Senator HagridOfTheDeep—Nyman Office

[HagridOfTheDeep]

—Campaign Launch—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

Hi all! Welcome to my campaign office here in the lovely city of North Myrtle Beach!

In light of TJ’s recent plans to retire from the senate, a number of folks have urged me to jump into the at-large senate race. Maybe it’s the meds from my wisdom teeth extractions talking, but I’ve decided to go for it. Thus, I am honoured to announce that I will be running for a spot in the Atlasian senate. This will be my campaign headquarters—there’s some butterbeer in the fridge and some rock cakes on the table, so make yourselves at home.

I’m a bit new to Atlasia, but I’m eager to roll up my sleeves and get talking about some of the issues facing our country. I’m currently serving as a legislator in the IDS, and I gotta say—It’s been hugely rewarding getting to know the great folks in my region. Hopefully I’ll get the chance to hear from some new faces across the country as well.

As many of you know, I’m one of those dreaded “unapologetic conservatives” in the Whig Party . But with God as my witness, I am proud to be a Whig. Yeah—I may hold some of those controversial socially conservative beliefs, but I’m here to say that I believe there are much more pressing issues to deal with. I’ll vote for life every time, but I plan to push an agenda of economic freedom and responsibility.

We’re not going to agree on everything. But win or lose, this campaign will be a great learning experience. To be blunt, I started off on the 2012 board as, well, a bit of a hack—I’m not proud of it, but I’m working on it. During the course of this campaign, I want to hear your concerns and questions. I’m willing to do the reading and I’m excited to offer you the best answers I can.

The most important message I want to leave you with is this: I’m not here to be an ideologue. I’m here to find common ground and get things done. Watching the grace and thoughtfulness of Senator Redalgo has taught me a lot, and if I can aspire to carry myself as senator with even a fraction of his character, I think we’ll all come out on top. And that’s what I pledge to do.  

I’ll elaborate more on some of my positions later. But for now, thanks for this opportunity. I hope you’ll give me a chance and follow my campaign!

Best of luck to my colleagues in the race,

Hagrid

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am proud to endorse you... what a great slate of candidates except for that old fart clarence!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Aw, Hagrid, you're not a hack. But I still won't endorse you.[/Laborhack]

[Donerail]

Your foreign policy and general, and towards Iran in particular?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Well I guess my Senate dreams are over.

[Supersonic]

Endorsed!

Hopefully it won't be a net negative for you.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Ah! Lot's to get to here. Let's get started.

I am proud to endorse you... what a great slate of candidates except for that old fart clarence!

Thanks, clarence! And I wouldn't be so hard on yourself—y'ain't that bad.  

Aw, Hagrid, you're not a hack. But I still won't endorse you.[/Laborhack]

You win some, you lose some, haha. And thanks for those words re: hackage. But honestly, I really did start off pretty horribly. Either way, it’s been a fun journey.

Anyhow, I hope things are going well in the Northeast!

Well I guess my Senate dreams are over.

Well… the choice is yours. You’d be a fine senator. Though for obvious reasons, I’d love if you waited till next time.

Endorsed!

Hopefully it won't be a net negative for you.

Thank you kindly! I hope so too. If things don't go so well here, I'll have the IDS to turn to. It’s a great gig. Still, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t believe I could better serve Atlasia as a senator. I'm really enjoy reading the discussion going on over there, and the teamwork that goes on is fantastic.

Your foreign policy and general, and towards Iran in particular?

Thanks for the question. I have a long answer prepared, so I don’t want to mash it in with the above banter. I’ll include it below in a single post. Hope it will clarify some of my positions for you.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Now to get to your question, SJoyceFla... I was preparing for this one.

—Notes on Foreign Policy—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

Generally, I believe it is our foremost responsibility to promote democracy in our foreign policy. Democratic nations respect the role of their citizens in shaping government, and democratic countries overwhelmingly extend more freedoms to their people than do their dictatorship counterparts. I’m not much in the business of nation-building as much as I’m for exercising the principle of smart power. Diplomacy is a powerful tool in agenda-setting.

Thus, we should actively seek positive relationships with those countries that are friendly to democracy and human rights. Atlasian foreign aid should be restructured around the principle that best sees money going to nations that are willing to trust their citizens. Conversely, power-hungry dictatorships deny rights to their people and are dangerously corrupt—I would be careful to make sure that we do not seem to endorse the ideologies of these countries.

Unfortunately, Iran, which you mentioned, is one of these countries. While in name Iran is a republic, it’s more of a theocracy: the President has little power, and any candidate wishing to run must first be approved by a Guardian Council. That ain’t putting power in the hands of the people—it’s propping up a dangerous “revolution” set on the destruction of Israel. I know that’s a contentious statement, but I believe the evidence is clear: President Ahmadinejad appears at “World Without Zionism” conferences, calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and insists that Israel is an “occupying force.” What else could one interpret from this dangerous rhetoric?

Couple this seeming affinity for Israeli genocide with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and we’ve got the potential for nuclear war. So to be absolutely clear, I am appalled that Vice President Kalwejt has opened formal diplomatic channels with Iran. If, as our intelligence suggests, the Iranians have developed working nuclear bombs, we are surely on borrowed time. The corrupt government of Iran sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas—these groups pose direct dangers Israel, one of our closest allies. Moreover, one organization funded by Iran, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, is directly responsible for at least thirty suicide bombings. Clearly, these are groups of people who are not afraid to die in the name of obliterating Judaism. So why should we expect the concept of nuclear deterrence to have any weight with Iran? These people will launch nuclear attacks if we cannot preempt them.

Additionally, I pose this question: Are Iranian nukes secure? If, in fact, the official government of Iran chooses not to launch their bombs, how can we guarantee that these weapons won’t fall into more dangerous hands? It is for this reason that I reluctantly supported Senator clarence’s proposal to launch a military offensive in Iran.

We must continue to impose sanctions against Iran, we must continue to support Israel and offer them security guarantees, we must strengthen our anti-missile defences, and we must neutralize Iranian nukes. The initial military offensive I support is not one of a full-frontal nature with surges and tanks—it’s a smaller-scaled operation that would hopefully bring down the government quickly, with the help of locals. After all, none of us want nuclear warheads flying through the skies. If such an offensive is impossible, certainly we need to maintain our intelligence initiatives and launch cyber-attacks. By all accounts, the situation is escalated. Now is the time to contain it.

I doubt we are on the same page here, SJoyceFla, but I hope you can appreciate my reasoning. Sorry to spend so long on this!

Before I go though, I do want to reiterate my support for diplomacy wherever possible, and touch on one foreign policy prong that I think we need to expand. Namely, I have always believed that it is of paramount importance to champion women’s rights on the international stage. I know the two of us could go down this path and get into a debate over abortion, but that’s not what I’m intending here. Securing a woman’s basic right to vote, equal pay, and equal opportunity (especially regarding access to education) is, I believe, the best way to solve many of the problems currently facing the Third World. Imagine what we could do for the AIDS pandemic in Africa if women had more control over their lives and were more educated about contraceptives and STDs. A sustainable Africa needs strong women and lower birth rates—these are things we can achieve with smart power. More importantly, these are things we can achieve without exercising an overly-interventionist foreign policy. I am happy that we have a strong ambassador in Cathcon to carry out this type of work.

[Donerail]

So now my additional questions:

Unfortunately, Iran, which you mentioned, is one of these countries. While in name Iran is a republic, it’s more of a theocracy: the President has little power, and any candidate wishing to run must first be approved by a Guardian Council. That ain’t putting power in the hands of the people—it’s propping up a dangerous “revolution” set on the destruction of Israel. I know that’s a contentious statement, but I believe the evidence is clear: President Ahmadinejad appears at “World Without Zionism” conferences, calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and insists that Israel is an “occupying force.” What else could one interpret from this dangerous rhetoric?

Ahmadinejad referred to "this regime occupying Jerusalem", saying "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." He did not say "wipe them off the map", he said he wished for regime change. He said he had a spiritual wish that the Israeli regime end, not that Israel itself be wiped off the map. To quote Ahmadinejad: "If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums." As for them being an occupying force, they are. I don't see what is wrong with that specific statement.

Couple this seeming affinity for Israeli genocide with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and we’ve got the potential for nuclear war. So to be absolutely clear, I am appalled that Vice President Kalwejt has opened formal diplomatic channels with Iran. If, as our intelligence suggests, the Iranians have developed working nuclear bombs, we are surely on borrowed time. The corrupt government of Iran sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas—these groups pose direct dangers Israel, one of our closest allies. Moreover, one organization funded by Iran, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, is directly responsible for at least thirty suicide bombings. Clearly, these are groups of people who are not afraid to die in the name of obliterating Judaism. So why should we expect the concept of nuclear deterrence to have any weight with Iran? These people will launch nuclear attacks if we cannot preempt them.

The current Iranian government may be 'evil', but they're not stupid. Launching a nuclear war with your maybe 5 inaccurate nuclear weapons would lead to an immediate response from a few hundred Israeli launches. Several thousand Israelis would die and Iran would be turned to ashes, and last I checked obliteration is not be a desirable objective for Ayatollah Khameini or his regime. And obliterate Judaism? To quote Ahmadinejad again: "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". There is a small Jewish population in Iran that is actually represented in the Iranian Majles; if they wanted to 'obliterate Judaism', why wouldn't they start there? And how do you expect to deter nuclear war without talking to the Iranians?

Additionally, I pose this question: Are Iranian nukes secure? If, in fact, the official government of Iran chooses not to launch their bombs, how can we guarantee that these weapons won’t fall into more dangerous hands? It is for this reason that I reluctantly supported Senator clarence’s proposal to launch a military offensive in Iran.

At the moment, yes, or at least they're a hell of a lot more secure than they would be if the Iranian regime fell. And if you're concerned about loose nukes, why aren't we invading Pakistan right now?

We must continue to impose sanctions against Iran, we must continue to support Israel and offer them security guarantees, we must strengthen our anti-missile defences, and we must neutralize Iranian nukes. The initial military offensive I support is not one of a full-frontal nature with surges and tanks—it’s a smaller-scaled operation that would hopefully bring down the government quickly, with the help of locals. After all, none of us want nuclear warheads flying through the skies. If such an offensive is impossible, certainly we need to maintain our intelligence initiatives and launch cyber-attacks. By all accounts, the situation is escalated. Now is the time to contain it.

Bringing down the government is not conductive to preventing nuclear warheads flying through the skies.
[/quote]

[Goldwater]

I will be giving you a high preference.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

SJoyce, I’ll try to address the spirit of what you’re getting at here...

—More on the Iranian Regime—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

For one, to outright deny the existence of the “wiped off the map” controversy is to ignore one side of a very contentious debate. While official translations released by the Iranians would seem to double-back on Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, there is no absolute “right answer” to exactly what the president said. What is known is that the comments were made at a “World Without Zionism” conference. What is known is that even wiping away Israel, the geopolitical entity, would hugely deepen the Jewish diaspora. What is known is that Iran sponsors anti-Semitic terrorist groups who have been intent on perpetrating “martyrdom” in the name of their cause.

While the president and supreme leader have made comments alluding to their support of Palestine’s right to include Jews in a new territory, that admission is not conceding much. Such a decision would come about from a referendum in the midst of toxic rhetoric, violence, and corruption. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad’s comments are more political than truthful—their actions overwhelmingly rebuke their words. As for Iran’s perception of Israel as an occupying force… I suppose it is as much an occupying force as Canada is an occupying force in the North. The country occupies that land, but the words “occupying force” don’t exactly have a warm connotation. They’re not synonymous for “sovereign nation,” which is exactly what Israel is.

Now to your next point: The Iranians may not be stupid—but they do represent a theocracy with deep-rooted hate and, as I said above, anti-Semitism. You’re placing an awful lot of faith in the leaders of Iran by expecting rational action. Some would perceive Ahmadinejad’s sponsorship of suicide bombings as evidence of a more reckless streak than you give him credit for. Moreover, the intricacies of Iran’s relationships with terrorist groups make an Israeli response less-predictable than you assume. If an agenda of “wiping Israel off the map” does exist, providing nukes to an entity like the Islamic Jihad Movement could create enough degrees of separation between Iran and the bombing of Israel to prevent Netanyahu from responding in kind. Honest democracies are under many more constraints than sham democracies like Iran. That’s exactly why it is in Atlasia’s interest to preempt a nuclear attack rather than have to respond to one.

As for this comment from Ahmadinejad: “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish”— I would trust individuals to decide for themselves whether or not that’s doublespeak. To me, it pretty clearly is. It’s nuancing a hate that just cannot be nuanced.

Addressing another of your questions—why do Jewish parties occupy seats in government? Because their representation is so small and unthreatening that allowing them to exist is likely more politically expedient for the regime than not. Why incite insurrection in your own country when it can be put on the backburner for later?

To sidetrack for a moment, you questioned how we could make use of nuclear deterrence without diplomatic channels. First, I’d like to say that I believe the concept of nuclear deterrence is inherently flawed when it comes to Iran—we may disagree, but this belief is coming from my conviction that Iran is just absolutely intent on eliminating Israel. Secondly, soft power with the press can easily sub-in for what little headway would be accomplished in an open diplomatic relationship. Publicly, our leaders must maintain that any aggression from Iran would illicit an immediate response from Atlasia (or Israel), even if such a response would be unrealistic. Either way, I do not believe this should be our “end-all” with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Now, about the security of Iranian nukes: Thank you for pointing out an oversight on my part. Obviously any operation against Iran would have the primary goal of securing whatever WMDs exist. Regime change would be a tactic—a catalyst, if you will—to make that happen. I meant to include that in my original comments.

Regarding Pakistan, their unsecured weapons are certainly a concern. It would seem that Pakistan harboured Osama bin Laden for years, so the Pakistani government is obviously connected to terrorism. Still, I’d argue that the threat with Iran is more pressing—while there are unique challenges with Pakistan, Pakistan exhibits more of a love-hate relationship with Israel, at least according to Ayesha Siddiqa, one political commentator in Pakistan. Israel is not much concerned about Pakistan, and there has actually been some important intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Thus, the difference between Pakistan and Iran is clear: Iran quite forcibly isolates its hate against one country—Israel. Pakistan does not.

SJoyceFla—Again, I’m really sorry for the ridiculous length of these posts. I just want to make sure my opinions are clear. In all honestly, I don’t really see us reconciling our beliefs on this topic . I’ll keep talking about Iran if you’d like, but I can see us going in circles pretty fast.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I will be giving you a high preference.

Thanks.
It's a pleasure to have you on board.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I'd like to commend you in this first day for running a very active campaign... I have some catching up to do!

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I know I said it already, but endorsed. You'd make a wonderful Senator.

[ZuWo]

I already told you so in private but will gladly state it again: Best of luck for your campaign. You'd make a very good Senator.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thanks to 20RP12 and ZuWo for the kind words.

If anyone has more questions, I'm happy to take them. I figure it's a good way to guide the campaign.

[Donerail]

For one, to outright deny the existence of the “wiped off the map” controversy is to ignore one side of a very contentious debate. While official translations released by the Iranians would seem to double-back on Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, there is no absolute “right answer” to exactly what the president said. What is known is that the comments were made at a “World Without Zionism” conference. What is known is that even wiping away Israel, the geopolitical entity, would hugely deepen the Jewish diaspora. What is known is that Iran sponsors anti-Semitic terrorist groups who have been intent on perpetrating “martyrdom” in the name of their cause.

According to noted Iranian artist and co-founder of the Mossadegh project Arash Norouzi, it translates as "the Imam said [that] this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.", while Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan, translated it the same as above. Translations to this effect have also been supported by the Middle East Media Research Institute and Shiraz Dossa (professor at St. Francis Xavier University). As for the "World Without Zionism" conference and sponsoring 'anti-Semitic' terrorist group, groups supported by Iran (Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ) are typically more anti-Zionist than anti-Semetic, as is evidenced by that conference (it was "World Without Zionism", not "World Without Judaism"). If they're anti-Semetic, why are there 40,000 Jews living in Iran, who are reportedly actually treated better than other religious minorities?

While the president and supreme leader have made comments alluding to their support of Palestine’s right to include Jews in a new territory, that admission is not conceding much. Such a decision would come about from a referendum in the midst of toxic rhetoric, violence, and corruption. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad’s comments are more political than truthful—their actions overwhelmingly rebuke their words. As for Iran’s perception of Israel as an occupying force… I suppose it is as much an occupying force as Canada is an occupying force in the North. The country occupies that land, but the words “occupying force” don’t exactly have a warm connotation. They’re not synonymous for “sovereign nation,” which is exactly what Israel is.

They'd support a referendum on Palestinian independence (or another form of government chosen democratically by the Palestinian people). All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. That's a fundamental human right. And as to Canada being an occupying force, a better analogy is Israel:Palestine::Atlasia:Iraq.

Now to your next point: The Iranians may not be stupid—but they do represent a theocracy with deep-rooted hate and, as I said above, anti-Semitism. You’re placing an awful lot of faith in the leaders of Iran by expecting rational action. Some would perceive Ahmadinejad’s sponsorship of suicide bombings as evidence of a more reckless streak than you give him credit for. Moreover, the intricacies of Iran’s relationships with terrorist groups make an Israeli response less-predictable than you assume. If an agenda of “wiping Israel off the map” does exist, providing nukes to an entity like the Islamic Jihad Movement could create enough degrees of separation between Iran and the bombing of Israel to prevent Netanyahu from responding in kind. Honest democracies are under many more constraints than sham democracies like Iran. That’s exactly why it is in Atlasia’s interest to preempt a nuclear attack rather than have to respond to one.

Ahmadinejad may sponsor suicide bombings, but him sponsoring such bombings don't entirely lead to the death of him, his allies, and everyone in his entire city. Anyways, Ahmadinejad wouldn't be able to launch nuclear weapons. Besides, if PIJ tried to launch a nuke at Israel (and assuming it isn't taken down by the Arrow or Iron Dome missile systems), Israel would respond with overwhelming force towards PIJ and more than likely would invade Gaza with a major crackdown far more severe than previous ones, and with PIJ having less than 1000 members, they would be swiftly dealt with.

Addressing another of your questions—why do Jewish parties occupy seats in government? Because their representation is so small and unthreatening that allowing them to exist is likely more politically expedient for the regime than not. Why incite insurrection in your own country when it can be put on the backburner for later?

Yes, their representation is small; that's because Jews are 0.05% of Iran's population. It makes sense for them to have only 1 representative; by the same token, 40000 out of a population of 75 million would be relatively easy to eliminate (easier than the Balochis or Kurds).

To sidetrack for a moment, you questioned how we could make use of nuclear deterrence without diplomatic channels. First, I’d like to say that I believe the concept of nuclear deterrence is inherently flawed when it comes to Iran—we may disagree, but this belief is coming from my conviction that Iran is just absolutely intent on eliminating Israel. Secondly, soft power with the press can easily sub-in for what little headway would be accomplished in an open diplomatic relationship. Publicly, our leaders must maintain that any aggression from Iran would illicit an immediate response from Atlasia (or Israel), even if such a response would be unrealistic. Either way, I do not believe this should be our “end-all” with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

If they're intent on eliminating Israel, then why haven't they? They have nuclear weapons; why haven't they used them? They're certainly less intent on eliminating Israel than it seems at first glance.

Regarding Pakistan, their unsecured weapons are certainly a concern. It would seem that Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden for years, so the Pakistani government is obviously connected to terrorism. Still, I’d argue that the threat with Iran is more pressing—while there are unique challenges with Pakistan, Pakistan exhibits more of a love-hate relationship with Israel, at least according to Ayesha Siddiqa, one political commentator in Pakistan. Israel is not much concerned about Pakistan, and there has actually been some important intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Thus, the difference between Pakistan and Iran is clear: Iran quite forcibly isolates its hate against one country—Israel. Pakistan does not.

Pakistan's love-hate relationship with Israel is more of a loveAtlasianforeignaid-hateIsrael relationship. Pakistan is more unstable; while Iran is certainly a major concern, Pakistan shouldn't be regulated to the back burner either (them being more unstable than Iran puts their nuclear weapons at greater risk as well).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thank you for your follow-up, and I must say, I agree with quite a bit of your commentary. Where we disagree, obviously, is how to respond to the realities on the ground.

This response will cover many things I have already said, so I don’t intend to release it as an official policy statement. Please don’t interpret this as an effort to shut down the discourse.

Regarding the translations of Ahmadinejad’s comments at the World Without Zionism conference: I have conceded that his comments were contentious. Thank you for pointing me to other translations, just as I, of course, could point you to translations from the New York Times or the Iranian presidential website, both of which use the “wiped off the map” wording. Still, I don’t believe this phrase is the fundamental issue at-hand. As I stated, I believe anti-Zionism is a nuanced form of anti-Semitism that should be taken as a serious threat. And, again, even eliminating the sovereign country Israel from “the page of time” would be a devastating blow to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole.

As for myself, I could not profess to know exactly why 40,000 individual Jews would choose to live in any one area (and that is the high-end estimate—most sources put the number closer to 25,000). I am sure many of those Jews have deep-rooted connections to Persia and for that reason alone would not wish to leave their homeland. Many Jews also stayed in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 40s despite obvious pressures working against them. Such pressures do exist in Iran: Jews may be able to practice their religion, but the government severely limits their movements in and out of the country (entire families cannot leave at once, international trips must be given clearance, and Jews often have to pay to leave).

This oppression would also be present in any Palestinian territory created on Israeli land by means of a referendum. Of course I agree that all peoples (though I’d amend that to “nations”) have the right to self-determination—including the Israelis. President Ahmadinejad has stated that it would be up to a sovereign Palestine to decide on the role of Jews in its society. I believe his support for this self-determination is contingent on his belief that Jews would never end up being afforded the rights of first-class citizens.

That 25,000 Jews in Iran are not first-class citizens is evidence enough of this belief. I would also push back against your assertion that it would be “relatively easy” to eliminate such a small number of Jews. The small Jewish population would make it much easier for Jews to blend into society and hide if such a need ever arose. This same concept would be present with any Israeli counter-attack against the Islamic Jihad Movement or Hamas. How can any effective attack be launched against such a small group that does not adhere to the traditional conventions of war? After all, the Western response to 9/11 has not seen the defeat of al-Qaeda. By all means, an Israeli response is not as predictable as Netanyahu would have the world believe.

So why hasn’t Iran used its bombs? Perhaps a launch system has not been perfected. Perhaps plans between the Iranian government and paramilitary groups have not yet been cemented. I cannot be sure. To be honest, I’ll provide a bit of a cop-out here and say that I do not agree with the way “Atlasia, the game” has been executed regarding this issue. The Game Moderator should have direct control over developments in Iran and other foreign countries. I would be interested in exploring legislation to cement this role and limit the SoEA’s activities to publicly lobbying the GM.

Regarding Pakistan: I understand your concerns. We need to maintain intelligence operations in the area to ensure our security. However, I still believe that Iran offers more challenges because of its extremely public opposition to Israel.

[Donerail]

Regarding the translations of Ahmadinejad’s comments at the World Without Zionism conference: I have conceded that his comments were contentious. Thank you for pointing me to other translations, just as I, of course, could point you to translations from the New York Times or the Iranian presidential website, both of which use the “wiped off the map” wording. Still, I don’t believe this phrase is the fundamental issue at-hand. As I stated, I believe anti-Zionism is a nuanced form of anti-Semitism that should be taken as a serious threat. And, again, even eliminating the sovereign country Israel from “the page of time” would be a devastating blow to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole.

Anti-Zionism has some relation to anti-Semitism, but they're not one and the same. Zionism is a political ideology, and as such can be treated as any political creed. One can be anti-capitalist without being anti-American, for instance. Of course, there is some overlap between the areas (those who pretend to be anti-Zionist to cover their anti-Semitism, those who are anti-Zionist because Israel is a Jewish state); there are also anti-Semitic Zionists (people who want to get rid of the Jews in their country to get them to move elsewhere).
[/quote]

As for myself, I could not profess to know exactly why 40,000 individual Jews would choose to live in any one area (and that is the high-end estimate—most sources put the number closer to 25,000). I am sure many of those Jews have deep-rooted connections to Persia and for that reason alone would not wish to leave their homeland. Many Jews also stayed in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 40s despite obvious pressures working against them. Such pressures do exist in Iran: Jews may be able to practice their religion, but the government severely limits their movements in and out of the country (entire families cannot leave at once, international trips must be given clearance, and Jews often have to pay to leave).

A good portion of them have ancestry in Iran dating back centuries; the Persians, after all, freed the Jews from the Babylonians. There are some restrictions on movement, but not more than any other religious minority, and that's quite good considering their system of government.
[/quote]

This oppression would also be present in any Palestinian territory created on Israeli land by means of a referendum. Of course I agree that all peoples (though I’d amend that to “nations”) have the right to self-determination—including the Israelis. President Ahmadinejad has stated that it would be up to a sovereign Palestine to decide on the role of Jews in its society. I believe his support for this self-determination is contingent on his belief that Jews would never end up being afforded the rights of first-class citizens.

Yes, there would be some oppression of Jews in a sovereign Palestine. There is some discrimination against Palestinians in Israel as well. I would believe that Israelis currently living in the settlements would move to Israel (or the settlements would be incorporated due to territorial swaps), and Palestinians in Israel would move to an independent Palestine.

That 25,000 Jews in Iran are not first-class citizens is evidence enough of this belief. I would also push back against your assertion that it would be “relatively easy” to eliminate such a small number of Jews. The small Jewish population would make it much easier for Jews to blend into society and hide if such a need ever arose. This same concept would be present with any Israeli counter-attack against the Islamic Jihad Movement or Hamas. How can any effective attack be launched against such a small group that does not adhere to the traditional conventions of war? After all, the Western response to 9/11 has not seen the defeat of al-Qaeda. By all means, an Israeli response is not as predictable as Netanyahu would have the world believe.

Really? By any measure al-Qaeda is now basically reduced to a few hundred people in rural Pakistan, far from a thriving establishment. Plus, Gaza's a lot more urban and a whole lot smaller than, say, the entirety of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So why hasn’t Iran used its bombs? Perhaps a launch system has not been perfected. Perhaps plans between the Iranian government and paramilitary groups have not yet been cemented. I cannot be sure. To be honest, I’ll provide a bit of a cop-out here and say that I do not agree with the way “Atlasia, the game” has been executed regarding this issue. The Game Moderator should have direct control over developments in Iran and other foreign countries. I would be interested in exploring legislation to cement this role and limit the SoEA’s activities to publicly lobbying the GM.

Agree with you there, sorta. Maybe allow the SoEA to do whatever he wants (ie: try to establish diplomatic channels with Iran) and let the GM simulate the response of other nations?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Yeah Sam I saw the picture on Facebook jesus christ mate u ok

[Donerail]

Yeah Sam I saw the picture on Facebook jesus christ mate u ok

I'm fine, it's a fairly common thing in ophthalmology. Just have to wear sunglasses for another hour or two (cause the pupil's larger so it takes in more light, so dark things are bright and bright things are kinda like looking at the Sun; sunglasses negate it).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hopefully there are no problems, SJoyce. I'm feelin' ya about this medical sh**t though. If anyone ever tells you to get your wisdom teeth out when you're older, call them a fool and run out. There's only so many mashed potatoes a person can take.

[Donerail]

Hopefully there are no problems, SJoyce. I'm feelin' ya about this medical sh**t though. If anyone ever tells you to get your wisdom teeth out when you're older, call them a fool and run out. There's only so many mashed potatoes a person can take.

Wisdom teeth? Why, I'm meeting with the oral surgeon to discuss that just next week.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

My condolences.

[Donerail]

My condolences.

But I managed to type a response, so it's up there.