Americans Engaging In War With Iran Would Be An Unwarranted Show Of Imperialist Oppression.
Debate Rounds (3)
1n 1986, Ronald Reagan initiated The Contra Gate. In exchange for more American hostages, he sold Iran 2000 anti-tank missiles, to raise secret money for a the contras. The contras were a proxy war waged against communists in Nicaragua. It was deemed a scandal because he sold weapons to a country considered an enemy at the time, and because he lied several times to the American public before it was exposed. Specifically, this happened during an 8 year long bloody war Iran was having with neighboring Iraq, an American backed Dictatorship. Iran also endured a series of chemical weapon attack from the U.S. backed Iraq during the 8 year conflict. Iran had suffered a war with a neighboring nation, and victim of US occupation, Iraq; a war funded on both sides by The United States.
Iran has developed a world-wide image as a nuclear rogue and pariah. This country has gotten flack for signing but failing to ratify the CBNT, or Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty in 1996. Israel and The United States are guilty of the same crime. Much of the international stigma pertaining to Iran's nuclear program stems from their lack of compromise with the IAEA, or the International Atomic Energy Agency.The primary treaty they are being penalized for failing to obey, is the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT. The claim pertains, Iran is trying to develop a Nuclear Fuel Cycle. This technology is used for energy, but can be used to used to develop weapons. Iran claims they are not making weapons. In February 2006, the USNC, or United Nations Security Council started conducting investigations. Iran maintained the appearance of cooperative, allowing IAEA inspectors to view a plethora of files and documentation. In 2006, it was uncovered, that Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States were plotting to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, in a series of air strikes. The UNSC finally stated, that Iran must suspend nuclear enrichment. Iran defied them, and more compromises followed.
The case of an unstable fundamentalist nation obtaining nuclear warheads is not unheard of prior to Iran. Pakistan is Iran's neighbor to the east, and conditions are very similar. Pakistan has harbored and trained the Majihadeen, another known terrorist group idiosyncratic with Taliban. All this yet, they have still acquired WMDs, because their location is of great strategic importance. The CIA sold them the weapons in the 1980's, in a cold-war bid, to threaten invading Russian forces in neighboring Afghanistan; another amazing foreign policy move under the Reagan Administration. After the Soviets left Afghanistan, the aid and weapons flow to Pakistan disappeared completely, leaving a third world country, constantly on the brink of war with India, with nuclear weapons.
Another fundamentalist country, notable for it's nuke button trigger finger, is Israel. Israel is a platform for western interest enforcement in the middle east. Israel shows aggression towards all Arab countries, being a Jewish occupation in a sea of Arab countries. Iran shows solidarity towards the Palestinian people who are currently being pushed off their land and massacred by the Zionist movement. Israel claims Iran funds Hezbollah, a terrorist group neighboring them to the north, in Lebanon. They also are proponents of bombing Iran into oblivion. Surprisingly though, revealed through the Wikileaks cablegate whistleblower scandal, many arab nations also expressed desires, to the U.S., to engage Iran, in active military conflict. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, amongst other Arab leaders, urged a strike to end the nuclear program.One reason Israel seems so poised to strike Iran, has also been exposed. Israel seeks to maintain nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. It has expressed time and time again that it wants to "shoot the fair" with Iran, without any help from America or Europe.This comes as a revelation, because prior to the WikiLeaks expos�, Israel was thought to avoid confrontation without their big brother, America . Still avoiding engagement, Israel's Mossaud, are being accused of assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists to put an end to the nuclear program .This is a very acrimonious claim, and would convict Israel of international terrorism.
More recently, U.S. intelligence claims to have uncovered an assassination plot of theatrical epicness. Allegedly, Iranian officials backed a Mexican drug cartel to bomb a Saudi-American ambassador, and Vice President Joe Lieberman, amongst others, in a Washington D.C. Restaurant. Iranians claim this is nothing more than American propaganda and fabrication, to elicit their own citizens into a war for other special interests; a strikingly similar to conditions that started the Iraq war quagmire.
America, The United Kingdom, and Israel are also pushing to put economic strains on Iran. They're imposing sanctions and embargoes. Russia and China, two superpowers, still sore from America's cold war antics, are strongly advising against it; both being Iran's largest economic partners.They claim that Iran is only acquiring these materials and information, solely to protect itself. Other dissenting national voices are saying that American influence completely controls the IAEA. This idea regards the fact that IAEA chairman, Mohamed ElBaradei, retired in 2009. He was replaced by Yukiya Amano. Wikileaks has also exposed that this man is impartial, learning towards western interests. It is also claimed that the IAEA is biased, because a majority of their reports are an amalgamation of U.S. and Israeli information. These countries being Iran's primary foes when it comes to their nuclear program in the first place; not a fair truly international institution.
In November 2011, The British embassy in Iran was stormed by Iranian students. The students took over the building, and the Iranian government turned a blind eye. Speculation drew comparisons to the 1979 embassy storming and kidnappings. Also more recently than that, in December, Iran shot down an unmanned American drone plane over their own soil, leading to implications that the United States is Illegally spying on Iran, a claim long held without physical proof, until now. The drone was in place because the UNSC is finally claiming that Iran is constructing an atom bomb. With these claims, in addition to the assassination plot, embassy storming, and destruction of a US drone, we draw ever closer to an active military engagement in Iran. Which could spell catastrophe for a coalition of soldiers stilled muddied from occupying two of Iran's closest neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is my claim, that this war can only exhaust our economy more, and can only threaten to further polarize the superpowers of the world. It may even bring about Armageddon as we know it.
The American public is vastly under educated about Iran, yet over-opinionated. Most Americans, form their opinion, regurgitating what ever they hear from news anchors and pundits. War with Iran could most definitely effect your way of life, and possibly end it shortly. Sources are posted in the comments section.
This debate focuses on the Con's belief that war with Iran would be unjust and uncalled for because of American intervention in the country in the past makes Iran look like they are the bad guys, and the Con believes that Iran has done nothing wrong. Contrary to what the resolution states the Con's argument focuses on the idea that
Americans engaging in war with Iran would be oppressive of America. (what the resolution really is)
Yet the con has chosen Con which would imply he believes that a war with Iran would NOT be oppressive, yet he only offers evidence of why it would be oppressive, therefore contrary to his stance, the Con is actually Pro the idea that American war with Iran would be an unwarrented show of imperialist impression.
To summarize, the con is actually pro the idea that war with Iran is unwarranted and unjustified
I will be arguing why this is not the case.
1) " America executed a coup d'etat and installed a dictator known as "The Shah" "
America did not create the dictatorship, the coup in 1953 was carried out to remove their prime minister from power, the king remained in power, there was no utter change of government the Con claims happened.
Also the Shah was installed back in the 1940's on the eve of WWII, America did not create it like the Con claims,
2) "The government changed from a dictatorship to an Islamic republic in 1979 following the ousting of the American installed Shah. Troops of the puppet government opened fire on anti-government protestors for three straight days. The Shah fled to America, and immediately following this incident, students stormed the American embassy, holding fifty-two hostages."
America had nothing to do with the Iranian revolution of 1979. After the Prime minister was removed from power the Shah of Iran grew increasingly authoritarian. such as creating the Iranian secret police, the SAVAK, to kill off political opponents. pulic opposition against him grew over time and when a group of students protested his rule, the Shah ordered his own troops to fire on them. This caused many deaths, inspired many more protests that led to the revolution in 1979.
The Iranian revolution was not caused by people protesting the "puppet government set up by America" they were protesting the rule of their king (who ruled both before and after the 1953 coup) and the king opened fire on the students resulting in the revolution.
The Shah fled to many other countries before coming to America, and even then he was only allowed within US borders because he needed medical treatment
The Iranian people stormed the embassy on November of 1979, the Shah had fled Iran in January of 1979, so the Con claiming it all happened in three days is off by about 10 MONTHS
3) As for Contra-gate, Iran was indeed an enemy of the US, but at the time Saddam Hussein from Iraq was threatening to destabalize the entire Middle East with his military campaigns, something Iran was NOT doing. The US sold anti-tank weapons (nothing nuclear) to Iran to fight off Saddam and create peace, but then Reagan used the profits from selling the weapons to Iran to fund anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.
" was having with neighboring Iraq, an American backed Dictatorship"
Saddam became dictator on his own, he wasnt installed by America, get your facts straight.
4) The reason why Iran is catching hell for its nuclear enrichment programs was because they were previously suspended by the UN, but Iran then restarted its nuclear enrichment program in 2005 a year after it was suspended.
Iran has since disregarded foreign pressure to halt its nuclear enrichment program causing much tension between them and western countries.
5) Pakistan and Iran are very very different cases for the nuclear argument. Pakistan developed their own weapons as a response to India (longtime enemy of Pakistan) developed nuclear weapons first and threatened Pakistan with them. Iran though has no clear neighboring enemy of powerful military capabilities and has pursued their nuclear interests based on will, not as a counter measure like Pakistan did. Pakistan may harbor terrorists, but they do not willingly fund them, unlike Iran who funds terrorists all the time.
As for the US selling them weapons in the 1980's, they sold weapons to the Afghan fighters not the Pakistanis, also none of the weapons sold to anyone were nuclear like the Con claims.
6) " Israel shows aggression towards all Arab countries"
The exact opposite of that is true, all Arab countries show aggression towards Israel (and have invaded them several times) and Israel only responds with necessary force, Israel never invades anyone and has ever since they were conceived only wanted peace.
" the Palestinian people who are currently being pushed off their land and massacred by the Zionist movement"
Zionism is just the idea of a Jewish state of Israel, it in no way condones or even causes the alleged "massacre of Palestinians"
Would war with Iran be desirable now? No
Would war with Iran be desirable in the close future? probably not
Would war with Iran result in thousands of deaths? easily
Would war with Iran be supported by the public? I doubt it
Would war with Iran trigger Armageddon? Of course not
Would war with Iran further polarize worldly superpowers? No it wouldnt
Would war with Iran end your life shortly? Not at all
And most importantly of all,
Has Iran done anything that could warrant a declaration of war in the future? Yes.
Xenochrist forfeited this round.
Xenochrist forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Xenochrist just posted an essay and then left...