Scott Lurndal wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I really shouldn't reply here on this subject and just let it go
but I don't want anyone to think I could support such language.
Frankly I find the comment about the Saudis, for whom I have no
great love in general, quite distasteful and somewhat bigoted. I
realize there are some Saudis who might say similar or worse things
about Americans or maybe even just westerners in general, but you
sir have just proven yourself to be the same.


It's not bigotry to recognize bigotry in others. The facts are that
the Saudis regard women as something significantly less than men.
Right or wrong, that is a fact.

How about this then:

The facts are that the Republicans regard Democrats as something
significantly less than Republicans.

is that also bigotry? If not, why?


Sure. As I said, right or wrong, it is a fact. Now "bigotry" does not mean
denial of facts; it means treating some others with hatred and intolerance.
This is sometimes a Good Thing(TM), as in the dirty Japs of WW2.

Be that as it may, it is still counterproductive to send an emissary to
negotiate when you know the other party will treat your representative with
barely concealed contempt and disdain, take nothing they say seriously, and
view your surrogate as an insult to them, their religion, and their way of
life.

It may even be that the reason the Iranians won't negotiate is that they
simply cannot negotiate with a woman! Doing so would be against their
religion and 1500 years of tradition. That leaves them only one choice:
continue to build a nuclear weapon.

So the Iranians work towards the bomb, Israel attacks, Iran counter-attacks,
maybe millions die, and it's all the fault of Bush and Obama for having
Secretaries of State who squat to pee.

Like the Trojans and the Greeks, another war over (a couple of) women. At
least this war would have a reason better than some.