Know So wrote:
Try Googling it? It's not that hard. Tons of rape statistics you could look up.
I can google up a ton of statistics suggesting any number of racist, anti-gay, anti-Semitic, etc. statistics that would all be bunk. I'm curious to hear, direct from the person quoting those numbers, what specific papers they came from. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
Mosques. Women. "Still?"
1 women gets stoned to death and of you course you make it a huge incident.
700,000 USA women have been raped in the last couple years, and you just gloss it over, rofl.
Americans truly are idiots.
Correction Iran stopped the woman from getting stoned due to pressure.
Unlike the USA who continually executes people who might be innocent, whether people protest or not.
I love to bomb children from over a mile away! They don't even see me! hahahahaha, die die die die die!!!!!!!!!!
Praise Jesus!
Iraqi TV Announcer Alia Al Shammari before the USA invaded and wiped out Iraq and brought about Sharia Law...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37499293@N03/3518531549/
After the USA wiped out Iraq and brought about religious rule...
Connie G wrote:
LOL, hillarious to see people acting like the USA treats women well.
If a woman isn't 5'6" 100lbs, blonde hair, blue eyes, 18-29, and has plastic jugs, they will not be noticed by men, or completely discriminated against.
If they are, they are called whores, bimbos, etc.
And they better not try to have an opinion or speak out..
LOL, hilarious to see people acting like the USA doesn't treat men with a double standard.
If a man isn't 6'3" 200 lbs., full head of hair, muscular build, and has well-backed plastic in his wallet, he will not be noticed by women, or will be completely shunned by society.
If such a man DOES have all those things, he must be an asinine jerk.
And men better not try to question the statistics that paint them as villains, or speak out against unfair laws that bind men at the arms and legs in family courts (read: divorce courts).
Hyperbole gets you nowhere, sweetheart. Just because men have it bad in different ways than women do doesn't make it any less difficult. While women were having their access to jobs restricted in the old days, men were out doing the back breaking labor and dying in wars. And it's not like women didn't have influence over the men who nominally controlled them. Hell, even in recent years when women weren't as prolific in politics, people like Elanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton were pulling strings of presidents. Every patriarchal element of society since the dawn of man has been to protect and defend the safety of women, at the expense of male blood and sweat. It wasn't right by you, but it damn sure wasn't right by us. So knock off the shaming business, because it's wearing thin.
themanontherun wrote:
Connie G wrote:LOL, hillarious to see people acting like the USA treats women well.
If a woman isn't 5'6" 100lbs, blonde hair, blue eyes, 18-29, and has plastic jugs, they will not be noticed by men, or completely discriminated against.
If they are, they are called whores, bimbos, etc.
And they better not try to have an opinion or speak out..
LOL, hilarious to see people acting like the USA doesn't treat men with a double standard.
If a man isn't 6'3" 200 lbs., full head of hair, muscular build, and has well-backed plastic in his wallet, he will not be noticed by women, or will be completely shunned by society.
If such a man DOES have all those things, he must be an asinine jerk.
And men better not try to question the statistics that paint them as villains, or speak out against unfair laws that bind men at the arms and legs in family courts (read: divorce courts).
Hyperbole gets you nowhere, sweetheart. Just because men have it bad in different ways than women do doesn't make it any less difficult. While women were having their access to jobs restricted in the old days, men were out doing the back breaking labor and dying in wars. And it's not like women didn't have influence over the men who nominally controlled them. Hell, even in recent years when women weren't as prolific in politics, people like Elanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton were pulling strings of presidents. Every patriarchal element of society since the dawn of man has been to protect and defend the safety of women, at the expense of male blood and sweat. It wasn't right by you, but it damn sure wasn't right by us. So knock off the shaming business, because it's wearing thin.
stop bitching like a woman and go get some cheap pussy
Go get your directions from Rush and the "right" and stop crapping on this board.
Another simple minded pawn who feels empowered but shouldn't. Keep doing the bidding of your masters.
Jerry g wrote:
Just curious.
Jerry g wrote:
Wow, that makes me feel so much better. I just thought forcing the women to dress up to where you can barely see their eyeballs
No one should be forced to into a line a of dress, but you may be surprised to learn that more often than not, women from more conservative backgrounds in a number of middle east countries prefer the burqa.
Along the lines of what you were speaking out against, that women shouldn't be forced to dress in a style they find uncomfortable, this was one of the many acts the Shah took during his time as ruler of Iran that helped to bring about the popular revolt that removed him from power. Seeking to modernize and westernize Iran, he banned the burqa and many forms of highly conservative dress for Iranian women. Rather than empowering Iranian women, many felt embarrassed at how exposed they now felt, reflecting the difference in the values of modesty between different parts of the world. This sense of embarrassment didn't apply to all Iranian women, but forced style of dress was taken as an offense on their right to dress as they choose.
It would as if the President issued a binding executive order that all women in the United States be forbidden to wear anything more than a bikini or to go topless all together, emulating the style of dress found in some other part of the world. You can imagine that the feeling such an order would instill in most American women would not be one of liberation but of embarrassment and outrage. So don't assume that various levels of conservative dress seen on women in other parts of the world are forced upon them. It undoubtedly does happen to some (which is terrible) but not all would elect a more western style of dress.
[quote]Know So wrote:
Saddam Hussein was a SECULAR leader. He smoked cigars, and walked around looking like Al Capone.
The people he was supposedly 'REPRESSING' were the very RELIGIOUS CRAZIES you are bashing now.
Get a clue.
The only reason we took him out was he didn't play ball and let International Oil Companies control Iraq's oil.
Oh Please. The war hurt the oil companies, it did not help them. The war was all about Israeli projection of power in the Middle east, brought to us by the traitorous Zionist neocons, embedded throughout our political system
Iraq was totally about oil.
Iraq Oil Bases Sprout as Halliburton Chases Growth
April 21, 2010,
The world’s biggest oilfield contractors are building bases in the deserts of Iraq in a bet they’ll profit as the country strives to boost crude oil output to rival Saudi Arabia.
Schlumberger Ltd., Halliburton Co. and Baker Hughes Inc. are among companies this past week that said they’re expanding operations in Iraq. Weatherford International Ltd., the fourth- largest oilfield-services provider by market value, will expand staff in Iraq to more than 1,000 by July, Chief Executive Officer Bernard Duroc-Danner told investors yesterday on a conference call.
The prize is a share of the billions of dollars to be spent as the war-torn country seeks within seven years to increase crude-oil production capacity to 12 million barrels a day, on a par with the world’s largest oil exporter, Saudi Arabia. Iraq’s current production is about 2.4 million.
“It’s all becoming more real, in that contract awards are getting closer,” said Jeff Tillery, an analyst at investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. in Houston. “It’s a big opportunity for these guys.” Revenue potential is high, he said. “The profit side is a little bit of a leap of faith.”
The risks are financial, legal and political. Contractors don’t yet have a firm grip on what costs might be, Duroc-Danner said. Last month’s parliamentary elections left no political party with enough seats to govern alone, and Iraq doesn’t have a law yet for how oil revenue will be distributed.
Second-Biggest Field
Iraq’s government has signed 10 contracts for oilfield development with London-based BP Plc, Exxon Mobil Corp. and other producers.
BP, which is leading development of Iraq’s biggest oil field, known as Rumaila, awarded $500 million in service contracts last month. Included were projects won by Geneva-based Weatherford and a partnership between Schlumberger, based in Houston and Paris, and state-owned Iraqi Drilling Co.
Rumaila may become the second-biggest oil field by production in the world, BP said earlier this year. Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field is the largest.
Halliburton, which plans to invest $100 million in Iraq this year, said it’s in the process of securing its first major base in Iraq.
‘Plenty of Work’
“There’s going to be plenty of work in Iraq, and believe me, all the service companies will have opportunities there,” David Lesar, chief executive officer at Houston-based Halliburton, said on an April 19 conference call with investors. “So we’re going along at the pace we want, and we’re confident we’re going to be successful.”
Schlumberger’s base will have 300 people this year, and that number will double by early 2011, CEO Andrew Gould said last month.
“Competition will be fierce, start-up costs high, and we do not expect significant revenue before 2011,” Gould said at the Howard Weil Energy Conference in New Orleans. “The significance of Iraq will only really emerge once the post- election political landscape is understood and some form of oil law has been passed.”
Development of Iraq’s oil industry is moving ahead as security improves after decades of wars and sanctions.
Al-Qaeda
U.S. and Iraqi forces said yesterday that they killed two of al-Qaeda’s regional chiefs in raids. A day earlier, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Iraqi and U.S. forces killed the terror network’s two principal leaders in the country. “Iraq is probably the biggest opportunity, along with possibly Brazil, confronting the oil-services industry,” said James D. Crandell, an analyst at Barclays Capital in New York. “It’s a country that has a significantly higher capability of exporting crude oil, but it needs a lot of work done on its fields.”
Within five years, service providers may be competing for more than $5 billion annually in contracts, he said.
The four biggest oilfield contractors all rose 4 percent or more yesterday on the New York Stock Exchange. Schlumberger gained 17 cents to $68.02 today, and Halliburton fell 2 cents to $33.29. Baker Hughes climbed 60 cents to $50.89, and Weatherford dropped 59 cents to $16.62.
‘Surge’ Coming
If anything, service companies are late in positioning themselves for the “upcoming surge” in oil contracts, said Nansen Saleri, CEO at Quantum Reservoir Impact in Houston and former reservoir-management chief at Saudi Arabia’s state oil company. “Iraq is pregnant for huge growth,” Saleri said yesterday.
The country has potential reserves of 200 billion to 300 billion barrels of oil, Saleri said, and “the early movers will be the big winners.”
“It presents a tremendous opportunity for the service companies,” Gene Shiels, a spokesman for Houston-based Baker Hughes, said yesterday.
If they wanted their women tortured they would turn them into the Zionist US Justice Dept as terrorist and then watch them get sent to Gitmo and really tortured
Only if they don't submit to enslavement
Gots ta keep the beeatches in line!
