actually Creepy "we" are waiting to see you respond to HayesStreet's ownage of you two pages back. He used the EXACT SAME LINK you posted and disproved your post....in response you cut and ran. then you came back to argue with blazerben instead of responding to the complete and utter ownage of you....you continue telling everyone they ar wrong and you are right....without providing any substance to back it up. and you have the temerity to accuse others of not being able to debate? Come on....lets see it...if your point is soo utterly right...lets see you back it up with facts. It shoudl not be difficult for you if you are so in the right. rimrocker, you absolutely rule We apologize for the inconvienance.
Being Iranian and having many family members currently residing in Iran, I will make the following points. Life under the Shah was better. They all love him there. Mollahs are very hated. Many taxi drivers will refuse to drive Mollahs around. Iran should continue with their nuc-u-lar program...its their right.
there was no "ownage" as you so eloquently put it and i responded....in your haste to call me out, i'm sure you didnt notice he didnt use the same link as me, i didnt even provide a link, i provided a citation he used the same author, but as i said in my response, he still hasnt proven that the situation in iran today for women is not better than it was under the shah we used the same author, however, i was citing statistics she provided and he (hayes) was citing her analysis....there's a fundamental difference between the two....moreover, his source was three years older than mine so he hasnt disproved my argument....he actually hasnt proven anything with all due respect i have provided evidence to back up my assertions, you should research the thread more carefully before you try to call me out again, no disrespect intended
According to creepyfloyd you're family and millions of iranians in iran are traitors western spies and shah the puppet supporters. this infact makes the majority of the iranians in iran traitors. thats mr creepyfloyd's reasoning. he should go into the airforce and army and see how much the mollahs are hated by the generals, cadiets and everyone else associated with it. he is tottaly out of touch with today's iran.
This is a nice little diversion, but let's remember that the current administration of this country, The United States of America, is considering using nuclear weapons as a first strike on an Islamic country that also happens to be a major oil producer in the hopes of stimulating regime change. If this comes to pass, it will be, according to Hersh's article, because George W. Bush has the courage to do what future Democratic and Republican Presidents will not. The fact that the President has referred to the story as "speculation" means nothing except, I guess, to play into people's desire for this story to go away. The phrase made popular by Condi, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," is now close to being full-fledged irony.
Full-fleged disaster, is more like it. That this is so like the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is what makes the Administration's protestations of "innocence," regarding what's been speculated on, and backed by Hersh's sources, so easily dismissed. They deliberately mislead back then. Why should we believe them now? If one looks at the polls, the American people have lost faith and trust in the Bush Administration. What some of us have been saying here for a long time is now believed by the citizens of this country... that the Bush Administration is incompetent, reckless, and not to be trusted. And that's the way it is. Keep D&D Civil.
Actually, what your own author says is that all the steps women have taken in Iran are part of the same trend the Shah started. Further, she says that we should not mistake the advances women have made in spite of or in reaction to the post Revolution regimes as benefits of the regimes. Clearly that is what you do. Your misapplication of statistics goes to the heart of this point. The date of the source is irrelevant. Your site is a book, mine an article. I'll point out the obvious that author's are working from the same body of work. Further, that someone publishes a book in 2003 doesn't mean any analysis from 2003 is in the book because of the time it takes to write and publish a book once its finished. This would only be relevant if she'd changed her opinions - as the article I quote from was an examination of the decade since the revolution - that is unlikely and on you to prove. Finally, its laughable that you now provide a disclaimer for the very author you originally cited. You provided statistics from her, I provided her subsequent analysis of those statistics. Who is providing a half truth and who is providing the full picture, lol. Lol, you're funny. You cite a book as an authoritative source of information on Iran, completely contradict the author of the book, and then claim that you've provided evidence for your assertions. That's rich. I'm pretty sure providing quotes from a source, your own source, that completely contradict you means game over. Your haughty declarations that you depend only on scholarly sources are your undoing when you then have to backtrack and say you disagree with the very sources you used for legitimacy to begin with, lol. Thanks for playing.
i've never said that it was or was not because of the regime.....that's an incorrect assumption on your part....my point which still stands is that the situation for women in iran today is better than it has ever been...actually the situation for women in iran is better than it is anywhere else in the region and you cant disprove that no half truths....the facts and stats dont lie.....it still remains that you used her analysis, which is her opinion, while i used statistics she provided....there is a fundamental difference whether you ackowledge it or not its funny how you think you've "proved" something, but you still cant refute my argument....i'm not interested in the author's analysis, again which is her opinon and thats what you use....i'm interested in the facts and statistics and i used stats that were in one of her books to provide evidence for my analysis so it looks like you have no case or argument....lol
Lol. You're so weak. If you didn't make that connect, or infer it, then its completely irrelevant to the discussion. You did this in the other thread. Stop wasting people's time. Yes, one of us presents a relevant point - one of us doesn't. Or rather, one of us does and then abandons advocacy when thrashed a bit. If you haven't made the statistics relevant then I don't need to refute them, stupid. If they ARE relevant (ie if you made the inference you claim you didn't) then we can take her analysis over yours pretty quickly. Again, good job wasting people's time.
can you stop wasting people's time? your rants make no sense go back and read the thread, i just think you were shocked to hear that the situation in iran is better for women today than it has ever been and you set out to try and disprove that and when you couldnt, you decided to attack me instead again, you havent disproved my argument the #s dont lie
What are you, a parrot? According to you, you haven't made an argument - stupid. However, luckily I can just refer back to your posts. Where you did indeed make the evaluation between regimes. Not some static comparison that's irrelevant to the point at hand. You said: Now I can tell you don't know much about argumentation. For the statistics about women to be relevant to this discussion, you have to link the two together. If you don't, if the condition of women is due to something OTHER than the post Revolution regimes, then it doesn't factor into whether or not the 'govt now' is 'better than the shah's regime.' That they happened at the same time is the weakest form of corollation, not even approaching causation. Then you said this gem: So sorry, chum. Those aren't facts, those are your opinions. An opinion that your quoted source not only doesn't agree with, but directly contradicts. Now you can say its just her opinion, but obviously she's has the qualifications of having written a book, and done studies on the subject, which you do not. There is the fact that you used her as a source to back your argument until it was shown that she disagreed with you, a direct blow to what little credibility you might have had left (which I estimate at about the same rate as women are employed in the Iranian ministries - .01%). Then you were presented with statistics that directly contradict your assertions which you have no answer to other than 'I don't think those are correct.' Please, please, please. Just quit while you're behind and shut up.
hayes you're an idiot, i love how you claim that i'm wasing "everybody's" time, but you keep responding to me....haha still nothing you have said disproves any of my arguments....you can continue to make baseless assumptions, but you cant disprove what i say you didnt quote the undp directly, you quoted a secondary source that cites the undp, but let's assume your stats are correct you know what the %s for women in politics was under the shah? 0 percent, because there were no real political institutions you have nothing valuable to say....so please do yourself a favor and stop, because its obvious you dont know what you're talking about
The % of women in politics. Hmmmm, well they couldn't vote before the Shah and could after. That's a pretty big increase, lol. Further, you claimed that women held 'many' positions in the ministries - yet most people would not consider .01% to qualify as 'many.' Again, unless you link the increase to the new regimes - which you infer but then back away from - your statistics are irrelevant. You are drawing a correlation based on the fact that they happened at the same time. That's terrible logic and is sometimes known as illusory or spurious correlation: "For example, if the students in a psychology class who had long hair got higher scores on the midterm than those who had short hair, there would be a correlation between hair length and test scores. Not many people, however, would believe that there was a causal link and that, for example, students who wished to improve their grades should let their hair grow." That your own source says the development post Revolution is due to women's BACKLASH against the new regime only goes to prove the absurdity of your conclusion that one might consider the post revolution regimes 'progressive.' Oh, and you're an idiot.
wow i cant believe your still responding to lil ole me.....lol i'm glad you stopped your name calling i'm only interested in the facts and as i said before they dont lie....you're the one making assumptions and using other people's analysis to justify your position the only conclusion i drew is one you still cant disprove
hayes you never stop, i love it! another conlusion i will make is that this regime is more progressive politically and inclusive than the last one, which is also an improvement