Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm still not sure how weakening sanctions is better than strengthening them when it comes to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Does anyone think that Iran would comply with any of our demands given their history?
If they don't then sanctions resume.
The key to deals like this is that you get Iran to essentially agree to the sanctions if they are necessary.
Believe it or not the practice of just trying to bully a nation into submission doesn't really work that well. It is far more productive historically speaking to try and work with them.
A better question: if your a woman, how can you be a muslim?
Four Facts
FACT #1: The Qur’an allows (or, perhaps, commands) men to beat their wives into subservience. If a wife doesn’t listen to her husband, the husband should admonish her. If that doesn’t work, he is to make her sleep in a separate bed. However, if the wife still doesn’t respect her husband’s authority, even after she has been banished to another bed, the husband is told to physically punish her. Consider three translations of the following verse:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.[7]
FACT #2: According to Muhammad, women lack common sense because their minds are deficient. Of course, this declaration didn’t go unchallenged. To his credit, Muhammad allowed women to question him about their intellectual deficiencies. His response to these questions was illuminating:
[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense.[10]
The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said: "Yes." He said: "This is because of the deficiency of her mind."
FACT #3: Muhammad offered women little hope for the afterlife. Indeed, he clearly states that most of the inhabitants of hell are women who were ungrateful to their husbands (though he never suggests that ungrateful husbands will receive similar punishment[12]). This means that, after being admonished, banished to a separate bed, and beaten by her husband, a willful woman can look forward to an eternity in hell:
The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "I saw paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women." The people asked: "O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?" The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Because of their ungratefulness." It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds."
[Muhammad said], "O women! Give to charity, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women." The women asked, "O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He said: "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious man astray."
FACT #4: The Qur’an permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves (i.e. those "whom their right hands possess"). As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from God to guide them in their treatment of their female captives:
The Believers must (Eventually) win through—Those who humble themselves In their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds Of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined To them in the marriage bond, Or (the captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (in their case) they are Free from blame. Not so those devoted To Prayer—Those who remain steadfast To their prayer; And those in whose wealth Is a recognized right For the (needy) who asks And him who is prevented (For some reason from asking); And those who hold To the truth of the Day Of Judgement; And those who fear The displeasure of their Lord—For their Lord’s displeasure Is the opposite of Peace And Tranquility—And those who guard Their chastity, Except with their wives And the (captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (then) they are not To be blamed.[17]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm still not sure how weakening sanctions is better than strengthening them when it comes to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Does anyone think that Iran would comply with any of our demands given their history?
If they don't then sanctions resume.
The key to deals like this is that you get Iran to essentially agree to the sanctions if they are necessary.
Believe it or not the practice of just trying to bully a nation into submission doesn't really work that well. It is far more productive historically speaking to try and work with them.
I suppose, but I just don't trust them because of their behaviors and hiding things in the past, as well as their uncooperative behavior with the IAEA in the past and, from some things I've read, they are still not in total compliance.
First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.I'm still not sure how weakening sanctions is better than strengthening them when it comes to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Does anyone think that Iran would comply with any of our demands given their history?
I'm still not sure how weakening sanctions is better than strengthening them when it comes to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Does anyone think that Iran would comply with any of our demands given their history?
If they don't then sanctions resume.
The key to deals like this is that you get Iran to essentially agree to the sanctions if they are necessary.
Believe it or not the practice of just trying to bully a nation into submission doesn't really work that well. It is far more productive historically speaking to try and work with them.
I suppose, but I just don't trust them because of their behaviors and hiding things in the past, as well as their uncooperative behavior with the IAEA in the past and, from some things I've read, they are still not in total compliance.
That is why we need this deal.
Iran is actually westernizing relatively fast compared to other ME nations and it is much harder for the US to justify harsh sanctions like we have in the past. At some point the US needs to also build trust with the Iranian people. The US has done far more to harm Iran than Iran has ever done to the US.
First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.I'm still not sure how weakening sanctions is better than strengthening them when it comes to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Does anyone think that Iran would comply with any of our demands given their history?
And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.
But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices.
In the words of Zig Brezinski (sp) "they are very dangerous."First, the EU was not for strengthening sanctions, so that was not a possibility, because we do not control them. France was probably the most hawkish, and the "deal" seems to be better than the minimum they needed to sign off.I'm still not sure how weakening sanctions is better than strengthening them when it comes to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Does anyone think that Iran would comply with any of our demands given their history?
And yes, I think Iran will largely comply because it really wants the sanctions lifted and to improve its economy. However, I think it will be at best difficult to keep them from giving more financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. And, military sales from Russia can resume in, I think, five years. And it's very possible they will give terrorists things like anti-aircraft weapons. And, at the end of ten years or so, Iran may at least threaten to build a nuclear weapon.
But, the choices were pretty basic in that we do a deal, and this is the only deal, or we bomb them ... and not only would that be illegal and probably result in them sending terrorists to America, it would not have ended Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. So, it seems to me, the choice was take the best of imperfect choices.
Okay, that makes some sense to me. I still don't trust them though.
I'm still not sure how weakening sanctions is better than strengthening them when it comes to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Does anyone think that Iran would comply with any of our demands given their history?
If they don't then sanctions resume.
The key to deals like this is that you get Iran to essentially agree to the sanctions if they are necessary.
Believe it or not the practice of just trying to bully a nation into submission doesn't really work that well. It is far more productive historically speaking to try and work with them.
I suppose, but I just don't trust them because of their behaviors and hiding things in the past, as well as their uncooperative behavior with the IAEA in the past and, from some things I've read, they are still not in total compliance.
That is why we need this deal.
Iran is actually westernizing relatively fast compared to other ME nations and it is much harder for the US to justify harsh sanctions like we have in the past. At some point the US needs to also build trust with the Iranian people. The US has done far more to harm Iran than Iran has ever done to the US.
Yeah, it's not the people of Iran I have an issue with but their governing body. Well, at least we don't have to deal with Mahmoud anymore. There's a plus.
I'm still not sure how weakening sanctions is better than strengthening them when it comes to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? Does anyone think that Iran would comply with any of our demands given their history?
If they don't then sanctions resume.
The key to deals like this is that you get Iran to essentially agree to the sanctions if they are necessary.
Believe it or not the practice of just trying to bully a nation into submission doesn't really work that well. It is far more productive historically speaking to try and work with them.
I suppose, but I just don't trust them because of their behaviors and hiding things in the past, as well as their uncooperative behavior with the IAEA in the past and, from some things I've read, they are still not in total compliance.
That is why we need this deal.
Iran is actually westernizing relatively fast compared to other ME nations and it is much harder for the US to justify harsh sanctions like we have in the past. At some point the US needs to also build trust with the Iranian people. The US has done far more to harm Iran than Iran has ever done to the US.
Yeah, it's not the people of Iran I have an issue with but their governing body. Well, at least we don't have to deal with Mahmoud anymore. There's a plus.
But the US hurts the Iranian people with we are bullies since actions like sanctions hurt them. A confrontational relationship with Iran really doesn't serve our interests.
I'm not the first to note it, and there are news pieces on this, including one I'll link, that much of this is a gamble on modifying Iran's views of the world. In ten years, Khamenei will be gone. Iran's increasingly younger population wants contact with the West. And, really Israel and the West view Israel differently, or at least the non-Gop West.
Netanyahu British FM spar over Iran deal disagreements - Yahoo News
The OP is confused.
First, the GOP is not one to talk given their deep oil ties to the women hating Saudis.
Second, Jimmy Carter hated Iran and refused to deal with them. Whereas Ronald Reagan became the biggest ally they ever had. His administration met with them in private and sold them weapons in full violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Third, and this is where the Republican idiot machine really doesn't get it. If the US attacks Iran, it will strengthen radical Islam, which is the primary response to Western aggression. However, if we can find a way to negotiate with them and relax sanctions, we have a better shot of pulling them into the global capitalist community, as we did with China, which was seen as more dangerous in the 40s than Iran is today. The point - and this holds for Cuba too - is to drop capitalism on these bastards, not bombs. Only then can we create a more free and modern middle class like we are seeing in China.
Also, the OP must be too young and/or stupid to remember history. Reagan, on the heels of Carter's failure with Iran, was outspoken on how dangerous they were. He never passed on the opportunity to call them terrorists. Meanwhile his administration was fully partnering with them behind closed doors. Study Iran-Contra.
Don't ever be fooled by Republican bluster about Iran, which is merely a political football that allows them to scare morons into the voting booth, haunted by the gay Mexican Islamo-terrorist boogie man.
It's a never ending game of bullshit. The only reason the Rightwing noise machine gets away with this kind of transparent bullshit is because people like the OP don't study history or analyze policy; they just listen to FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh with spiraling circles in their eyes.
God fucking help us. The OP votes.
This is what Iran does to women...
The OP is confused.
First, the GOP is not one to talk given their deep oil ties to the women hating Saudis.
Second, Jimmy Carter hated Iran and refused to deal with them. Whereas Ronald Reagan became the biggest ally they ever had. His administration met with them in private and sold them weapons in full violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Third, and this is where the Republican idiot machine really doesn't get it. If the US attacks Iran, it will strengthen radical Islam, which is the primary response to Western aggression. However, if we can find a way to negotiate with them and relax sanctions, we have a better shot of pulling them into the global capitalist community, as we did with China, which was seen as more dangerous in the 40s than Iran is today. The point - and this holds for Cuba too - is to drop capitalism on these bastards, not bombs. Only then can we create a more free and modern middle class like we are seeing in China.
Also, the OP must be too young and/or stupid to remember history. Reagan, on the heels of Carter's failure with Iran, was outspoken on how dangerous they were. He never passed on the opportunity to call them terrorists. Meanwhile his administration was fully partnering with them behind closed doors. Study Iran-Contra.
Don't ever be fooled by Republican bluster about Iran, which is merely a political football that allows them to scare morons into the voting booth, haunted by the gay Mexican Islamo-terrorist boogie man.
It's a never ending game of bullshit. The only reason the Rightwing noise machine gets away with this kind of transparent bullshit is because people like the OP don't study history or analyze policy; they just listen to FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh with spiraling circles in their eyes.
God fucking help us. The OP votes.
I am too young to remember most of those things. In fact, a lot of those things probably happened when I was very young, maybe even before I was born (I would have to check dates). I was born in 1978, so I don't remember Jimmy Carter at all and barely Reagan. If true, your post makes sense though. Drop capitalism on them instead of bombs. I like that.
Republican outrage is so unpredictable and selective. They are outraged over abortion, but care nothing for women's rights unless she lives in Iran. They don't seem bothered in the least about Christians in this country wanting to kill gays. They had no problem with Christians in Iraq under Bush, being chased from their homeland and being crucified and murdered in droves yet they blame that on Obama after most Iranian Christians were already gone. Can someone explain the apparent hypocrisy.Oklahoma GOP candidate Stoning gays the right thing to do MSNBC
Addicting Info Mississippi Conservative Calls For Putting Gay People To Death On Facebook Page
Thanks God we don't live in Iran. But we still have to deal with those people. Just like we have to deal with them here.
The OP is confused.
First, the GOP is not one to talk given their deep oil ties to the women hating Saudis.
Second, Jimmy Carter hated Iran and refused to deal with them. Whereas Ronald Reagan became the biggest ally they ever had. His administration met with them in private and sold them weapons in full violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Third, and this is where the Republican idiot machine really doesn't get it. If the US attacks Iran, it will strengthen radical Islam, which is the primary response to Western aggression. However, if we can find a way to negotiate with them and relax sanctions, we have a better shot of pulling them into the global capitalist community, as we did with China, which was seen as more dangerous in the 40s than Iran is today. The point - and this holds for Cuba too - is to drop capitalism on these bastards, not bombs. Only then can we create a more free and modern middle class like we are seeing in China.
Also, the OP must be too young and/or stupid to remember history. Reagan, on the heels of Carter's failure with Iran, was outspoken on how dangerous they were. He never passed on the opportunity to call them terrorists. Meanwhile his administration was fully partnering with them behind closed doors. Study Iran-Contra.
Don't ever be fooled by Republican bluster about Iran, which is merely a political football that allows them to scare morons into the voting booth, haunted by the gay Mexican Islamo-terrorist boogie man.
It's a never ending game of bullshit. The only reason the Rightwing noise machine gets away with this kind of transparent bullshit is because people like the OP don't study history or analyze policy; they just listen to FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh with spiraling circles in their eyes.
God fucking help us. The OP votes.
The OP is confused.
First, the GOP is not one to talk given their deep oil ties to the women hating Saudis.
Second, Jimmy Carter hated Iran and refused to deal with them. Whereas Ronald Reagan became the biggest ally they ever had. His administration met with them in private and sold them weapons in full violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Third, and this is where the Republican idiot machine really doesn't get it. If the US attacks Iran, it will strengthen radical Islam, which is the primary response to Western aggression. However, if we can find a way to negotiate with them and relax sanctions, we have a better shot of pulling them into the global capitalist community, as we did with China, which was seen as more dangerous in the 40s than Iran is today. The point - and this holds for Cuba too - is to drop capitalism on these bastards, not bombs. Only then can we create a more free and modern middle class like we are seeing in China.
Also, the OP must be too young and/or stupid to remember history. Reagan, on the heels of Carter's failure with Iran, was outspoken on how dangerous they were. He never passed on the opportunity to call them terrorists. Meanwhile his administration was fully partnering with them behind closed doors. Study Iran-Contra.
Don't ever be fooled by Republican bluster about Iran, which is merely a political football that allows them to scare morons into the voting booth, haunted by the gay Mexican Islamo-terrorist boogie man.
It's a never ending game of bullshit. The only reason the Rightwing noise machine gets away with this kind of transparent bullshit is because people like the OP don't study history or analyze policy; they just listen to FOX NEWS and Rush Limbaugh with spiraling circles in their eyes.
God fucking help us. The OP votes.
I am too young to remember most of those things. In fact, a lot of those things probably happened when I was very young, maybe even before I was born (I would have to check dates). I was born in 1978, so I don't remember Jimmy Carter at all and barely Reagan. If true, your post makes sense though. Drop capitalism on them instead of bombs. I like that.
