If you were Ahmadinejad, what would you do?  Be realistic. 

Be awesome and call out the West on all their bullshit.

I'd start out by breathing, followed by chronic and daily eating and drinking of water, which will likely lead to the necessity to let out bodily waste, and due to social norms and hygienic concerns, I would use a toilet to do so.

I realize this answer is overly general, but it's what your overly general question deserves. You probably meant "If you were in Ahmadinejad's position, what would you do in regard to issue X?"

Turn my country into libertopia. ancapistan.

 

Wage holy war against the infidel.

I'd do what he is doing now; frantically construct nuclear missiles in secret that way I can prevent the U.S. and Israel from invading.

Not much.  The Aytollah can veto any government decision so there is not much I would be able to do legislatively.  But I could excite anti-USA/Israel feelings to get the populace to vote for me in the next election.

Bogart:

Not much.  The Aytollah can veto any government decision so there is not much I would be able to do legislatively.  But I could excite anti-USA/Israel feelings to get the populace to vote for me in the next election.

 

 

This. Though I think elections would be cancelled in the event of an invasion.

Read my koran?

At around this time I'd probably be praying.

And then I'd finish my prayer, and eat some shish kebab.

"I'd do what he is doing now; frantically construct nuclear missiles in secret that way I can prevent the U.S. and Israel from invading."

Dear God I hope you're trolling.

Why?

I'd avoid standing next to any Iranian nuclear scientists, as of late they've had a nasty habit of exploding.

Luminar:

Dear God I hope you're trolling.

What exactly is trollworthy about aristophanes' post?

If I were ahmadinejad I would be doing what he was doing.:)  anyway, I think he has probably done all he can actually do.  He can't stop the us gov and israel alone.

btw, i think he should still dismantle his state since it is the right thing to do, but I wouldn't get my hopes up at all that others would reduce their aggression towards him.  In other words,  he is not in a good position especially since he probably doesn't even want nuclear weapons.

Convert to Judaism and make aliyah to Israel.

Non aggresion pact with israel.

Construct nuclear plants and missles out of Lego's and send the finished playsets to America.

Non aggresion pact with israel.

Do you think Israel would sign that pact?

"Do you think Israel would sign that pact?"

The mere fact that a long debate exists about whether Israel even wants peace is appalling and anyone who is on the "against" side should feel ashamed.

You included.

The mere fact that a long debate exists about whether Israel even wants peace is appalling and anyone who is on the "against" side should feel ashamed.

You included.

This sounds pretty authoritative, eh Bibi?

Israel has sabotaged peace agreements just as much as the Arabs.  In some cases Israel has said "no" to agreements that the arabs have agreed to with the U.S. (the big deal in the room).

Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons.  They deserve what they get.

I take offense to your cowardly dismissal of Israel's transgressions.

 

I'm going to the store, Apartheid anyone?

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, didn't Israel sign onto an agreement in oohhhhhh 1967?  Whatever happened to that?

Aristophanes:

Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons.  They deserve what they get.

I'd like a clarification of who this "they" is.

I'd like a clarification of who this "they" is.

Why don't you re-read what you quoted ...

"Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons.  They deserve what they get."

To whom could "they" POSSIBLY refer to?

tbh, that is the kind of idiotic question that makes me want to punch libertarians in the face.

gotlucky:

Aristophanes:

Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons.  They deserve what they get.

I'd like a clarification of who this "they" is.

He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is "they." interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid.

The term "state" can refer to a great many things. Sounds like a question dodge to me.

Malachi may just be right about you. Prove him wrong.

Malachai needs to go back to grammar school, can go f*#k himself, and is wrong on my being a collectivist (ahahahhahahaha).  You may need to attend with him.  You guys should read Henry David Thoureau...my point, to which Malachai refers (however incorrectly), is that "if you protest war (for instance) and still pay taxes, then you are a hypocrite."  Malachai's assumption(s) is(are) off base.

The term "state" can refer to a great many things. Sounds like a question dodge to me.

Yes, it sure can.  But "State" is (dun dun dunnnnnnnn) "singular."  You see, the demonstrative pronoun that I selected in order to refer back to an object, or objects, in the previous sentence was...."they" which is ..... plural.  One can save time by using pronouns in place of repeating the object, or objects, entire name over and over again.  Further, a demonstrative pronoun that is plural cannot refer to a singular entity.  0_o

Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons.  They deserve what they get.

"They" refers to those that run the state of Israel as 'they' are the only things that are plural.

It's all about that grammar school.

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is "they." interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid.

Just look at all of the connotations that his sleazy truck stop educated ass is trying to make about me.  This is wholly offensive.  I think it is libel as well....

Aristophanes:

Malachai needs to go back to grammar school, can go f*#k himself, and is wrong on my being a collectivist (ahahahhahahaha).  You may need to attend with him.  You guys should read Henry David Thoureau...my point, to which Malachai refers (however incorrectly), is that "if you protest war (for instance) and still pay taxes, then you are a hypocrite."  Malachai's assumption(s) is(are) off base.

The term "state" can refer to a great many things. Sounds like a question dodge to me.

Yes, it sure can.  But "State" is (dun dun dunnnnnnnn) "singular."  You see, the demonstrative pronoun that I selected in order to refer back to an object, or objects, in the previous sentence was...."they" which is ..... plural.  One can save time by using pronouns in place of repeating the object, or objects, entire name over and over again.  Further, a demonstrative pronoun that is plural cannot refer to a singular entity.  0_o

Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons.  They deserve what they get.

"They" refers to those that run the state of Israel as 'they' are the only things that are plural.

It's all about that grammar school.

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is "they." interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid.

Just look at all of the connotations that his sleazy truck stop educated ass is trying to make about me.  This is wholly offensive.  I think it is libel as well....

Truth is an absolute defense against libel. When I was in grammar school they had things called ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun ) collective nouns, but I paid attention in school and didnt devote my attention to pursuits that I knew were useless. So we dont have much in common there, and you can be excused for your ignorance.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel.

There isn't any truth to what you said you F C.  The specificity of my original statement rules out "they" refering to "state."   You know that.  You also still do not use plural pronouns to refer to collective nouns....

 

I will assume youre addressing me, potty mouth, and refer to your comments on geopolitics, which are quite collectivist in nature.

Edited to add: ""The specificity of my original statement rules out "they" refering to "state." "" it could refer to "Israel" actually. Your statement wasnt specific, thats why we had to ask for clarification. Please dont act as though your obscenity-laden rants are so well-constructed that we can assume a pronoun always refers to the proximate noun. "they" may be used to refer to nations, as a nation is a group of people with a collective identity. You habe done this yourself again and again, so theres no need to get butthurt when someone asks you for clarification.

Uhhh, where is politics not, in its nature, collectivist?  Libertarian dogma, such as this insistance upon clarification that "one does not blame the people, (in a democratic nation....) for the actions of their state" is what gets libertarians laughed out of every place they go.  They aren't worth engaging.

The straight fact is that the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done.  Brainwashing and all that shit aside, they all vote.  They all place the leaders into power regardless of the structure of elites that help influence it.  Being petty has its price.  I cannot wait until interest rates rise.

Then the people in the US might learn a fucking lesson.

"The specificity of my original statement rules out "they" refering to "state." "" it could refer to "Israel" actually.

Who refers to nation states in the plural?  If I were to refer to Israel, I'd say "it."

Please dont act as though your obscenity-laden rants are so well-constructed that we can assume a pronoun always refers to the proximate noun. "they" may be used to refer to nations,

But, I only refered to ONE "state."  "It" was never a nation.

Both of you had to go out of your way to imagine that a singular noun would be refered to in the plural.  You are just trolling.

as a nation is a group of people with a collective identity.

Oh, so the definition of the word is collectivist, huh?  What bastards that make these definitions up.  It's a good thing I refered to a "State" and not a nation........

You habe done this yourself again and again, so theres no need to get butthurt when someone asks you for clarification.

You put words in my mouth.  You know that you really have to stretch the definition of these terms to make your case...You're a prick for even insinuating what you did.  I hope your house burns down.

 

Politics is best studied from the perspective of methodological individualism. All power is private, and I dont care if its somehow laughable in certain circles, because its true. All statutes must be enforced by someone. all decisions are made because some one or multiple someones stands to benefit. Edited to add:

The straight fact is that the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done.

quite naturally so. I might add that the people in iraq, afghanistan, somalia, libya, sudan, etc are also responsible for what has been done to them. After all, they had about as much control over the series of events that led to skynet being deployed in southwest asia and africa as did the people of the united states.

Brainwashing and all that shit aside, they all vote.

suffrage is hardly universal, and that electoral power that exists is largely impotent as the two party system insures that in the vast majority of cases, the candidate who wins represents vested interests. This system is inherently oligarchic. Furthermore, I can assume that youre familiar with the manufacture of consent, so I wonder why you dont consider thise implications here? EDITED AGAIN TO ADD:

Who refers to nation states in the plural?  If I were to refer to Israel, I'd say "it."

you do. You said "we" in reference to the united states in that other thread.

But, I only refered to ONE "state."  "It" was never a nation.

"Israel" is a nation with a state. They have a collective identity. Its hard for me to see why you have trouble with this concept, except for perhaps your vehement anti-Israel sentiment, expressed earlier. All gotlucky did was ask for clarification on who exactly deserves what they get, the rulers or the people, and given that you have embraced the collectivisation of world affairs both practically and grammatically in the past, the question was not out of line. I'm sorry to have upset you to the point of personal abuse.

You put words in my mouth.  You know that you really have to stretch the definition of these terms to make your case...You're a prick for even insinuating what you did.  I hope your house burns down.

thats really a terrible thing to say when all anyone did is ask for clarification. May I ask why you seem to be such a disagreeable person?

Your grammar is amusing. Clearly "they" referred to "racists and demons". Clearly my question was who those people were in your mind. Clearly you have avoided the question numerous times. Clearly you have something to hide about the meaning of your statement. I suspect it's anti-semitism.

Aristophanes:

 I think it is libel as well....

I don't think you need to worry about Malachi damaging the image of your character...that is if you even have any left.

Politics is best studied from the perspective of methodological individualism.

Oh, an imperative statement of fact.  How are going to back that up?

All statutes must be enforced by someone.

Right, so it would take a series of people to make sure that one person who disobeyed doesn't get in trouble?

quite naturally so. I might add that the people in iraq, afghanistan, somalia, libya, sudan, etc are also responsible for what has been done to them. After all, they had about as much control over the series of events that led to skynet being deployed in southwest asia and africa as did the people of the united states.

Good thing in my last post I made clear that I refer to democratic nations...(Israel and the US particularly).  So, yes, if you voted and paid your taxes, then their is a little bit of dried brown person blood on your hands.  It's a shame that more people cannot be brought on board to actually protest the State.  Oh, no they are absolved of fault of their state because "they can't help it."

suffrage is hardly universal,

Good thing in my last post I made clear that I refer to democratic nations...(Israel and the US)

and that electoral power that exists is largely impotent as the two party system insures that in the vast majority of cases, the candidate who wins represents vested interests.

So, what?  People recognize it happening on the other side of the isle.  I have no sympathy for stupid voters.  You vote for one side then what happens when your side wins is on you.  Better make sure your politicians isn't lying to you, eh?

This system is inherently oligarchic.

This is beside the point.  Now, you are trying to defend the ignorance of the people who vote...wow.

Furthermore, I can assume that youre familiar with the manufacture of consent, so I wonder why you dont consider thise implications here?

Because I don't have sympathy for ignorant voters?  MoC is almost 20 years old.  It will be a cold day in hell when I pity those out there with signs pleading with people to vote for a R or D. 

And boy it sure seems like those on this board think they have escaped the MoC, amirite?  If we can do it... (I'll clarify for people who need it)...so can they.

Ignorant non-voters get more sympathy from me.  They kind of are victims of the system.  But those that participate, nope.

As for those in Africa, shit sucks, huh?  It seems as though politics has different levels of "rationality" when it is conducted with different "groups" of "people."

Side point:  The libertarian ideology of the individualist offends people who appreciate their culture or heritage.  This is something you realize when you go out into the world and converse with others about "it" (the world).  The subjective perception concept (Robert Nisbet speaks about this in the Present Age) when applied to society yields nothing.  Mody Dick means whatever the reader wants it to mean...

EDIT:

thats really a terrible thing to say when all anyone did is ask for clarification. May I ask why you seem to be such a disagreeable person?

I think what you said was pretty terrible.  It was not asking for clarification, you said, "He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is "they." interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid."

All of which was wrong.  "He is, He thinks" wrong.

 

 

Your grammar is amusing. Clearly "they" referred to "racists and demons". Clearly my question was who those people were in your mind. Clearly you have avoided the question numerous times. Clearly you have something to hide about the meaning of your statement. I suspect it's anti-semitism.

Ah, the weakness of your intellect is displayed.

I KNEW this is where you were going to go with it.  Pathetic.

I refered to "the state" of "Israel" being run by "racists and demons."

The plural "they" (in my original statement) was clearly referring back to the only plural objects from the previous sentence.

I referred to the State, not the Nation of Israel (they are different in denotation and connotation). 

And If I were racist, would I have a disdain in my voice for other racists?  Or would I understand their subjective preference?

You're just as bad as a partisan; impossible to have conversations with due to the political correctness required for controversial subjects with you.

Clearly my question was who those people were in your mind.

The bureacrats and politicians that "run the state of Israel," you numbskull.

Clearly you have avoided the question numerous times. Clearly you have something to hide about the meaning of your statement.

I've got nothing to hide, son.

Did you miss this sentence that I posted in response to your question: " "They" refers to those that run the state of Israel as 'they' are the only things that are plural."

I don't think you need to worry about Malachi damaging the image of your character...that is if you even have any left.

You realize we are all anonymous on here.  For all you know, you know me, but don't know this is me.  Follow?

 

Gotlucky, you know why I think you want to accuse me of the big ANTI SEMITISM!?!?

Because I said Iran is doing what is in their best interest (building nukes).  I think you are a little racist against the Persians, no?  You don't want them to have the same level of prestige in the international community do you?

I also like how Rothbard and Mises were both Jewish.  Haah I'm so anti semetic!!

Aristophanes:

 

Ah, the weakness of your intellect is displayed.

I KNEW this is where you were going to go with it.  Pathetic.

I refered to "the state" of "Israel" being run by "racists and demons."

The plural "they" (in my original statement) was clearly refering back to the only plural objects from the previous sentence.

I refered to the State, not the Nation of Israel (they are differnt in denotation). 

And If I were racist, would I have a disdain in my voice for other racists?  Or would I understand their subjective preference?

You're just as bad as a partisan.  Impossible to have conversations with due to the political correctness required for controversial subjects with you.

You had your chance to explain your meaning when I first asked you. I asked you who you were referring to so that I would not falsely accuse of anti-semitism if I misunderstood you. But instead of clearing things up, you decided to mask your meaning with cursing and insults.

It does not appear that you want to clear anything up. 

Did you miss this sentence that I posted in response to your question: " "They" refers to those that run the state of Israel as 'they' are the only things that are plural."

Continuing to mask your meaning. I asked you who you thought those people were. Some people seem to think that voters are part of the state, or at least share the blame. Oh, wait, you are one of those people who have been saying that. All I asked for was a clarification.

You are very defensive. Strange, considering I have yet to actually accuse you of anything.

You realize we are all anonymous on here.  For all you know, you know me, but don't know this is me.  Follow?

I hope I don't know you. And some people here seem to care what others think of their opinions, even if you don't. It doesn't matter that most people here use handles instead of their real name.

 

Gotlucky, you know why I think you want to accuse me of the big ANTI SEMITISM!?!?

Because I said Iran is doing what is in their best interest.  I think you are a little reacist against the Persians, no?

Nope. I understand that the purpose of this thread is about what the ruler of Iran ought to do. The reason I have stated that I suspect you of anti-semitism is because you have yet to reveal who you were specifically referring to in your original statement.

You might want to take a step back from this conversation - if it can even be called that - and take some time to reflect on your anger issues.

Oh, an imperative statement of fact.  How are going to back that up?

all power is private, only humans act.

Right, so it would take a series of people to make sure that one person who disobeyed got in trouble?

there is no way to "make sure" of such a thing.

Good thing in my last post I made clear that I refer to democratic nations...(Israel and the US particularly).  So, yes, if you voted and paid your taxes, then their is a little bit of dried brown person blood on your hands.  It's a shame that more people cannot be brought on board to actually protest the State.  Oh, no they are absolved of fault of their state because "they can't help it.

How can they "help it?" particularly when they dont know what "it" is?

Good thing in my last post I made clear that I refer to democratic nations...(Israel and the US)

I cant help but think youre implying that suffrage is universal in Israel and the US....surely youre aware thats not the case.

This is beside the point.  Now, you are trying to defend the ignorance of the people who vote...wow.

my post had nothing to do with ignorance, which is hardly a thing in need of defense. The constitutional and customary democratic systems in the anglosphere are inherently oligarchic, the knowledge state of the voters has no bearing on this fact.

Because I don't have sympathy for ignorant voters?  MoC is almost 20 years old.

manufacture of consent is an ongoing process. Everyone is ignorant of something, ourselves included. Quit blaming the victim here.

And boy it sure seems like those on this board think they have escaped the MoC, amirite?  If we can do it... (I'll clarify for people who need it)...so can they

not sure what you mean by this. I think they can do a lot of things that we cannot. Are there any nuclear engineers on the forums?

The libertarian ideology of the individualist offends people who appreciate their culture or heritage.

yes, people who dont have a strong individual identity frequently dislike ideas that draw attention to this characteristic. That doesnt mean that groups can act.

Strange, considering I have yet to actually accuse you of anything.

What?  You allegated it.  That is close enough.  And I am agitated at Malachai calling me a collectivist not your juvenille allegations of racism.

You might want to take a step back from this conversation - if it can even be called that - and take some time to reflect on your anger issues.

I love how you think you can determine my emotional state through text.  How do you know this poster is not in a room of people griefing you?

The reason I have stated that I suspect you of anti-semitism is because you have yet to reveal who you were specifically referring to in your original statement.

Okay.  Bureacrats and politicians (possibly including bankers and defense contractors).

Is that clear enough little girl who is worried about this particular issue?

And some people here seem to care what others think of their opinions, even if you don't. It doesn't matter that most people here use handles instead of their real name.

Oh, but it does.  How do you know I don't have several accounts?  How do you know several people don't have several accounts?

Aristophanes,

I'm reporting your posts. I just thought I would extend to you the courtesy of letting you know.

Sincerely,

gotlucky

all power is private, only humans act.

How is State power private?

Humans act in coordination with one another to achieve a goal that consists of compromise between results.  It may not be efficient all of the time, but it does happen

there is no way to "make sure" of such a thing.

ha, okay.

ow can they "help it?" particularly when they dont know what "it" is?

If they don't know what "it" is then why are they voting?

I cant help but think youre implying that suffrage is universal in Israel and the US....surely youre aware thats not the case.

Semantically it is.  Who is turned away?  People without IDs?  People who are intimidated on their way to the poles?

my post had nothing to do with ignorance, which is hardly a thing in need of defense. The constitutional and customary democratic systems in the anglosphere are inherently oligarchic, the knowledge state of the voters has no bearing on this fact.

Other than the entire political system is predicated on the voting public...this is such a dumb thing to say.  The constitution is republican in nature, not democratic.  Democracy is what is supposedly less aristocratic (or oligarchic) of the two.

manufacture of consent is an ongoing process. Everyone is ignorant of something, ourselves included. Quit blaming the victim here.

The explication of the process is there.  If people who vote ignore the MoC's explication, then they aren't victims, they are bringing it on themselves by voting for it...

ot sure what you mean by this. I think they can do a lot of things that we cannot. Are there any nuclear engineers on the forums?

You know I am referring to the proaganda. "We" escaped the programming of the state in school.  Frankly, this is a survival of the fittest.  Intellect is not universal, I realize this, but I am not going to feel sorry for people in general who vote without thinking.

Just ask yourself, "Since we do have a centrally managed economy, is it better to let people entirely ignorant of economics to run it?"  It makes no sense to me to allow ignorant people to vote on economic management. Wjhen they vote for debt, credit, welfare adn warfare, then they deserve to have a toilet bowl economy when interest rates rise.  There is an element of reality that is missing in the political system.

yes, people who dont have a strong individual identity frequently dislike ideas that draw attention to this characteristic. That doesnt mean that groups can act.

I never made the claim that they can.  I don't pretend that individual cooperation isn't a substitute for the semantic distinction made.

Also, it does not necessarily follow that those who respect their culture or heritage "dont have a strong individual identity."  That is a rather condescending attitude that you display in this regard.  Again, if you actually talk to people about it, you would figure this out.