Obama: "iran Has A Right To Nuclear Power"

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1881612' date='Jun 2 2009, 09:40 PM']I don't know how many times it can be said. Ahmodinejad does not control if Iran will decide to go for a weapon or not. Even If Iran did want weapons and managed to get them, Ahmodinejad would not be the individual who decided if they were used or not.

The Iranian Presidency and the American Presidency are not analogous roles.[/quote]

It speaks volumes that he is allowed to make such statements as the leader of his nation. Such an extremist leader shows the extremism of the government.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1881618' date='Jun 2 2009, 09:43 PM']Moreover Iran has acted as a rational strategic actor. They may talk a big game but the have shown a propensity to place pragmatic geopolitical concernes over ideological purity.

For example look at the Iranian relationship with Russia. How much did Iran do for Muslim Chechnya? Not much. Why? Because they wouldn't comromise an important geopolitical asset for ideological purity in protecting "fellow Muslims".[/quote]

Iran simply can not be trusted to use Nuclear Power peacefully, not when it's extremist leaders are in one speech praising Nuclear Energy and in another treating to destroy Israel and it supporters in a lake of fire.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1881644' date='Jun 2 2009, 10:59 PM']It speaks volumes that he is allowed to make such statements as the leader of his nation. Such an extremist leader shows the extremism of the government.[/quote]

No it doesn't. Besides that the Supreme Leader, the actual commander in chief, has told him to tone it down.



[quote]Iran simply can not be trusted to use Nuclear Power peacefully, not when it's extremist leaders are in one speech praising Nuclear Energy and in another treating to destroy Israel and it supporters in a lake of fire.[/quote]

You've said that numerous times, without engaging contrary data or reason.

[KnightofChrist]

Iran wants the bomb it's as simple as that. North Korea used the same lame excuse for 'nuclear energy' now they have test detonated their own, and dropped out of the Armistice Agreement. Which yes could lead to War.

The left continually makes the argument "oh that will never happen" lets pray and hope so....

[ironmonk]

The "supreme" leader of Iran is on the same page as Ahmadinejad...

It would be foolish or lying to say that Iran is not trying to go nuclear so they can attack Israel.

[quote][b]Opposition to the United States[/b]
Khamenei has been described as consistent in his opposition to the United States and the Western World in general, reportedly including this theme into his speeches no matter whether the topic is foreign policy, agriculture or education. He has declared that it is "clear that conflict and confrontation between" Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S. "is something natural and unavoidable" since the United States "is trying to establish a global dictatorship and further its own interests by dominating other nations and trampling on their rights." ...

[b]Israeli-Palestinian conflict[/b]
Khamenei remains a steadfast opponent of the State of Israel and Zionism. In 2001 Khamenei famously remarked that "this cancerous tumor of a state [Israel] should be removed from the region" and that "no one will allow a bunch of thugs, lechers and outcasts from London, Washington and Moscow to rule over the Palestinians." On the same occasion he proposed that "Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews."[60]
According to anti-regime change activist Abbas Edalat, in 2005 Khamenei responded to President Ahmadinejad's remark that Israel should be "wiped off the map" by saying that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country."[61] Moreover Khamenei's main advisor in foreign policy, Ali Akbar Velayati, refused to take part in a Holocaust conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad's remarks, Velayati said that the Holocaust was a genocide and a historical reality.[62]
In a sermon for Friday prayers in Tehran on 19 September 2008, Khamenei stated that "it is incorrect, irrational, pointless and nonsense to say that we are friends of Israeli people," and that he had raised the issue "to spell an end to any debates".[63] The remarks were made in reference to earlier comments by Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, a vice president in charge of tourism, and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had both insisted that Iran was the enemy of the Zionist state but not of the Israeli people.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei[/url][/quote]



Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear energy and weapons, as the country is run by ignorant bigoted madmen.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Marie-Therese]

Hassan, I do understand where you're coming from. You are right in that the political roles are not in any way analogous between the US and Iran. Ahmadinejad is nothing but the hand puppet for the Ayatollah and his advisers, and although he does have some power, the eventual veto, as it were, lies with the Islamic religious government.

The people of Iran, as you rightly noted, are in a demographic shift, with a large youth population, many of which are sympathetic to Western influences and are not fans at all of the Ayatollah's regime. They want a democratically styled government such as they experienced under the Shah before he was deposed. This sets up a geopolitical ticking time bomb between the older traditionalists and the younger liberals. The population of this country could very well enter a long period of political instability.

That said, I think Obama is a fool. He is, at core level, a proponent of Marxist-style politics and he does, in fact, seem to exhibit some tendencies to fall back on that old "blame America for all your problems" line. His public reinforcement of the demands of the Ayatollah (forget Ahmadinejad at this point, he is sort of irrelevant) is not a good sign. The country of Iran does not have any need at this point for developing a nuclear power program. Their insistence on doing so is a thinly veiled threat to the US and to Israel that they will pursue methods to have the capability at their disposal. I know that you have argued that the Muslim clerics have repeatedly stated that nuclear weapons are against the Muslim faith. I can also recall that many clerics also stated that the concept of jihad was an internal moral struggle. However, that has not stopped jihadists from multiple ethnicities for using the concept in a political, conflict sense. Just because something is "against someone's religion" is not a reason for me to give them a blank check and trust them. It's against our Catholic faith for priests to sexually abuse people, but did it happen? Yep. People are human and often fall prey to evil desires. Power is the most intense, and potentially the most evil of all desires. Give someone a nuke, which basically deals them into the "big boy" poker game, and do you think they are going to fold and walk? I think not.

By the way, I don't think it is correct for [u]anyone[/u] to say that this or that country has a RIGHT to nuclear power. If a country is too poor and does not have the resources, does this now mean that other countries are obligated to provide them with the means to develop a nuclear power program? People throw the word "right" around an awful lot when that is simply not the case. Do they have an option, if it is within their ability, to pursue such a program? Perhaps. Depends on the situation. In terms of the discussion regarding Iran, when a country has previously stated that their mission from God is to wipe another country off the face of Earth, forgive my reticence for not handing them a grenade.

Were there a power crisis in Iran, I might reconsider, if there was a potential humanitarian issue. However, the Iranians could pretty much bathe in crude for the next hundred years and be just fine.

I hope that this post didn't sound contentious, because I certainly mean it in an expository sense. However, it is one of those issues where people have emotions that run high. Forgive any inadvertent offense.

Pax,
Peyton

[kafka]

I think the problem of Iran possessing potential for nuclear weapons would lie in a future hypothetical coup d'etat by extremists. Otherwise they do have the right to develop nuclear power. I dont know enough about the country to know if they would be secretly developing nuclear weaponry, yet it is feasable. How could any large country not afford to possess nuclear weapons in the current global climate?

Israel wouldnt nuke Iran for the reason of possessing nuclear weapons. That would be absurd. It would be an all out nuclear war for no logical reason. I think Israel would threaten to use nuclear weapons if they were threatened with invasion from Iran or some other Middle Eastern country. And ultimately I think Israel would use them to protect their land from an invasion, so that would prevent surrounding Arab nations from ever invading Israel.

Those are some initial thoughts?

And yes Ahjimahoud employs rhetoric. When he exaggerates it must be for political reasons, or some other reason I'm not aware over over there in the Middle East.

Edited June 3, 2009 by kafka

[Hassan]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1881824' date='Jun 3 2009, 08:32 AM']It would be foolish or lying to say that Iran is not trying to go nuclear so they can attack Israel.[/quote]

You say that, despite a large ammount of evidence to the contrary.

I don't see any point in talking with you. If anoyone would like to have a sane, fact based discussion I think that would be interesting (and I think the last two posters are)

[Hassan]

[quote name='kafka' post='1882377' date='Jun 3 2009, 06:43 PM']I think the problem of Iran possessing potential for nuclear weapons would lie in a future hypothetical coup d'etat by extremists. Otherwise they do have the right to develop nuclear power. I dont know enough about the country to know if they would be secretly developing nuclear weaponry, yet it is feasable. How could any large country not afford to possess nuclear weapons in the current global climate?

Israel wouldnt nuke Iran for the reason of possessing nuclear weapons. That would be absurd. It would be an all out nuclear war for no logical reason. I think Israel would threaten to use nuclear weapons if they were threatened with invasion from Iran or some other Middle Eastern country. And ultimately I think Israel would use them to protect their land from an invasion, so that would prevent surrounding Arab nations from ever invading Israel.

Those are some initial thoughts?

And yes Ahjimahoud employs rhetoric. When he exaggerates it must be for political reasons, or some other reason I'm not aware over over there in the Middle East.[/quote]

Iran has in the last few decades had an antagonistic relationship with Israel. Particularly with their support of Hezbollah and Hammas. What is often missed is that this support is, while deplorable, rational and strategic. Iran has continually acts as a strategic actor. They would not compromise their relationship with Russia to intervene in the appalling Russian activities in Chechnya. Tying down Israel and supporting the Palestinians has great strategic value for Iran popularly and geopolitically (after all it is the other dominate power in the region), going after Russian over Chechnya had little to no value and a great deal of blow back.

Of course Iran did not help Chechnya, it did "help" the Palestinians and Lebanon

Tying down Israel through supporting Hezbollah and Hamas has strategic value. Attacking Israel with nuclear weapons is, at the very best, a zero sum proposition for Iran. It would most likely assure their national collapse. Having Nuclear weapons may have strategic value but, as Zakaria points out, it would be quixotic for a regime whose very validity depends on their fidelity to Islam to develop a weapon that it's equivalent of a Pope and national leader has, in two regimes, declared unIslamic.

That's my take.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Hassan

[Marie-Therese]

Hassan, I agree with you. Iran having nuclear aspirations would not really make honest sense in terms of a conflict with Israel because they both know that a nuclear conflict in such close geographic quarters is at the very least complete insanity. However, I still think that allowing them the opportunity to even have that threat as an option is a bad idea.

You were absolutely correct in noting Iran's strategic relationships, especially with Russia. Between the 2 of them they have controlling interest in a very large portion of the world's oil reserves. This is yet another reason we cannot allow them nuclear capabilities.

There are serious issues on the table here. Iran's nuclear potential impacts not only defense issues but the energy crisis, the plans of Islamofacist regimes who are looking to impose Sharia law and overturn democratic governments, terrorist funding via oil sales, geopolitical redistribution via alliance...the scenario is far-reaching. I don't mean to make Iran sound like Dr. Evil or something, but you also cannot minimize the potential for significant problems if we allow Iran's nuclear aspirations to even have the possibility of reaching weapons-grade...which, if they have nuclear energy, it definitely will.

I feel for the Iranian people because I believe a large number of them are stuck under a repressive regime and have no recourse to change. Making them nuclear will only add to a potentially massive destabilizing event. One of the best bargaining chips we have is still the nuke option, and we have to make sure that we keep the upper hand with these governments.

I'd love to hear your opinion, Hassan. I enjoy a nice spirited, civil, intelligent debate.

[kafka]

great posts. I'm not politically inclined. I can only argue in a general way.

From a Catholic eschatological point of view based on Sacred Scripture (the Prophets, Revelation, etc.) it is my understanding that God's providence and plan for the future does not include a nuclear attack on Israel and/or in particular Jerusalem. Even Antichrist will not obliterate Jerusalem, he will take it through deception and betrayal from within, and set himself up as ruler of Jerusalem. Instead I think Rome will be obliterated, but that is another subject.

Plus it is my understanding that God would never permit a nuclear attack on the sacred ground where Christ shed his blood. The holiest place on Earth.

Just wanted to mention that since the title of the thread was 'End Times?'

Edited June 4, 2009 by kafka

[dominicansoul]

we've been in the "end times" since Jesus' Ascension

[ironmonk]

[quote name='kafka' post='1882377' date='Jun 3 2009, 08:43 PM']I think the problem of Iran possessing potential for nuclear weapons would lie in a future hypothetical coup d'etat by extremists. Otherwise they do have the right to develop nuclear power. I dont know enough about the country to know if they would be secretly developing nuclear weaponry, yet it is feasable. How could any large country not afford to possess nuclear weapons in the current global climate?

Israel wouldnt nuke Iran for the reason of possessing nuclear weapons. That would be absurd. It would be an all out nuclear war for no logical reason. I think Israel would threaten to use nuclear weapons if they were threatened with invasion from Iran or some other Middle Eastern country. And ultimately I think Israel would use them to protect their land from an invasion, so that would prevent surrounding Arab nations from ever invading Israel.

Those are some initial thoughts?

And yes Ahjimahoud employs rhetoric. When he exaggerates it must be for political reasons, or some other reason I'm not aware over over there in the Middle East.[/quote]


The current Iran gov is extreme. They were the coup.

The previous gov was democratic loving and a good government. If the previous gov from the early 70's was in place, then things wouldn't be an issue.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1882585' date='Jun 3 2009, 11:53 PM']You say that, despite a large ammount of evidence to the contrary.

I don't see any point in talking with you. If anoyone would like to have a sane, fact based discussion I think that would be interesting (and I think the last two posters are)[/quote]

I could be wrong, what evidence to the contrary? I've seen nothing but evidence that Iran would attack Israel. Please enlighten us.

[Hassan]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1883009' date='Jun 4 2009, 12:37 PM']The current Iran gov is extreme. They were the coup.

The previous gov was democratic loving and a good government. If the previous gov from the early 70's was in place, then things wouldn't be an issue.


God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]


That is utter non sense. Iran was ruled by a Shah who did not have a steller human rights record.

[Hassan]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1883012' date='Jun 4 2009, 12:39 PM']I could be wrong, what evidence to the contrary? I've seen nothing but evidence that Iran would attack Israel. Please enlighten us.[/quote]

I have presented evidence in this thread. None of which you have responded to.