The Instigator
willact723
Con (against)
Winning
69 Points
The Contender
hattopic
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points

Going to war with Iran is in the best interest of the United States.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,090 times Debate No: 277
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (33)

 

willact723

Con

Going to war with Iran may possibly be the biggest mistake in American history. Granted this hasn't happened yet, but the sentiment exists, so why not debate it.

If the point of going to war is to stop Iran from developing a Nuclear weapon, the new NIA report has found that Iran shut down it's nuclear program 4 years ago, negating a military effort. This only reinforces the idea that progress can be made without going to war. The United States and other countries throughout the world used military and some economic means to convince Iran to shut down their program, so why does war need to be the first option. Because Iran has shut down their program, the nuclear weapons argument is moot.

The argument may be made that we need to go to war with Iran to help quell the Iraqi insurgency. Well first, we have to assume that war is in fact going to do that, when that is not even guaranteed! How do we know that our war would be so effective that we would cut of supply lines from Iran to Iraq? What do we do if we invade Iran, and find that the insurgency is still strong in Iraq and being funded by Iran? We know that the insurgency is fueled by extremist hatred against the United States. Well wouldn't a war with Iran just prove them right in regards to our imperialistic attitude and fuel those extremists to do more? Could our invasion not spur those moderate Muslims towards an anti-American sentiment?

Also, how could we physically manage a war with Iraq AND Iran? We have 150,000 troops in Iraq, with NONE to spare in America, where would get the support? There is also the size of Iran to take into consideration. Iran is a VERY large nation, much bigger than Iraq, so if we don't have the troops to help Iraq, how are we going to do that in Iran?

Are the civilian death's, that are necessarily going to take place due to bombing campaigns to destroy insurgent supply lines, worth it? Do we not take into consideration the lives of the Iranians, who may not even want us to invade their country?

One finally needs to consider the growing resentment of Ahmadinejad in Iran. If the people of Iran are beginning to become upset with their president, how are they going to react once we invade? Most likely they would become resentful of our intentions and Ahmadinejad would use this as a rallying point and raise his support.

All in all, a war with Iran is in the worst possible interests of the United States.
hattopic

Pro

You fail to mention what the best interest of the United States is. Right now the US economy is in a terrible state, what it needs is a jump start. The best interest of the United States is the well being of it's citizens, and its citizens can't thrive if the economy can't thrive.

The solution? War, of course. War has been proven time and time again to help economies. Prime example: World War II, after the economic collapse of the 1930s FDR initiated his New Deal programs, which helped the economy, but what really saved us was the war. During war production increases, more jobs are availible and the economic state of a nation greatly improves.

As for the lack of troops, well the answer's obvious, propose a UN peace keeping force and pull out.
Debate Round No. 1
willact723

Con

I fail to mention what is in the best interest of the United States because I thought that avoiding those downfalls I mentioned in my previous argument would go without saying as what is best for the United States.

So if the economy is what is in the best interest of the United States, then the only way to fix it is by going to war? In order for that argument to hold, you would have to prove that the only way our economy has ever gotten better was through a war. Which is absolutely not the truth, so therefore, there are others ways of helping our economy and war is not necessary for that reason. It also stands to mention that economic collapse of the early 20th century was so much worse than anything we are experiencing now. Also, it is not a proven fact that the war alone pulled us out of that economic state, it is only a theory. If you also would like to speak about the economy, I won't even cite the amount of money we spent on the war in Iraq. Have you looked at the size of Iran? If you haven't I believe you need to. Then think about how much money it will cost the US taxpayer to run a war there. You want to REALLY help the economy and put money back in the people's pockets? Stay out of Iran

As for a UN peace-keeping force, I think you know that answer. The UN did not support the invasion of Iraq, so why on earth would they support an invasion of Iran? There has already been a movement by the security council to condemn an unprovoked war with Iran.

What is in the best interest of the United States is to protect the troops that are already stretched too thin. It is in the best interest of the United States to make sure we have completely left Iraq if we are ever even going to consider a war with Iran. It is in the best interest of the United States to leave Iraq and Iran alone and try to find the man who is in charge of an organization that murdered thousands of people in cold blood! Someone who is actually guilty of hunting us down on our own soil! No, instead we run around and worry about the possibility of nukes in Iraq, now with Iran. Have we forgotten about Bin Laden? How can we really help the United States? Cut the head of this insurgency off, find Osama Bin Laden.
hattopic

Pro

"So if the economy is what is in the best interest of the United States, then the only way to fix it is by going to war?"

Of course not! Did I say that? It doesn't seem like the sort of thing I'd say... Anyways, no, going to war is not the only way to fix the economy. However since we're in agreement that the US economy is vital to it's best interest, and since wars are great for a good economic kick start then it logically follows that going to war is in our best interest.

"Also, it is not a proven fact that the war alone pulled us out of that economic state, it is only a theory."

I believe I said something along the lines of, FDR's New Deal programs, as well as the war helped bring the economy out of it's collapse. For something as catastrophic as the stock market crash was, you needed both to jolt the economy.

"It also stands to mention that economic collapse of the early 20th century was so much worse than anything we are experiencing now."

Absolutely true, that doesn't mean that going to war won't help and since it isn't as bad we probably won't need those New Deal type programs.

"If you also would like to speak about the economy, I won't even cite the amount of money we spent on the war in Iraq"

I will, it's right around 2 trillion dollars. Amazing right? Well the truth is we're pouring money into Iraq and it's not getting any better. And of course, we've been misusing the money that we've spent there. What we really need to do is pull out of Iraq, and go into Iran with a better strategy. Anyways, since we've spent so much money in Iraq we're probably in a deficit right? Right. And deficit spending is great for the economy!

Basic economics. A government in debt that spends money within it's country helps the economy. What happens is, the government credits an account, and spends money to contract a company to build, say, a couple hundred planes (like for a war). The company in turn is able to hire more workers, increase pay, which enables the workers to spend more, etc. etc.

"As for a UN peace-keeping force, I think you know that answer. The UN did not support the invasion of Iraq"

Right, so when we pull out they'll be thrilled! Maybe the European countries will let us sit at their lunch table again.

"What is in the best interest of the United States is to protect the troops that are already stretched too thin."

Heart warming. Unfortunately it's not exactly true. We have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now. We have 330,000,000 people in the United States right now. I hate to be so callous, but the needs of the many outweigh those of the few. Not to say that I don't care about our troops. Of course I do! But you can only have one best interest, and I hate for it to be about numbers, but there are more people who aren't in the armed forces.

"It is in the best interest of the United States to make sure we have completely left Iraq if we are ever even going to consider a war with Iran"

That's what I said! Leave Iraq, go to Iran. Are we in agreement?

"Have we forgotten about Bin Laden? How can we really help the United States? Cut the head of this insurgency off, find Osama Bin Laden."

You're right, the US has lost site of it's goals, and it seems that we care more about oil then anything else now a days. Unfortunately the whole cut of the head and the body dies thing isn't true, and we both know it. First of all, we don't even know what sort of roll Bin Laden plays in the insurgency. Second of all, if he does die some one will take his place. These people are committed to killing Americans, and just because one of their own is dead doesn't mean they'll stop.
Debate Round No. 2
willact723

Con

"However since we're in agreement that the US economy is vital to it's best interest, and since wars are great for a good economic kick start then it logically follows that going to war is in our best interest."

That argument would make sense, except you have a basic flaw in your logic. This sentence would be true, ceteris paribus, but because a war has other effects besides helping an economy, the logic involved in this sentence is not complete. I would take the time to state why the logic is not complete, but I have addressed that in the first round, and since you have yet to address it, I do not feel the need to repeat myself.

You also have to consider the war in Iraq. Please tell my how a war with Iran is going to help our economy, when we've been at war with Iraq for 4 years now and our economy, in your words, needs a "kick start". Well following your logic, if war helps our economy, then that is exactly what the Iraq war would have done and would be doing right now.
hattopic

Pro

Ah ceteris paribus, my old enemy.

Of course all other things aren't equal as you've pointed out. Not only would a war be good for our economy, but it'd help us in other ways as well.

A) We would have to pull out of Iraq. I think at this point it's generally agreed that we didn't have a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, and that up to this point our invasion has been a resounding failure.

B) We would neutralize the threat that we face in Iran. Of course that threat is mostly unknown, but better safe than sorry right?

C)Increased US soft power! Right now we have no global soft power. If we pull out of Iraq and go into Iran we'll be doing the world a favor. A lot of people are feeling kind of nervous when it comes to Iran, and going in their to make sure they're not developing a nuclear weapons program would be a service to the world.

"You also have to consider the war in Iraq. Please tell my how a war with Iran is going to help our economy, when we've been at war with Iraq for 4 years now and our economy, in your words, needs a "kick start". Well following your logic, if war helps our economy, then that is exactly what the Iraq war would have done and would be doing right now."

What we're doing right now in Iraq is occupying, and trying to repair their country. We're not really at war with Iraq, we're just the peace keepers. When we went in to Iraq in 2003 we crippled their country, you break it you buy it, and that's exactly what we're doing right now. We need to pull out of Iraq. That right their will save us money. Then we need to go into Iran, and we need to do it right. None of this total war business, we need to have a plan before we go in, and we need to do what we should have done with Iraq.

And I can't fail to notice you don't site any impact to going to war with Iran, except for very general ones in your first argument, which you fail to mention afterwards. Well the impact of not going to war with Iran is eventual economic collapse. Our economy is spiraling downwards, and we need to shock it, and this is how to do it.

And what exactly is the impact of the US economy collapsing? Well right now the only reason we're surviving is because China has invested heavily in us. They've bought US treasury bonds, and if our economy collapses then those bonds are worthless. China's a global superpower, and chances are they won't be thrilled about losing all that money. The threat of a Chinese military reaction is very real.

Voters - I urge you not to vote on what you actually believe here. Instead vote on who had the better argument, going to war with Iran is an unpopular idea, but Willact didn't do a great job of explaining why. The impact of not going to war with Iran is possible war with another superpower, and as far as I can see from Willact's arguments, the downside doesn't come close to that. We don't have a ton to lose from going to war, but if we don't the consequences will be dire.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by d4l 6 years ago
d4l
What is really in the best interest of the U.S citizens is to have peace with Rag President Bush did not ask us if we wanted to send war out there not only that but there's other arguments we can discuss..........
Posted by tjzimmer 6 years ago
tjzimmer
it is easy to be for war when you are not the one going to die on foreign soil...read my favorite quote for more understanding
Posted by Lydie 6 years ago
Lydie
haha.

Ok. The argument that war will help the economy and THATS why its justified is rediculous. Yeah, war is a good option when your sitting in your cozy living room, typing on your computer. Not such a reasonable option when your a little Irany boy. Or if, god fobid, we were to have the war on American soil. Imagine that. Can you? Nah, because itll never happen. Ok. just wait till china has a dip in their economy, they feel like giving it a boost, so they invade the east coast. Cool. smart. Humanitarian.

Honestly???
Posted by sammer_the_hammer 6 years ago
sammer_the_hammer
The war effort for ww2 was different, inasmuch as we didn't have all the weapons we needed so we had to manufacture them all. as it is, we have quite enough plains trains and automobiles to defeat Iran in open combat. and still, it wouldn't be open combat... so...

just saying, I didn't notice that counter argument.
Posted by C-Mach 6 years ago
C-Mach
Restore the Iranian monarchy!
Posted by willact723 6 years ago
willact723
Just an aside,

I also don't have a problem ripping you up.

You're not a Conservative.

You're a liberal, so I need to be training you for the frontlines. ;) haha. J/K

Take it easy, hattopic, look forward to another. This time, you take the position you want, and i'll take the other.
Posted by hattopic 6 years ago
hattopic
I really appreciate that.

I don't mind any critique that you'd give, because you obviously are the more experienced than me, and perhaps I'm just being oversensitive.

Anyways, once again, nice debate, I'll challenge you again in a few days.
Posted by willact723 6 years ago
willact723
You're right. I have been rude. And for that I am sorry.

What I should be saying is that I am reading what you are writing, and while the ideas are good, immediate flaws stick out in them. And i'm not saying that we are not allowed to mess up, I guess i have to remember that not everyone sees our own mistakes. (not saying that I don't make any)

I see that you are obviously very educated for your age, and I don't want this to be an age thing, but I have been in college for 5 years. I have two bachelors degrees. And that does not make one smarter than another, but I come from classes where professors rip you apart because of flaws in your argument. So i only say that to say that I am probably more experienced in an environment where no one cares what you are trying to say, if you say something and the flow of logic isn't practically perfect, you're done. I am sorry that I have become that way to you. I sincerely do apologize.

And that was by no means an attack on your intelligence or your experiences, I just have more (experience that is). While I may be able to instantly see flaws in arguments, I guess I also picked up my "you're nothing" attitude of my professors. So I, once again, apologize.
Posted by hattopic 6 years ago
hattopic
To say oil is controlled by OPEC isn't completely true. Yes, OPEC has a large influence over oil prices, but it's a coalition of nations simply agreeing to sell oil at certain prices. And it's made up of 13 countries. Granted these countries have a significant amount of oil in them, but they don't completely control the world.

Note that Iran is a member of OPEC, having a friendly country supporting us isn't a bad thing. And if we go to war with Iran perhaps the government we support won't want to be a member of OPEC.

I'd like to re-iterate that OPEC does not regulate all oil around the globe. And yes it could be negotiated with Iran that they provide us with more oil.

And yes, I do think about what I'm writing, and just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Do you just like insulting people? I'm semi-sure that you do. Note that not once have I said anything negative about you, and yet you still deem it necessary to attack my intelligence. You can say that you don't mean to be rude, and hell, you may even believe yourself, but it seems to me that with the anonymity provided you by the internet you think it's okay to try and demean other people. Would you say that sort of thing to someone in person? I'm guessing not, though you might just be one of those people that has absolutely no social graces.
Posted by willact723 6 years ago
willact723
Have to negate your oil point.

Oil is controlled by OPEC. If OPEC decides that the US will get more oil, then it will, Iran can't do that. If one country decides to do it's own deal, the cartel will crush it.

Not to mention the fact that Oil doesn't go from one country to another. Independent buyers, buy the oil from OPEC, who sell it to another, who sell it to the US. So technically, this wouldn't happen. Not to mention that if this were true we would see oil from Iraq, which we aren't.

OR we could just cut military spending by leaving Iraq. But instead we should invade Iran, take down their government, and some how provide more security for us, so military spending can go down. That's right. It'll go down right after we "win" the war in Iran, just like we're trying to do in Iraq. But we can't cut military spending in Iran, until we've won, and when will that be? So until then we'll increase military spending to fund Iraq and Iran, and just wait until we "win". But by then we'll have spent so much more money, it will take years and years to even break even if we cut spending.

Do you even think about what you're writing? I mean, not to be rude, but it clearly doesn't follow logic.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 6 years ago
polka-dots323
willact723hattopicTied
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 blond_guy 6 years ago
blond_guy
willact723hattopicTied
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 righty10294 6 years ago
righty10294
willact723hattopicTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by d4l 6 years ago
d4l
willact723hattopicTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 6 years ago
padfo0t
willact723hattopicTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 6 years ago
griffinisright
willact723hattopicTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Karoz 6 years ago
Karoz
willact723hattopicTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by nene_cinci 6 years ago
nene_cinci
willact723hattopicTied
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 downsteve 6 years ago
downsteve
willact723hattopicTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by easy2know 6 years ago
easy2know
willact723hattopicTied
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:30