You are implying that Christians are only temporarily able to achieve salvation, until God arbitrarily decides that he likes the Jews more again.

People are not thinking about the broader implications of either country having nuclear weapons.

If Iran or Israel or anyone with a nuclear arsenal becomes trigger happy, we are all so far up the creek that bears are deciding which condiments to eat us with. The bombs used by Nagasaki and Hiroshima posed cataclysmic level threats to the surrounding environments in which they were detonated, and they were developed well over sixty years ago.

Today, only 50 Hiroshima-sized bombs (an arsenal a country like Pakistan or India could easily pull out), we could deplete our entire Ozone in a matter of hours. A larger arsenal than that would plunge us deep in to nuclear winter, with no sunlight for several years. If that's not scary enough for you, nuclear winter would give way to a nuclear summer, virtually eradicating all human life.

Any country having nuclear weapons directly effects all of us, whether your ideology will allow it or not.

But again, Israel can be trusted with nuclear weapons as much as neither country should have them. They do have nukes and they arent going to use them unless Iran builds nukes.

Besides, if it was just Iran with nuclear weapons and not Israel, wouldn't you all be a little nervous?

Says who and based on what?

The only country to -ever- have used a nuclear weapon in war was the United States, and that was 60 years ago. There's no telling what Iran would do with them, nor is there any telling what Israel might do with them, because countries do not make a habit of bombing other places enough that we would have any data to point us in either direction.

I'm saying the church will not be here much longer. God has already allotted the time of the Gentiles. It has nothing to do with Him liking anyone more, but everything to do with His promise to Abraham which has not yet been fulfilled. The church is only grafted into the branch.

Do you really disagree with me? If thats the case then the U.S.A shouldn't be trusted with nukes either. But hey, if you believe Israel is really going to just randomly nuke someone then thats your beliefs. Iran would be much more likely to do such a thing... have you ever heard their leaders speak?

Iran needs to be watched when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Your logic makes no sense since as I have pointed out legally the government cant even develop a nuclear program since it is against Iranian law to disobey the religious law as prescribed by Khomeini. His position is that it is illegal from a Muslim perspective to act as an aggressor and he views developing nuclear weapons as an act of aggression. So no, since Khomeini is in effect the religious leader of Iran and that is his position apparently you haven't heard Iranian leaders speak.

Is there a source for that, by the way?

Yes there are plenty, in fact Khamenei (Khomeini's successor) issued a Fatwa against the production of Nuclear weapons in 2005, making it impossible for the government to create a nuclear weapons program without violating the laws of Islam. You can google for sources millions will appear. The fact that the majority of the western public doesn't know this goes to show how biased media really is.

I did, and I also found this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ar-weapons.html

He isn't Khamenei. Khamenei as the current supreme religious leader of the country is the only person who can issue fatwas that are absolute law. Mohsen Gharavian is simply a reactionary, and while he may be influential because his views are supported by members of the Iranian regime, his fatwa has no real bearing on the matter because he is not the supreme leader. You really have to understand the Iranian system of government to understand that the supreme leader is the most important position within the government, and his word is law.

Yes, however Khamenei isn't actually the undisputed Grand Ayatollah of Iran. There is supposed to be a consensus in order for him to have that title, and his position is extremely controversial.

Sorry could you provide where you are getting this information from because as far as I know through my studies this isn't true. Khomeini in his will did not dictate that the Supreme leader had to be elected via consensus (I'm looking at it right now and I can't see this anywhere could you provide the passage?) Vilayat-e Faqih as a political system only calls for a Supreme leader, nowhere does it state that this leader must be elected through consensus. Also who says his position is extremely controversial? His position isn't controversial at all since it is one of the main components of Vilayat-e Faqih.

It no longer needs to be a consensus, because Ayatollah Khomeini had it written out of the Constitution of Iran. The controversy surrounds that act, as it goes against the historically traditional means in which one is elected Grand Ayatollah. Traditionally, the Ayatollah is meant to be a marja, the other marjas are meant to elect them, and they come to a consensus at the end.

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/Jan98/Behrooz/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/te...eris-fatwa.html

No country should have nuclear weapons, period.



Randomly? Did you not notice that they've been at odds with Iran for the past fifty years? There is no randomness too it.



Yes, I have. For the most part, it's Ahmadinejad spewing nonsense, and Khamenei telling him to shut up.



So does every country, because it takes only one to start a nuclear war.

This is true, but seeing as Khomeinism is followed in Iran it is of little importance. Khomeini's version of Vilayat-e Faqih is followed, and is still extremely popular in Iran, Khomeini did change the constitution and in his will he made it very clear that being a marja was not necessary for the Supreme leader because he felt that all the marjas were unsuitable to the position. In fact there is little political dissidence to Vilayat-e Faqih that I know of, the majority of clerics support the continuation of Khomeinism. Either way, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the fact that Khamenie's Fatwas are law, and as he is the Supreme Leader (regardless of the fact that there is a minority of dissidence) he is the only cleric able to issue Fatwas as law for the government. Am I missing something?

Funny thing many nations without a nuclear program have some nuclear weaponry. Old h-bombs, for example.

It has to do with his fatwas being law because his supremacy is contested. He may be recognized by most as the supreme ruler, but that doesn't make him legitimate. Many also maintain that Khomenei didn't have the right to change the law like that, as it was above him.

And to top it all off, this wouldn't be the first time the Iranian government did something against their own laws.


Funny thing is that none of those nations with nuclear weaponry actually use them, nor are they still building more.

This post has been edited by The Reincarnate: Nov 4 2009, 05:31 PM

Who is supremecy contested by that is in a position of authority over a nuclear program? Who are the many that maintain Khomenei didn't have the right to change the constitution that are in a postion of power to create a nuclear program? Further, as Supreme leader do you contest that Vilayat-e Faqih gives Khamenie the power to dismiss the president if he were to break any Fatwa? Do you also contest that he has control over the armed forces? If you contest neither of these points I don't really understand how you can say with any legitimacy that Khamenei's Fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons can be overrode.

Every country has the right to nuclear power, but no one should be using nuclear weapons.

With that said there are some countries that can never have nukes under any circumstance, their leaders are megalomaniacs and pose a threat to everyone by their possession of nuclear weapons, Iran's president has stated that he wants israel wiped off the map, he has made his intentions known and I believe he is fanatical enough to use nukes on israel even at the expense of the destruction of iran.

Iran already has nukes but don't use em. More wouldn't make them any more dangerous.

I'm really not knowledgeable on this subject to continue to argue any points. However, I don't think it's worth risking any possibilities. The Ayatollah won't live forever.


No they don't.

Even if they did, more nukes ALWAYS make someone more dangerous. That's why there was an arms race with the USSR.

And I agree with this, since like I said I don't endorse the Iranian regime. However I do think until Khaminei dies (which may be soon as he is quite old) Iran will not start a nuclear weapons regime.

No they shouldn't, but some cannot be trusted, period.



They are, but again Israel wont just bomb Iran randomly. Even if they hate eachother Israel wouldn't do that so many countries would be very mad unless they had a legitimate reason. (Although not very legitimate, if Iran builds nukes then it is legitimate enough for Israel to take action)

You have yet to actually prove this, blindly asserting it over and over doesn't make it true.