iSideWith

[Askthepizzaguy]

That's false, but even if it were true, what you're actually proposing(violent action) is a lot worse. A war with Iran is going to destroy a lot of people's lives, and most likely destroy years of progress in that country. It's going to increase resentment towards the United States in that region. It's going to further tip the balance of power that the corporate-backed US-government holds over the region, almost certainly leading to more violence in the future. It's going to further deteriorate the attitude's of Americans towards Middle Easterners on the home front.

Life is not a game of civilization, starting wars is an absolutely atrocious idea that should never be entertained so casually like you just did.

Iran is also not as innocent as you are making them out to be. This is not one statement mistranslated, Ahmedinejad has a long history of making threats against Israel, and the plain and simple fact that you have overlooked is that the nuclear material is not being made for civilian purposes. There's only a certain amount of enrichment that must take place to turn radioactive material into nuclear fuel, and a much greater enrichment that must take place to make a bomb. Iran is responsible for the latter, and yes, responsible for threatening Israel.

You can presume to lecture me that this is not a game all you like, the people who are making weapons with which to destroy a nation are the Iranians, and they're also being dumb enough to warn us with their rhetoric.

 

[civver_764]

This is not one statement mistranslated, Ahmedinejad has a long history of making threats against Israel,

Do you mind sharing specifically what you're referring to? From my interpretation Ahmedinejad does love mocking Israel and does hate them for their behavior towards the Palestinians, but I've never seen anything to suggest he's even planning on starting a war with Israel. In contrast to Israel and US, who do routinely make threats all the time.

Which isn't surprising given the military histories of the respective countries.

There's only a certain amount of enrichment that must take place to turn radioactive material into nuclear fuel, and a much greater enrichment that must take place to make a bomb. Iran is responsible for the latter, and yes, responsible for threatening Israel.

Well we don't even know that, and we sure don't have any examples in recent history of Iran behaving this way. The US and Israel, on the other hand, are responsible for both of those things, on multiple counts.

 

[classical_hero]

Iran has never threatened to wipe out Israel. Such wording has only appeared in very shoddy English translations. Properly translated, the Iranian leaders have merely predicted that the regime ruling Israel will eventually collapse in a manner similar to that of the Soviet Union.

Iran has not fought an offensive war since before the US was founded.

The Supreme Ayatollah has been explicit that merely producing, much less using, a nuclear weapon is a serious sin which is unacceptable in Islam. Mousavi was actually much more in favor of building nuclear weapons (and putting the control of them and the rest of the military fully under the office of the president, which he hoped to occupy) than is Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian regime certainly wants nuclear power and they want the deterrent of other nations knowing that they could get nuclear arms if they want them, but there is no good reason to believe that they will actually use them.

There is very good reason to think that Ahmadinejad is a pragmatic politician whose rhetoric is mostly aimed at pandering to the more conservative elements within his own country so as not to face political challengers from the right who would be even more hostile to the west.


There is very little reason to believe that sanctions are effective, and plenty of reasons to believe that they are counter productive. They tend to hurt the common man without doing much harm to the leaders. They actually help the leaders by making it easier to demonize those who passed the sanctions. The Iranians tend not to like their leaders very much, but they also tend to be extremely patriotic. Acting tough towards Iranian leaders makes more of the people come to their defense, and provides an excuse for the leaders to crack down on the opposition.

I can't believe you feel for the trick. Zionist regime, what does that mean? [wiki]Zionist Regime[/wiki]
Do some research before you write, since that is the term used by those who hate Israel since they never call them that, since t would give them legitimacy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't see "Zionist" anywhere in Magister's post, and technically a "Regime" is just a government, right? Besides, he was trying to translate the Iranian leader, he wasn't saying he agreed with him.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But good thing you quoted it, increases the chance people will read actually read it.

 

[civver_764]

I can't believe you feel for the trick. Zionist regime, what does that mean? [wiki]Zionist Regime[/wiki]
Do some research before you write, since that is the term used by those who hate Israel since they never call them that, since t would give them legitimacy.

Actually it's a lot simpler than that. Zionist Regime = A government driven by a Zionist ideology.

Is that an inaccurate description?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

My score:
http://www.isidewith.com/results/112741714

 

[GhostWriter16]

My score:
http://www.isidewith.com/results/112741714

Hmmm... I think we may well have taken the test in a different way. I always looked at all of the choices. You seem not to have always looked at the additional options. I say that because your answer to me on gay marriage was "Let the states' decide" but on the test you apparently disagreed with that stance of mine and instead simply said "No."

That said, we agree on 94% of issues. Sweet

 

[peter grimes]

Iran is also not as innocent as you are making them out to be. This is not one statement mistranslated, Ahmedinejad has a long history of making threats against Israel, and the plain and simple fact that you have overlooked is that the nuclear material is not being made for civilian purposes. There's only a certain amount of enrichment that must take place to turn radioactive material into nuclear fuel, and a much greater enrichment that must take place to make a bomb. Iran is responsible for the latter, and yes, responsible for threatening Israel.

You can presume to lecture me that this is not a game all you like, the people who are making weapons with which to destroy a nation are the Iranians, and they're also being dumb enough to warn us with their rhetoric.

Iran is not irrational. Do you agree?

Iran was labelled as being part of the Axis of Evil. Do you agree?

North Korea has nukes (though, on the face of it, they haven't mastered implosion plutonium devices). They have not been attacked. Do you agree?

Iraq did not have nukes, and the US invaded and occupied their country, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Do you agree?

Iran is pursuing the only rational path here: develop an indigenous nuclear capability before the US invades.

We (the US) have learned to live with many non-ally nuclear states. We can - and will - learn to live with Iran.

Iran is not going to attack Israel (without provocation) - it is not a rational thing to do.

If anything, an Iranian nuclear capability will only serve to reduce the tensions in the middle east and gulf, rather than inflame them. Israel and Saudi Arabia are the only states that don't see it that way, which means that the US can't see it that way. But for everyone else, it will serve to stabilize things.

 

[GhostWriter16]

To be fair, Iraq's military was only something like 100,000 strong at the time, while North Korea has over a million active members. Iran is somewhere in between the two, but is closer to North Korea in military strength, IIRC.

I definitely don't trust them with a nuke, but war should not be on the table.

 

[civver_764]

The only country we have reason not to trust with nukes is the US.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The only country we have reason not to trust with nukes is the US.

You trust North Korea more than the US? Really?*Facepalm*

I mean, I'm agreeing with you for the most part on foreign policy, but I wouldn't agree with that.

 

[civver_764]

I mean the US is the only country that has ever used one.

And no I doubt NK is dumb enough to nuke somebody.

 

[GhostWriter16]

North Korea would certainly use nukes if they were the only ones.

Then again, I've already gotten several insistances by a certain anarchist (Not you) that the US is the absolute worst country in the world so I guess I already kind of have my guard up. Whatever your problems with this country, and I have many, we're pretty well off as far as it goes.

 

[peter grimes]

North Korea would certainly use nukes if they were the only ones.

Why do you think this?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I just took the test again since I heard that it had changed. This time I gave weights to several questions. The issues about which I feel most strongly are those on which I gave a custom answer rather than choosing any of their choices though, which I don't believe that this test actually counts.

(The question about the government cracking down on the internet to deal with piracy should really include an option saying that the so called piracy is just fine because intellectual property itself is invalid. There should also be an option for tying federal education funds to the individual students rather than to the school systems. Those are much more widely held positions than my custom answers pertaining to citizens' dividends funded by land value taxes/mineral royalties/pollution taxes, or allowing open immigration but restricting citizenship to only those who sign a contract after demonstrating informed consent. I suppose the fact that none of the candidates have explicitly endorsed those views may make them less relevant to the purpose of this test though. )

New Results:

92% with Gary Johnson, on economic, foreign policy, healthcare, and science issues

58% with Virgil Goode, on foreign policy issues

30% with Mitt Romney, on no major issues

1% with Barack Obama, on no major issues

39% with Georgia Voters, on no major issues.

37% with American Voters, on no major issues


79% Libertarian
61% Republican
15% Green
2% Democrat


Old results:
84% with Gary Johnson
80% with Ron Paul
51% with Mitt Romney
1% with Barack Obama
9% with Georgie Voters
9% with American Voters

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why do you think this?

Have you heard the Kim's rhetoric? They want South Korea back and will do anything they can to get them back. They've even threatened to nuke people before.

I just took the test again since I heard that it had changed. This time I gave weights to several questions. The issues about which I feel most strongly are those on which I gave a custom answer rather than choosing any of their choices though, which I don't believe that this test actually counts.

(The question about the government cracking down on the internet to deal with piracy should really include an option saying that the so called piracy is just fine because intellectual property itself is invalid. There should also be an option for tying federal education funds to the individual students rather than to the school systems. Those are much more widely held positions than my custom answers pertaining to citizens' dividends funded by land value taxes/mineral royalties/pollution taxes, or allowing open immigration but restricting citizenship to only those who sign a contract after demonstrating informed consent. I suppose the fact that none of the candidates have explicitly endorsed those views may make them less relevant to the purpose of this test though. )

New Results:

92% with Gary Johnson, on economic, foreign policy, healthcare, and science issues

58% with Virgil Goode, on foreign policy issues

30% with Mitt Romney, on no major issues

1% with Barack Obama, on no major issues

39% with Georgia Voters, on no major issues.

37% with American Voters, on no major issues


79% Libertarian
61% Republican
15% Green
2% Democrat


Old results:
84% with Gary Johnson
80% with Ron Paul
51% with Mitt Romney
1% with Barack Obama
9% with Georgie Voters
9% with American Voters

I am impressed that you didn't reach 50% with EITHER the GOP or Dem candidate

I purposely didn't do any custom answers on mine, I know the test couldn't understand my answer and so didn't see the point.

 

[metatron]

The real question is whether or not Israel has nuclear weapons. Nobody really knows. If Israel has nuclear weapons, than I imagine that it would not lead to a nuclear war that Iran has them as well.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is virtually undisputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

What we don't know (or at least can't prove) is whether Israel actively sought to pass on nuclear weaponry to South Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

[GhostWriter16]

Fair enough.

 

[peter grimes]

Have you heard the Kim's rhetoric? They want South Korea back and will do anything they can to get them back. They've even threatened to nuke people before.

Do you know what rhetoric is?

And which Kim do you refer to? The current one has made very few public statements, and none of them have threatened the use of nuclear weapons. For that matter, neither have Ahmedinijad's.

Do you honestly think that the DPRK would use nuclear weapons if 'they were the only ones'? What does that even mean?

If their goal is reunification, then why on earth would they spoil their own future territory by using nukes?

It seems to me you haven't given much thought at all to nuclear policy.

I suggest you spend a few months reading the archives of ArmsControlWonk. You'll learn a [mega]ton.