Iran locked and loaded

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

I don't see the point in debating this with you if you simply choose to ignore the obvious facts in front of you and insist "well, we don't like Iran, iran doesn't like us, no electricity for Iran."

Well, the feeling is mutual when you distort my position like that...
Iran has oil. If they want nuclear power, Iran can get all the reactor fuel it wants if it lets a 3rd party handle the enrichment. I think at an earlier point Russia actually offered to do this (I can't remember if the Iranian ore was to be sent to Russia or Russia would build/operate/own the plant for turning it into fuel in Iran, which I suppose could be a important issue).

InFront wrote:

Each one, no doubt, assuring yourselves that Iran is a great personal danger.

Look, this discussion is interesting but I realise I'm in much more immediate danger from many things (and maybe people!) I come into personal contact with every day than I am from Iran...

InFront wrote:

Nobody who is arguing your side of the debate, nor you yourself, can explain the pretty major gaps of sense and logical shortcomings that are being presented to you repeatedly. You simply gloss over them and repeat your position

Sorry, I got kind of tired last night and didn't have time to consider that (final) part of your post trying to show the reasons why Iran would really be no danger at all if in posession of this technology.

InFront wrote:

1. Knowing the seriousness of a fatwa, it makes no sense that a country which is lead, controlled and administrated by Ayatollahs and clerics would act against such a thing and fire (1) a nuclear bomb (2) on civilians. Can you explain this? Are you expecting them also to convert to Christianity or become Hindus after going against a ruling on God's will? Become atheists?

I didn't know anything about this until it was mentioned (by you??) in this thread. but I'm sorry, it doesn't reassure me very much. You are basically saying - look how religious these people are!, holy religious people wouldn't do a bad thing like that! They are humans. People are capable of almost anything when it suits them, and if they do judge there is a need to acquire and then use these weapons for some very earthly/non-divine reason they'll justify it somehow. Perhaps an Iranian cleric will issue a new fatwa describing when such weapons could be used with Allah's blessings once they have them?
Muslims (and Iran's leaders) are human beings, not some super-moral creatures who will be more responsible with nukes because of how holy and blessed they are!
I consider Iran, I look at its powerful enemies and its position in the world and I judge that it could be likely to use these weapons in a war if it had them. I notice that Iran's govt. has a deep rooted hatred of "the West" in addition to US/Israel, may consider other "Western" states as adjuncts/allies of the US/Israel and worry that the target-list for the weapons may not stop at the US and Israel if such a catastropic war ever happens.

InFront wrote:

2. Palestine is the home of the third most sacred site in all of Islam - the masjid al Aqsa. People say that if the Zionists were to damage the area there would be a worldwide deluge of Muslim violence on Israel (that is what the current unrest is about with the archeological dig nearby). Now do you really think that the Iranians would set off a nuke that would harm the shrine? Why would a Muslim do that? Given how it's been fought over in the past and the recent past, do you really think Muslims would tolerate that?

InFront wrote:

3. Palestinians are Muslims. Why do you think the Iranians would annhilate all of these Muslim lives? And the territory that whatever remaining people inhabit be made into a radioactive waste-ground, including the masjid? Why do you think this, or how can your reasoning get around this?

These are almost the same point.

You are saying we could trust Iran's leaders with the bomb because they are muslims.
I'm sure there are muslims (maybe some of those people in Karachi, Riyadh you spoke of?) who may believe it could be worth the loss of muslim life and destruction of Islamic shrines if the state of Israel was destroyed once and for all in the process. Such people are always playing little tactical numbers games in their heads, aren't they?

InFront wrote:

If you read what I said, I made the point that it is a valid democracy. However it is not a constitutional democracy as we understand one to be, it is a theological/ bordering on Islamist democracy.

I thought Iran had a constitution?
Okay - call Iran a "democracy" - the only "real" one in this world, if it makes you happy. So you say theocratic/"theological" democracy like the Ayatollah seems to, I say quasi-"democratic" theocracy.:rolleyes:

InFront wrote:

The second post is about human rights in Iran. This really says nothing about nuclear energy, let alone nuclear power and international relations.

LOL - are you telling me I wasted my time and the questions were rhetorical? Sigh...:)
You asked me to explain where I got my "info" about Iran. I did so.
You also asked me to explain why I seemed to have a negative view of Iran (well, the current govt., political system there etc) - I did so. It wasn't closely related to the discussion.

Victor

InFront wrote:

If you read what I said, I made the point that it is a valid democracy. However it is not a constitutional democracy as we understand one to be, it is a theological/ bordering on Islamist democracy.

You mean like the Church of England democracy next door to us where the Queen can interfere with the judicial system?

wes

Victor wrote:

You mean like the Church of England democracy next door to us where the Queen can interfere with the judicial system?

The supreme leader is elected by a council whom are in turn elected by the people. Its a democracy, but not the kind we are use to. I am not a 100% sure about that however. I am sure someone who is more familiar with Iran political system will chime in.

NeverSayDie

For anyone interested, the BBC have a pretty comprehensive overview of Iran's political system here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm

oscarBravo

wes wrote:

The supreme leader is elected by a council whom are in turn elected by the people.

Isn't that an almost word-perfect description of an American Presidential election?

fly_agaric

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6491577.stm

Anyway, here's to Iran and its future partnershp with the United Kingdom (as an EU member:) ) in developing nuclear energy and space technology!

InFront

Actually that ruling on weaponry would be part of the religious state legislation (Iranian Shari'ah) in Iran, there's no more reason they're likely to revoke that than revoke say, a ban on alcohol.

Such people are always playing little tactical numbers games in their heads, aren't they?

No offence, but that's not a reply, it seems to me like "Yeah-but-no-but-yeah-but-no-but-yeah-but-ism"... or "I just don't trust them in my heart-ism" or "I have a feeling".

In other words saying "they're illogical, they could do anything" seems like an easy way out of giving an explanation for the reasons why Iran (or any Muslims state) would never dream of nuking Israel.

Killing the Muslims they seek to defend?... making a holy land of Islam uninhabitable? An exodus of Muslim refugees?... destroying the masjid-al-aqsa, one of the most serious, holiest places in Islam? That doesn't add up.