Iran refuses EU's nuclear offer

[anarres]

So neither he nor a future Ayatollah can overrule this fatwa?

Don't know, but I have to admit that it seems unlikely this Ayatollah can issue one that says the opposite.

I am curious because I am rather positive that the catholic church overruled some of the ex-cathedra statements during their history.

I doubt it, but I'm more than happy to be wrong. I base this on the fact that there are very very few ex cathedra statements made, and this seems to make them fairly irreversable:

The First Vatican Council in 1870 declared the following:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable (see Denziger §1839).
-- Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, chapter iv

How do you explain then the behaviour of the current president? Does he just want to get more concessions from the EU and US in future negotiations?

Amazingly or not, the Middle East does not have the same cultural values as the west. Backing down or submitting to the west (or even "The Great Satan" - the U.S.) is possibly one of the worst things a politician in the Middle East can do.

If you look at the history of the middle east it's fairly easy to see why historically this is the case (not saying it's justified, just that you can see why).

IMO it's pretty obvious why they would want to do this...

 

[Azadre]

anarres is correct. It is not an Iranian politician's interests to be viewed as backing down to the west. The people will elect someone who goes against western values.

 

[amadeus]

I'm glad they didn't accept, because Iran's leadership is a group of two-faced liars and backstabbers. It's better we give them nothing and make them look bad than to submit to them and pretend like nothing's going on.

 

[amadeus]

Ayatollah Khamenei has declared a fatwa against creation, stockpiling or use of nuclear bombs. He stated that the use is unIslamic and he is right. So I seriously doubt that Iran will go against that.

Please tell me you are joking.

 

[Winner]

Well, it would be like the pope saying it. If it is said, it is to be followed by the Iranian Shi'a.

Christians say you can't kill people, but they did it from the day one. They find an excuse when they need it, so I guess the Iranians will do the same thing. Religion is nice, but this is a politics.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I too don't see why a country with such abundance of oil would need atomic energy for pacific use.

This is a point that seems very little emphasised. Iran sits on a vast sea of oil, how does it need more energy?

That said, it is their right to have atomic energy. Nevertheless I still think the world will get more dangerous because of that.

I don't think it's an intrinsic right to have nuclear weapons. Iran can pose a serious enough deterrance against invasion without nuclear weapons.

But I don't see how the UN SC can harm them too much with sanctions. They DO need Iranian oil...

 

[Winner]

This is a point that seems very little emphasised. Iran sits on a vast sea of oil, how does it need more energy?

Well, actually I think there is a bit of truth. They maybe want the power from nuclear plants, but they certainly aren't developing their own uranium purification plants for that purpose. EU offered them nuclear fuel for their power plants, they refused. The matter is clear - they want nuclear weapons.

I don't think it's an intrinsic right to have nuclear weapons. Iran can pose a serious enough deterrance against invasion without nuclear weapons.

But I don't see how the UN SC can harm them too much with sanctions. They DO need Iranian oil...

Good point. I don't think it is in anybody's interest to destroy Iran with extensive sanctions, much like in Iraqi case. The sanctions can even work against the West, turning the common Iranians againt it.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

Iran's declaration of nuclear capability will involve either Tel-Aviv or an American city being blasted into a rapidly-expanding cloud of air pollution.

Never doubt for one second that Iran will use its nukes as a first strike weapon, their only moment of indecision in the matter will be in selecting a target: the Great Satan, or the hated Zionist occupiers?

Maybe they'll wait til they have three: one for NYC or DC, one for Tel-Aviv, and one for defensive retaliation.

 

[Winner]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

Iran's declaration of nuclear capability will involve either Tel-Aviv or an American city being blasted into a rapidly-expanding cloud of air pollution.

Never doubt for one second that Iran will use its nukes as a first strike weapon, their only moment of indecision in the matter will be in selecting a target: the Great Satan, or the hated Zionist occupiers?

Maybe they'll wait til they have three: one for NYC or DC, one for Tel-Aviv, and one for defensive retaliation.

Completely wrong.

Every country with nuclear weapons becomes a player in MAD game. The Iranian gov. maybe is fundamentalist, but not stupid. They won't have enough bombs to destroy either Big or Small Satan. And they surely won't sacrifice their own country for that purpose.

Stop thinking about Iran as some country of suicide bombers.

 

[Jorge]

I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

Iran's declaration of nuclear capability will involve either Tel-Aviv or an American city being blasted into a rapidly-expanding cloud of air pollution.

Never doubt for one second that Iran will use its nukes as a first strike weapon, their only moment of indecision in the matter will be in selecting a target: the Great Satan, or the hated Zionist occupiers?

Maybe they'll wait til they have three: one for NYC or DC, one for Tel-Aviv, and one for defensive retaliation.

Why do you believe that? Any proof or it´s just some kind of blind faith? Because faith is not enough for many of us to attack other country.

 

[wit>trope]

Christians say you can't kill people, but they did it from the day one. They find an excuse when they need it, so I guess the Iranians will do the same thing. Religion is nice, but this is a politics.

Actually it might be religion (see my post which quotes from wikipedia regarding Taqiyya ... the Muslims in Iran believe it is OK to lie for religious reasons ... so the fatwa that was issued may actually be for religious reasons an act of deception)

 

[Winner]

Actually it might be religion (see my post which quotes from wikipedia regarding Taqiyya ... the Muslims in Iran believe it is OK to lie for religious reasons ... so the fatwa that was issued may actually be for religious reasons an act of deception)

Everybody lies

 

[BasketCase]

Every country with nuclear weapons becomes a player in MAD game. The Iranian gov. maybe is fundamentalist, but not stupid.

Irrational, insane, and/or stupid people become leaders of nations all the time. How do you know it won't happen with Iran? How do you know it hasn't already? You don't.

 

[brennan]

I cannot believe the sheer idiocy of some of the arguments and statements on this thread.

The very worst of US hypocrisy, stupidity and foreign policy is right here, congratulations.

Cierdan, you are posting as a 'believer' on another thread, yet you want to turn Iran into a nuclear hell-hole. Shame on you.

Fearless leader, here's a reply to your own post, its your post on that other forum:

Ockham's Razor

"The laziest answer that requires the least amount of thought is the only right answer."

How much thought went into your comments?

BasketCase: you state that no one needs nuclear weapons as a defense from nuclear weapons if no one has them in the first place. You also state that the US developed nuclear weapons when no one else had them..."We didn't need them for protection from other nuclear powers (as there were none) but we built them anyway"; what is your argument, that your country is insane, reckless or stupid? You even contradict yourself by saying that they (nukes) are useful to deter conventional warfare.

A number of people have carried on wondering why Iran would need nuclear power in view of its oil reserves, when Azadre has already pointed out that it is the US's (CIA's) economic assessment of Iran that it requires additional energy sources since it must sell its oil. PAY ATTENTION.

The only country ever to use nuclear weapons is the US. The US invaded Iraq on risible evidence (and wilfully ignoring far larger quantities of contrary evidence) and with the ludicrous claim (discredited by their own intelligence) that it would help the war on terror. This act has made matters far worse; more people are now killed by suicide attacks in Iraq every day than have been killed in a year in Israel/Palestine (source, Channel 4, last night!), one wonders if 'freedom' has indeed been more beneficial to the Iraqi people than letting Saddam die off in his own good time. Why don't you go and find a moral leg to stand on and think about what you are saying.

Iran is now a partially democratic country where the state is evolving, much as China is evolving, from its fundamentalist roots into an entirely new entity. The old anti-US Ayatollah Khomeini is long dead and the new leaders are introducing new policies as fast as they dare. They took a step backwards in the last set of elections yes, but they did so with total transparency and still held elections, in the future I expect elections to be more open again. Iran is very different from the Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan (with US sanction I note) and from Al'Queda.

Al'Queda believe that almost the whole world is so corrupt that it deserves to die (they even fight amongst themselves about interpretations of their own dogma), they feel this evil influence is so strong that even those we think of as innocents deserve to die, simply because they do not stand up to the infidel and fight! How can anyone possibly suggest that Iran supports such a point of view, sure they probably (almost certainly!) gave the terrorists some backing while they were attacking the US, but by now anyone can see that the terror campaigns are killing innocent people in contravention of almost every moral viewpoint across the entire globe. The logical progression of Al'Queda doctrine would eventually cause them to attack even a state like Iran and the Iranian leaders know this. The pakistanis have already seen this, hence their rather sudden turnabout into a nation whose government is actively hunting down Al'Queda, whereas a few years ago they were ignoring the issue.

 

[Jorge]

Irrational, insane, and/or stupid people become leaders of nations all the time. How do you know it won't happen with Iran? How do you know it hasn't already? You don't.

How do you know it won´t happen with the USA, France, UK, Pakistan, India, Israel, China ....?

As I said before, if you are 100% sure you can avoid Iran developiong nuclear weapons indefinitely, then you can do it. On the othe hand, if they will have nuclear weapons in the future no matter what we do, it´s better not to mess with them.

 

[Hitro]

Good post there, brennan.

 

[BasketCase]

BasketCase: you state that no one needs nuclear weapons as a defense from nuclear weapons if no one has them in the first place. You also state that the US developed nuclear weapons when no one else had them..."We didn't need them for protection from other nuclear powers (as there were none) but we built them anyway"; what is your argument, that your country is insane, reckless or stupid? You even contradict yourself by saying that they (nukes) are useful to deter conventional warfare.

Since you've clearly read that other thread where I argued the boldface part: you alread know what my argument was. It was this:

Someone in that thread argued that other nations are only building nukes in order to counter U.S. nukes (or Indian or Russian nukes or whatever). I presented a counterexample: a nation that built nukes for some other reason entirely (the USA). I don't know what that reason was. Was the U.S. reckless, insane, or stupid at the time? I've got no idea; our leaders from that era ARE DEAD.


There is no contradiction.

You attack me. I nuke you off the face of the planet, destroying your industry and economy. You can't build or buy any more weapons. You can't attack me any more. My nukes have deterred your conventional forces.

Kill the attacker, and he stops attacking you. Nuclear weapons are simply "bigger and better" weapons. The U.S. can manufacture far more of them than Iran can--and we can also shoot down Iran's. Therefore Iran's nuclear warheads will be worthless as a deterrent (the Soviet Union was a different matter).

Before nukes were invented, a more primitive version of MAD still existed: nations built big military forces in order to deter the other guy from attacking. World history has demonstrated very clearly that this didn't work perfectly. Smaller nations attacked bigger ones (with larger military forces) lots of times. Clearly, world leaders in the past were not rational. There is no reason to believe that world leaders today are rational.

Closing note for Jorge: I do not know that

it won´t happen with the USA, France, UK, Pakistan, India, Israel, China

.....or any other nation, for that matter. However, I trust France, the UK, India, and Israel with their nukes because they are democratic nations. I do not trust Pakistan or China--or Iran--because they are run by freaking idiots.

Edit: the bit I forgot to add--messing with Iran right now is a great idea. The sooner we get rid of the religious radicals over there, the better off the rest of the planet will be.

 

[Jorge]

Edit: the bit I forgot to add--messing with Iran right now is a great idea. The sooner we get rid of the religious radicals over there, the better off the rest of the planet will be.

And what is your plan to get rid of the religious radicals? If you bomb Iran, there will be more people willing to attack the USA, not less. More bombs, more radicals. Just see Iraq.

 

[stormbind]

I trust France, the UK, India, and Israel with their nukes because they are democratic nations.

What of the democratic Weimar Republic, surely you would have trusted them equally?

What about the democratic United States of America: can you trust the only nation to make dangerous and unpredictable escalatory threats against peers through the use of nuclear weapons, an action kept secret from Congress and the public for decades?

 

[wit>trope]

What of the democratic Weimar Republic, surely you would have trusted them equally?

Germany historically was not trusted at that time. It was believed that the Germanic people had some kind of propensity for war mongering or something. JFYI.