justifying the actions of that nation" I think you need to go back, read the opening post of this thread and discuss the issue at hand - women being abused in Iran - before you start setting up straw men for you to heroically knock back down. AGAIN you have tried to steer the debate to one about GW BUSH instead of sticking to the topic.

Read this column by Rex Murphy and liked it. So true. So freaking true. http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/2007/05/the...is_warming.html an excerpt: "Another noted environmentalist, Prince Charles, has been standing on the same ledge. The Prince has claimed that urgent action is needed on climate change and likened the struggle to do something to Britain's battle against the Nazis in World War II. These are not the only occasions. The more fervent advocates of global warming are also far too fond of calling those who disagree with them deniers, trying to associate a policy difference with the brush of Holocaust denial. It is a despicable tactic. There are a number of problems with injecting the Holocaust or its shadow into the current political debate on global warming and the separate debate on what to do about it. For the West, the Holocaust is the absolute standard of evil. It was - maybe the reminder is necessary - the deliberate, conscious torture and inhuman murder of 6 million people, men, women and children, by the Nazi government because those people were Jews. It is also an historical fact, something that dreadfully has really and already happened. Aside from the most pathetic anti-Semites, no one can or does dispute it. Political policy on global warming is a choice, from a range of possibilities about what to do in the face of some very serious arguments that mankind is influencing the global climate. Advocates on either side may be claiming absolute certainty for their positions, but precisely because we are dealing with the future, with models and estimates, neither side can possess such certainty. Invoking the Holocaust is wrong first on logical grounds. It has happened. We know it. Global warming policy is an attempt to meet a future contingency. It is also wrong on much higher ground, for it is an attempt to claim or associate with the absolute moral authority that belongs to the Holocaust and all who were victims of its torments and to transfer that authority to the advocacy of a current and contentious issue. Extreme rhetoric is often a mask for weak argument. It is also very often an attempt to override discussion in favour of a stampede to predetermined and unexamined policies. Surely with all the science that Kyoto and its advocates have lined up on their side of the debate, dipping into the history of appeasement and the Holocaust is, at the very best, unnecessary. For "The National", I'm Rex Murphy"

90 years.....but it was because women sucked at math that they didn't get the vote..... I was not talking about voting. Re-read my post. For a society which only granted women and minorities human rights within the last fifty years, one where beating your wife was perfectly legal until quite recently, you may have the moral high-ground in making the changes somewhat quicker, but that is the only argument you have - that you are fifty years ahead, not that you're completely innocent. There is no evidence that the Muslim world is travelling along the same road we took. In fact, there is evidence they are going backwards. Women were, in some cases, and in some ways, treated better fifty years ago in the Muslim world than they are today. Exactly - and moreso there is increasing evidence that - if anything, it is us importing their values, not viseversa...

Oh yea...Iraq...and Saddam...lots of Soviet era kit sprinkled with various procurements from around the world. Ended up mostly being target practice for the US Army and Air Force. The cheap Chinese stadimeter upgrades to T-72's were no match for the M1A1. The modified FROGS/SCUDS faired better, even as they tumbled off target because range extension changed the center-of gravity (CG). It even got weird when Canadian Gerald Bull built Saddam a "Supergun" based on previous CanAm research. BushCheney that's intense.

Look who's talking. When's the last time I saw a "compassionate conservative" care for women in the world who don't live in countries you're itching to bomb. Um - I wouldn't exactly call a left winger who justifies the beating of women in the interests of scoring points against GW Bush "compassionate". So when you're done making vast generalizations completely unrelated to the topic at hand, let's talk about the women in Iran getting beaten up for the clothes they wear.

1. Who do you think we're fighting in Iraq right now? Take a wild guess. 2. Read my post above yours which addresses this quite thoroughly. 3. It always reveals the lack of genuinity in a lefty's desire to make the world better when you see a lefty marching down the street in favor of women's rights in Vancouver, but he's the first to stand up and justify the abuse of women if it means he can make points in a argument relating in some way shape or form to the evil GW BUSH!!! Get some consistency people. This is a thread about the abuse of women. It's only the lefty irrational hatred of GW BUSH that has bastardized this serious topic into a pseudo poll on GW BUSH...yet again!!

There is the one key possiblity (probability?) that most moral relativists seems to completely ignore. The multi-culti trance that you're in always assumes that if we just tolerate eachother, eventually everyone will get along and the whole world will become like Canada is. Here is what you totally ignore or don't realize: you are absolutely right. WOMEN HAVE ONLY HAD THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THIS WORLD FOR ABOUT 90 YEARS OR SO. THAT'S IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION. So WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IS WHAT WILL BE PERMANENT? Did you ever consider that this brief glimpse 20th century we know as the "american century" is the weak and their (Mid-Easts treatment of women) is the strong? You assume that eventually, if we "give them time" they will come around to how we do things. But look around. What is happening in your own back yard? Are there FEWER women in Hijabs and Burqa's walking around? OR ARE THERE ALOT MORE???? Think about it. WHO IS THE STRONGER SOCIETY? THE ONE WHO HAS LOTS OF BABIES, BELIEVES THEY ARE SUPERIOR AND WILLING TO DIE FOR THEIR RELIGION? OR THE "WEST"? THE SOCIETY WITH AN ANEMIC BIRTHRATE, A SELF-HATRED FOR IT'S BELIEFS AND FIGHTS, AND THE WILL TO LOSE A WINABLE WAR? But I digress. The main point here is: perhaps the "cultural revolution" isn't in FAVOR of women's rights. Perhaps we are the new colonies for the OTHER cultural revolution: the one that TAKES AWAY those rights.

Ha! Perhaps you need a prescription for your glasses? Perhaps a reading primer? NO one here has condoned the beatings - what they have pointed out is that is occurs elsewhere and continues too. Scribblet - women haven't even had the vote for one hundred years in the West - do you have a comment for that? That how it is only recently that women in the so called enlightened west have even had rights? Give them time, quite screwing with their countries by supporting radical movements, which in turn result in LESS rights for women - just like we see in current day Iraq. Again - the only one here who is saying anyone condones this behaviour is YOU. Ah, but then black and white is such a nice easy way to view others' when you're just about to bomb them to the stoneage eh? As BC Chick said: The dehumanisation begins. Let me just do the math here for a second. Women in the "west" were allowed to wear dresses and wakl around without scarfs on their heads dating...oh back to the 1200's or so. And now they're voting. So in your world, we should wait until 2800 before we have a right to complain about the treatment of these women, just in the interest of being "fair" to the mid-east? You're on glue.

I'm not sure what kind of homework you've done to connect this death cult religion stuff with Iran. Anyways how do you know if / when someone is or is not afraid of dying? Because they're fundamentally different in their nature from us? And for that reason aren't entitled to the same privileges as ourselves (and our friends or proxies)? Gee - what planet have you been on for the past 10 years? Who do you think finances and arms Hezbollah, Hamas, suicide bombers in Iraq / Gaza / Israel / West Bank? Who do you think believes in the hidden Imam, which must be brought on by armageddon? Which religion is it that martyrizes suicide bombers? WHo has called for Israel to be wiped off the map? Which country was behind the 1994 bombing of the Israelite Mutual Association in Argentina? Which countries leaders (the Ayatollahs) placed a global price on Salman Rushdie's head for writing a book? Who claimed, after speaking to the UN general assembly that he had a golden aura surrounding him and that the entire assembly was held transfixed by the hand of god? How do I know when someone is not afraid of dying? Just look at the two sides. Our society hates our mission. Watch the news recently? We can't WAIT to lose this war. The only dabet left is TIMING ie. when we choose to lose it. Now look at the other side. We talk in terms of MONTHS. The islamists, backed by the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ahmedinejad, talk in terms of CENTURIES. The global islamists can't wait to DIE for their cause. And the coming of the next armageddon and a few nukes and a few million dead muslims, in their eyes, is the ultimate in martyrdom, if it means the end of Israel. That is the ultimate difference between the Islamists (our enemy) and the free west. After a few years, we're bored of the war and want to watch something else on TV, whereas it is their life's missino to annihalate, slaughter and conquer us, and a few dead muslims along the way is and EASY price to pay for them. As far as your question about being afraid to die, just turn on the TV to any channel and look for the term "suicide bomber". You might learn something.

You have only scratched the surface of US arms sales to Iran. The Shah went on a shopping spree right up to his demise. This included many aircraft types, Spruance "Ayatollah" class destroyers, and even old US diesel boats. But that all changed in 1979, when the contracts were canceled. I trained with several Iranian naval officers in the mid 1970's....one was killed in a patrol boat during the Iran-Iraq War. http://www.irvl.net/USMI.htm OKKKKKK so back to IRAQ!......

And, like, we never hear about police beating protesters for being uncooperative, in North Amerca, eh? Well, in the cases that I've seen the "protesters" were getting violent, assaulting the officers, breaking down barricades, smashing private property, vandalizing cars... Not to split hairs, but these women were just wearing the wrong clothes.

Evidence?

Funny you should mention this. Back in January there was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail describing how women in Israel were being forced to sit at the back of the bus. Shades of Rosa Parks. Apparently if they refuse and try to sit near the front, they are harassed by Orthodox Jews who see women as having a, well let's just call it 'special', role to play in life. None of that has anything remotely to do with the issue in this thread. Why are you trying to spin this thread? Instead of trying to point attention elsewhere address the issue. Women in many parts of the Arabic / Islamic world are oppressed. This is merely one example. If you find no problem with this, just say so and provide a defensible argument as to why.

Say - an interesting, yet somewhat dated, element of many anti-bush rants often includes the idea that it was the US that armed Iraq to begin with. While I don't dispute he was once an ally of the US (but so was the USSR - times and circumstances do change after all), I came across this interesting piece from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute which seems to imply that is not really the case at all: Here is a link to the information. It looks like France, China and certainly the USSR were the main providers to Saddam, not the USA whose position falls below Brazil's. Just food for thought on one of those "conventional wisdoms" the left keeps serving up as truth.

That's "cold-war-think" and typical of those who haven't done their homework. Iran is a different kettle of fish: We're now dealing with a death-cult religion that "rewards" and praises suicide. Mutually Assured Destruction only works if both parties are afraid of dying.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I can't stop laughing. A funny man once said "Seriousness is stupidity sent to college". Al Gore takes himself WAY too seriously. This is a common trait of those on the left. Step 1: Adopt a position. This position has to be on a really, REALLY big issue. Too big for really anybody to do anything about it. And it has to be kind of abstract so no one can prove how fucked up you really are. The more it consumes all of your time and prevents you from doing anything really tangible and productive, the further on the left you are likely to be. Step 2: The issue has to be ultra-global and something that is disguised as an attempt to save the world. (note the word ATTEMPT - because most of these gurus never actually save anythign other than their own sense of worth). Step 3: Step two is necessary for step 3 to occur: since you're saving the world, anyone who disagrees with you is evil and probably a nazi, or a racist at least - and definitely "extreme right wing" (how many times do you hear that term? ever notice it's rarely used to describe the extreme left?) The great thing about this approach is that you never actualyl have to do or produce anything and yet, just be doing step 1, you're automatically better than the unwashed masses. I guess that's what makes the bearded "unemployed" down at the rally-du-jour so much better than the rest of us. Rally on, Al. Rally on. The bearded ones are with you.

I couldn't understand why anyone would respond to a poll that is both meaningless and completely incomprehensible. When the crucial question of the poll starts with "When they do do you think...", I just stop reading. Actually the polls starts with an assumption - that Iran will get nukes. Let's rephrase it for the retards of the world: If Iran gets nukes - will they use them to blow up Israel?

Oh GIVE ME A BREAK hahaha. Iran, - a nation practically FLOATING on oil is relying no it's good concience to develope an alternative energy source? Could you make a better joke? I think not/ On your other point: Making an apples to apples comparison of a nation led by an armageddon-loving, holocaust-denying, Jew-Hating madman and a nation (Israel) which is bordered on all sides by cuontries that want to annihaliate them is equally as laughable as the "alternative energy" excuse.

That's a start? An op/ed which makes grandiose statements like the following? This is after all the columnist's primary premise isn't it? I wonder who Mr. Krauthammer considers as "everyone" because I've heard many opinions to the contrary and that pretty much that the "every" out of the "everyone." If you think this is a case of one columnist you clearly haven't been paying attention. Ahmedinejad's speeches and actions don't constitute "opinion", they consitute what he actually said and did. Here is some more for you... and here and here, here, , here, here.....

Yes, but Bush believes in the rapture and has visions that he can talk to God. I don't trust religious extremists of any stripe. So I assume you answered "yes" to the poll question.

I have a questino: why is it that everytime someone talks about how cold it's been, global warming fanatics tell us how we need to learn to differentiate between CLIMATE and WEATHER, yet everytime there is a tornado, or a hurricane, Al Gore et. al. run aruond like ninnies saying "I told you so" - referring to the very same WEATHER (as opposed to climate) that we're all supposed to ignore when it gets cold out?

I'd be curious to know where you're hearing that and where I can find out more about it. Well, here's a start. There's plenty more sources if you wish...an excerpt:

OK. So far no one here has acknowledged what Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollahs have been saying: That armageddon is a necessary precursor to the coming of the 12th Imam. In other words, we're dealing with a group of people whose beliefs ENCOURAGE armageddon. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is a dated concept that doesn't apply to a religion whose more - ahem - VIGOROUS factinos believe that suicide is a heroic act.