SeVeR

With sexism we've had 2 million years to adapt to sexist comments. Racism only materialised in the last millenia and only got serious a few hundred years ago. Only in the last hundred years has our society redefined our moral code for racism. Sexism has clear cut boundaries because it has been around for so long; you can say something and be fairly confident it will be taken in the jocular. Racism is not clear cut, and thus people make more mistakes. Racism is also more prolific because it is easier. Men need women, and usually spend their child-hood growing up alongside girls. To be sexist would be to hurt your chances of scoring with chicks, and would alienate ALOT of people. Racism is easier.

I wasn't going to say anything but since Astro just did... it is predictable. Not only for what you've seen of others, but because of what you've achieved yourself NBV. You seem to have the idea that "if i can do it, then anyone else can do it". You seem to think that all poor kids have exactly the same sets of cir!@#$%^&*stances as yourself, and that they'll get exactly the same opportunities to dig themselves out. How much of what you did was down to luck? How many kids are worse off than you were? Its a crap shute with many different flavours of crap. Some may even have more desire and ambition than you had and will still fail. Good parents are the most important thing. Poor parents are either not there because they're working all the time, are so demoralised at not being able to find a job for various reasons, are drug-users or criminals, or are just failures at life for any of the wasteful no-effort reasons you described NBV. Now what do their kids do? What can they do with a parent like that? They're not gonna make the educated, sensible decision because they don't even know what that is, they have crap parents remember?

Poor kids come from poor areas with poor schools with poor teachers, with crime happening everywhere around them, and a lack of investment, leading to poor levels of employment where people are getting laid off all the time. I'm not blaming society, i'm just saying the deck isn't even close to being stacked in their favour. You make it seem like poor kids are given every opportunity to dig their way out.

Iraq launched a full scale invasion of Iran. I don't know where you get this idea of a border skirmish from. Iraq wanted to capture territory (Khuzestan). Iraq were attempting to take advantage of the situation following the Iranian Islamic revolution. They made significant gains into Iran (showing their intent was more than a "border skirmish") but were pushed back by Iran. Iran then decided that Saddam Hussein needed to go, and turned on Iraq. The USA provided Iraq with mus!@#$%^&* gas and nerve agents (WMDs) to repel the Iranian !@#$%^&*aults. Thousands of Iranians died. 20 years later Saddam threatens to sell all of his oil in Euros, America invades claiming Iraq has WMDs.... which THEY SOLD THEM. What had changed in Iraq in those 20 years? Nothing other than Saddams deteriating allegiance with the USA. Suddenly WMDs are a problem, and lets throw terrorism into the pot too (no evidence of that either). We all know it was about the oil. It's interesting how this gets forgotten...

I guess it comes down to what the IAEA can ask for under the terms of the NPT, and whether Iran is legally obligated as a member of the UN and signatory of the NPT to obey the IAEA to the extent at which they are being asked. I'm not so sure that "mining of uranium" is something that Iran has to divulge to the IAEA. Additionally, when NBV and me had this discussion in February it was "monitoring equipment" that Iran was rejecting - and quite rightly so, as the implantation of foreign devices on Iran's nuclear equipment is overly intrusive and would be a problem for any countries security office. The IAEA says in their reports that Iran doesn't do this and doesn't do that, but does Iran have to do it? It would be nice to know. Ultimately the IAEA will always ask for as much transparency as possible, while Iran will have security issues with the overly intrusive parts. This debate is at a standstill until we know exactly what Iran HAS to do under their NPT requirements.

Could be his lack of policies. But i don't know.

Exactly what Astro said. Anyway Aileron, i remember you saying Iran started the Iran-Iraq war. I had to correct you on that one... exactly what history books do you read?

When i talk about US motives being suspect i refer to things such as this, a letter from the IAEA to the US House of Representatives: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_09_06_iaea.pdf

And who's fault is that? I started a topic about the media response to Iran, and got comments about the IAEA. If that's the discussion people want, then i'm happy to have it again with someone else.

I never said the resolutions are illegal. I said (or at least meant) that Iran has no legal obligation to comply with them. They are not bound to stop their enrichment, as enrichment is their right under the NPT. As for the IAEA report, i'm guessing you dug up the worst of it. From reading what you quoted it doesn't sound too bad. Maybe you should quote all of the positive aspects of the report. Anyway, as for 25, it means nothing at all... what do you think it means? It's suspicion that doesn't belong in a report that is supposed to be factual. 13 is a little confusing, as those additional locations have nothing to do with enrichment or possible bomb development. Iran would probably view this as an attempt to spy on them. Does the NPT cover mining? Hard to say. 14 is no different to 13. As i said, you can't sum it all up with "not comply with the IAEA". It's way more complicated than that as i'm sure you've now learnt. Aileron: Iran has done nothing wrong yet. We simply don't trust them, or at least that's the excuse our leaders give. Without proper proof of Iran's misdoings, how can we trust our leaders motives if they happen launch a military attack against Iran? For someone who has studied the history of US-Iranian relations since WW2, i don't trust the U.S. government's motives one bit on Iran, and a look through the history books should convince you too.

So Iran haven't let inspectors into their civilian nuclear facilities? Those inspectors haven't verified that Iran isn't enriching uranium to weapons grade or that all fissile materials are accounted for? I'm sorry, you just need to clarify what you mean by "not comply". Iran hasn't complied with the UN Security Council's demands. They comply with the IAEA. In October 2007 IAEA director, Mohammed El Baradei, reiterated that "there is still no evidence that Iran is trying to develop atomic bombs rather than more electricity as it says" The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, of which Iran is a member, allows all signees to enrich uranium for civilian nuclear purposes. Thus, the sanctions have no legal basis and are merely a decision reached within the United Nations Security Council in response to their suspicions. Iran is fully within their rights to object, and fully within their rights to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes under the inspection of the IAEA, and within the terms of the NPT.

You won't find this on Fox News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486971.stm "However, Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel. (Update 4 July: the evidence for this comes from the 26 May 2008 report from the IAEA, released on 5 June. This states that "the results of the environmental samples... indicate that the [enrichment] plants have been operated as declared. The samples show low-enriched uranium... particles.")" For someone who reads the IAEA reports and is bewildered with the press coverage of this "nuclear crisis", the BBC has me relieved.

The camel one is funnier. From a scientific point of view i'd say that the camel behaved the way it did because it hadn't seen another camel before, so when coming to sexual maturity it had no idea about what to have sex with.

They could stand to lose a little weight, this might be good for them. Lose the car, walk, get exercise. Stop buying ice cream, go on a diet, get thinner. They receive enough money from the state to at least stay on their feet.

Imagine sitting across from a black midget in a tense discussion about law and politics and you say "That policy is dead inside like a brown dwarf". That MIGHT be pushing the line a bit lol.

There is nothing wrong with the NHS unless you're a !@#$%^&* who wants to go and see the doctor every couple of months for a bruised kneecap or a toothache. When i need a doctor i REALLY need a doctor, and when i really need a doctor the NHS is quick, free and effective. EDIT: Oh and U.K. is 18th, Canada 30th, and.... Cuba 39th

"Jill Hazelbaker, who told the Fox News Channel that Obama's trip is "the first of its kind campaign rally overseas."" It took a minute but i found it.

The price of oil is artificially high. So the people that brought us "Bush" don't want to lower that price. At least not yet. ""Such a ban would make virtually no additional oil available to U.S. consumers, and would not lower oil prices that are set in a world market,"" When you have a population which is 90% made up of idiots, you can say anything you like.

I laughed and then felt really sad. That idiot should lose his job as a commissioner or whatever the heck he calls himself. He can sing from the roof-tops that he's been fired for being black, but being black isn't an excuse for being an idiot. Really pisses me off actually... !@#$%^&*.

A hot mic? Mistakenly switched on? Ya right. Fox strikes again.

If sitting in prison somehow makes you a better President, then lets all get behind Charlie Manson.

How did you know you weren't standing next to Obama in that picture in your sig? I mean... they all look alike to you right? -EDIT- Aw, sig has been changed, lol.

Agreed. Anyone who is against nuclear power is a brain-washed, liberal, environmentalist, hippy. This coming from someone who is liberal, environmentalist, but also a scientist, i'm not just saying it because of political differences. Does the profit margin take into account the amount of money given to "executives" in bonusses?

If that was true then hummingbirds would be extinct They've had to ban abortion and start raping all the young teenage hummingbirds, but they're managing.