The Instigator
stody22
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
asian_invasion
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Bush invade Iran

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,749 times Debate No: 311
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (13)

 

stody22

Pro

so who thinks Bush shouldn't do anything about the threats made by Iran to pretty much blow everyone up?
asian_invasion

Con

Hi, thank you for starting this debate.

While Iran has made some pretty "out-there" threats, such as "wiping Israel off the map," toward the US, they are voicing the anti-US sentiments throughout the world. The US has been criticized by not only the middle east, but also people all around the world for bullying smaller countries with our superior military and economic strength. Invading Iran would only further this belief. This would cause problems as by increasing hate for the US in the rest of the world, we could possibly spawn more terrorist actions against the US.
Global image is something we want to protect.

Seeing as how Bush went from a relatively popular president after 9/11 at 70ish% approval down to less than 30% due mainly to the Iraq war, he should have learnt his lesson.

According to a US intellegence service, the US had knowledge that Iran had canceled it's weapons program 4 years ago. Iran, other than by spreading anti-US sentiments, is clearly not an immediate threat.

So no, the US should continue diplomatic ways. Please explain your opening point in a little more detail, so I can understand more of your reasoning behind your stance.
Debate Round No. 1
stody22

Pro

stody22 forfeited this round.
asian_invasion

Con

Yes he should do something. But invading Iran isn't a good idea. I don't really have much to work with here... what a lively debate. It's like talking to myself.
Debate Round No. 2
stody22

Pro

stody22 forfeited this round.
asian_invasion

Con

Ok, I'm just gonna move this into voting.
Iran Stopped Nuke program. And even if it hadn't, Diplomatic measures should be approached first before invading. Remember what happened the last time we didn't use diplomatic measures? Remember Iraq?
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Publius_Infinitum 9 years ago
Publius_Infinitum
Tex is an anti-Semite of the rawest variety and is promoting the destruction of a sovereign nation and doing so through invalid reasoning, appealing to poularity and ignorance.

Tex is suggesting that Isreal doesn't deserve to exist on the basis that people disagree with it; he projects Isreal as a threat to peace. Iraq attacked it's neighbors without provocation twice, it gassed thousands of it's own citizens in cold blooded murder.

Iran seized the embassy of an allie, holding dozens of American's hostage in barbaric conditions for a year and a half, in the face of global denunciation, risking enflaming it's entire region in catastrophic war.

Aghanastan harbored international terrorists that used that cloister to plan and execute mass murder of innocent civilians around the world then refused to allow the international community access to those murders in the wake of an attack on a peaceful United States, that resulted int he deaths of 3000 and the loss to it's economy of one trillion dollars.

Tax site a valid example of Isreal intentionally attacking anyone without provocation.

The position advanced by Tex is pure bigotry and represents the purest essence of illogical reasoning; this community should rise up in protest of such rhetoric and the thinking from which it stems.
Posted by tex 9 years ago
tex
the zionist entity (most people call it israhell or something) ought not to be a country. it has illegal nuclear arms and more of a threat to the world than iran or iraq or afghanistan ever was. i can count the number of countries who support the zionist entity with one hand. actually 2/5 of one hand. US and Uk, b/c uk is the us's bitch.
Posted by Publius_Infinitum 9 years ago
Publius_Infinitum
Indeed, The US will not invade Iran. Although it's a near certainty that Iran's Nuke processing facilties will be destroyed prior to November 2008. And the leftists throughout the world will cry and pump their impotent fists and the President and his party will get a pleasant bumb for taking care of the Iranian Nuke problem before the Left could ride into power and make Iranian nukes a certainty; in one mans humble opinion...
Posted by IraqiStateOfAmerica 9 years ago
IraqiStateOfAmerica
that was my point asain invasion about the verg tech shooting none of them were illegal immigrants they were all legit
Posted by Eradicatorer 9 years ago
Eradicatorer
Of course he should do something, but a military invasion would be stupid. Look, this is simple. First of all the United States as of a few days ago in the National Intelligence Estimate admitted that Iran gave up a nuclear weapons program in 2003. In addition to that point, the IAEA (The UN's Nuclear Watch-Dog) has stated through multiple reports that there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons of any kind

Second of all, Iran's president hasn't actually threatened anyone. He has made predictions about the destruction of Israel and the US, but in a nation where we value free speech as much as we do, we would be completely hypocritical to say that when a democratically elected president says something we don't agree with, we bomb them. Unless a DIRECT threat is made, the US has no right to pursue military options of any kind.

Thirdly, the problem will take care of itself. In 2006, Iran's crazy conservative extremist party that makes those stupid comments was handily defeated. Out of over 1500 local positions up for election, only 52 of the current presidents allies were put into, or back into office. The Iranian people are sick an tired of a crazy extremist president and just want to put on a pair of blue jeans and eat a big back like the rest of us. The presidential elections, and the parliamentary elections are both within a year and a half, and the crazy bombing party will be placed out of office, and replaced with a PRO-US reformist party, supported by 85 percent of the Iranian population. As a matter of fact, the current forerunner for the reformist party, and the most popular candidate in Iran, is running mate with a graduate from MIT.

So in short, don't bomb Iran. They aren't a threat, they have no nukes, it would be hypocritical, and the problem will fix itself
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by SacKings384 9 years ago
SacKings384
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by PatrickHenry 9 years ago
PatrickHenry
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lelex88 9 years ago
lelex88
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by joesabet2001 9 years ago
joesabet2001
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by spearing544 9 years ago
spearing544
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tex 9 years ago
tex
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
stody22asian_invasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03