The Instigator
Mikegj1077
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
defleppard1691
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Iran and nuclear enrichment? Let's watch 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: 1/23/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,600 times Debate No: 2137
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (10)

 

Mikegj1077

Pro

The US State Dept. anti-Bush people say Iran suspended nuclear enrichment in '03. A consensus of UN European anti-American socialists say Iran suspended their uranium enrichment program at about the same time.

NEWS FLASH 2007: Iran says they will not suspend their uranium enrichment program.

Nuclear power plants do not require "enriched" uranium. As far as I can see, enriched uranium is not needed for any other purpose than to create "fissionable" material. Fissionable material is need to make an atomic bomb.
defleppard1691

Con

hello,
OK this shall be fun i debated this topic for almost a month now first off Iran is making uranium into bars.these bars have 1 use and 1 use only and thats for nuclear energy.
also according to Annals of National Security November 27, 2006 Seymour M. Hersh he said that The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
thus this claim is just plain false also according to Seymour M. Hersh, THE NEW YORKER, October 8, 2007, p. 40 El Baradei, director of IAEA, has said time and time again that Iran is at least five years away from the bomb. "Running three thousand centrifuges does not make a bomb" We can see that Iran doesn't pose an immediate threat.
Thus if you take the two together that 1. they arnt pursuing nukes and 2. even if they were theyd be years away we can see to be a watchdog over them would simply provoke them.
Also we can not afford to get in a conflict with Iran. According to Seymour M. Hersh, THE NEW YORKER, October 8, 2007, p. 40, if we got engaged with iran we would be in a quagmire for 20 years!!

Also according to San Francisco Chronicle October 23, 2003 The Grand Ayatollah, Ali Khameini, has been stated as saying that nuclear weapons are a sin. The Ayatollah is the religious authority and THE supreme commander of military forces, if he says they are a sin, they will not use them.
and if they will not use them then they will not make them.

mahmoud adiminajad has stated that oil is not infinate and that alternative fuels should be studied, who are we to say something about a nations preperation for there future.

Also lets look how Iran shouldnt be a top priority according to Newsweek Decmeber 8, 2007 Fareed ZakariaIran has been rationally calculating costs and benefits on the nuclear issues. In fact, Tehran has been less messianic and stubborn about its nuke development than Pakistan, India or China, all of whom pressed ahead with their programs rapidly and secretly. Tehran has moved incrementally, allowed the IAEA to conduct inspections for years and been sensitive to pressures and inducements from the west.

also lets look how Iran is cooperating according to December 12, 2007 Reuters "Iran and a team from a UN watchdog ended the latest round of talks in Tehran on Wednesday aimed at answering questions about Iran's nuclear work.

Experts from the 2 sides held 3 days of talks as part of an August agreement to clear up suspicions about Tehran's atomic plans.

We can see that Iran is cooperating thus we would not be justified to be a watchdog organazaton over them.

my last point because im tired is how they're organazations in place to be watchdogs NOT the US.... The united nations IAEA which is a UN watchdog over nuclear activities not only said iran was not a threat but also is regularly talking with Iran.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikegj1077

Pro

"Annals of National Security November 27, 2006 Seymour M. Hersh he said that The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency..."

"Annals of National Security"? Please don't use those simple devices like capitalizing "National Security" unless those "Annals" you cite refer to official sources like the State Dept. or National Security Agency. Seymour M. Hersh is a known anti-republican author who has written many books mocking republicans and their policies. He has no credibility.

"he said that The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program…"

Same CIA that said Saddum was developing WMDs? You don't understand that in a closed, tightly-controlled society like pre-war Iraq, outside investigative agencies (like the CIA) can't really conclude anything most of the time.

"also according to Seymour M. Hersh, THE NEW YORKER…"

THE NEW YORKER? Another left-wing, anti-republican rag.

"director of IAEA, has said time and time again that Iran is at least five years away from the bomb…"

IAEA is a nuclear investigative arm of the United Nations populated mainly by anti-American European socialist. Oh, so now your left-wing sources say Iraq is developing the a-bomb, just not as fast as President Bush says they are.

"even if they were theyd be years away we can see to be a watchdog over them would simply provoke them…"

So your position is don't provoke Iran because they are years away from developing an a-bomb. Wait until they have one and then strike? Dumb.

"Also according to San Francisco Chronicle…"

San Francisco Chronicle, Seymore Hersh, "The New Yorker," IAEA? I'm starting to feel dirty….

"Also according to San Francisco Chronicle October 23, 2003 The Grand Ayatollah, Ali Khameini, has been stated as saying that nuclear weapons are a sin. …"

You're deferring to the Grand Ayatollah about what is good and evil? Please tell us what the Grand Ayatollah thinks about suicide bombings and beheadings?

I've heard enough from you.
defleppard1691

Con

wow ,seymor hersh is on of the best investigative journalists of out time. and if the grand ayatollah thinks something is bad then the country won't do what he think. THIS IS EVIDENCE the National intelligence estimate ( a govt organazation) said IRAN DOESNT have NUKES. GET OWNED and actually try to make arguments against me and not on sources that a monkey can see is credible.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikegj1077

Pro

"wow ,seymor hersh is on of the best investigative journalists of out time."

Seymore Hersh has never authored any literature favorable to conservative domestic or foreign policy. He constantly mocks conservatives, and is himself a democrat. Much of the so-called investigative stories end up being either fiction or half-truths.

"…and if the grand ayatollah thinks something is bad then the country won't do what he think."

If you think popular opinion in Iran follows the Grand Ayatolla then you're even dumber than your previous statements have indicated. People in Iran, especially student intellectuals, can't stand the Ayatolla, his mullahs and even the president. They can't wait to see them go away.

"THIS IS EVIDENCE the National intelligence estimate ( a govt organazation) said IRAN DOESNT have NUKES."

I NEVER SAID IRAN HAS NUKES! Please try to understand what I have written. I said Iran (and yes, with the Grand Ayatolla's concurrence) has openly stated that it will not discontinue its uranium enrichment program. You know, fissionable material, atomic bomb. Why didn't the NIE come up with this conclusion earlier? After all, the estimate was published last year (2007) and it claimed Iran discontinued its enrichment program in 2003. The NIE also contradicts itself by concluding that Iran is 10 years away from developing an a-bomb (revised from its earlier estimate of 5 years). Read the report summary by USA Today I have included at the end of this reply.

"GET OWNED and actually try to make arguments against me and not on sources that a monkey can see is credible."

I have no idea what you are saying dude. You can't even form a logical question. Your sources may impress a monkey, but not someone with at least average intelligence.

READ THIS:

WASHINGTON — A new intelligence estimate that reverses previous U.S. claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons will not change the Bush administration's policy of tough sanctions and diplomacy.
"That was our policy … and that's our policy going forward," said Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser. "We have the right strategy."
REPORT SUMMARY: Read the NIE assessment
PHOTOS PLAY ROLE: Pictures contributed to reassessment
IN IRAN: Iran welcomes move to 'correct' nuke claim
Iran ceased its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has not resumed work toward building nuclear arms, a National Intelligence Estimate released Monday says. The estimate reverses claims the intelligence community made two years ago that Iran appeared "determined to develop" a nuclear weapons program.
The new estimate did not explain why the intelligence community did not know Iran had stopped its weapons program before the 2005 estimate was released.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: George W Bush | Iran | Tehran | Intelligence | Estimate
The estimate, reflecting the collective judgment of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies, also concludes that Tehran probably is "keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons" by continuing to build missiles and pursue a civilian nuclear power program.
Iran, intelligence analysts concluded, halted weapons development in response to international scrutiny and the threat of increased sanctions.
U.S. officials are still trying to enlist more nations to bring sanctions against Iran. On Monday, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said he met with Chinese officials to agree on key issues involved in imposing a third set of United Nations sanctions on Iran for continuing a nuclear weapons program.
Shortly after Burns' comments in Singapore, the intelligence community released its estimate saying Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Despite the differences from the 2005 analysis, intelligence officials thought it was important to set the record straight by making public that "our understanding of Iran's capabilities have changed," said Donald Kerr, deputy director of national intelligence.
Monday's estimate was a double "good news story," said Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"The intelligence community was willing to reconsider an important intelligence judgment," Bond said. "Iran doesn't appear to be currently working on a bomb."
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the estimate undercuts the administration's "obsession with regime change and irresponsible talk of World War III." Last month, President Bush said the U.S. policy toward Iran was aimed at avoiding "World War III."
"The NIE makes clear that the right combination of pressure and positive incentives could prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program," said Biden, a Democratic candidate for president.
Mordechai Kedar, who served in Israel's military intelligence for 25 years and is a researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, said Israel's intelligence community disagrees with the latest estimate.
"This is a matter of interpretation of data. I do believe that the U.S. and Israel share the same data, but the dispute is about interpreting the data. … Only a blind man cannot see their efforts to put a hand on a nuclear weapon. They are threatening the world."
defleppard1691

Con

you still are yet to respond to my argument about nuclear energy in bars, why cant a country look to their future with better energy.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
"You are simple. War happens for a variety of reasons. Political gain is rarely one of them. Religious differences can be a reason. Being attacked and having the balls to fight back is another reason."

>>Oh really? How many defensive wars can you name in the U.S?
Wars we provoked don't count.

Onto your war sentence. First I would implore you to look to Japan as a great example of a defensive army and amazing economy. Slavery ended with or without the civil war, the civil war only kept the south in the union. As far as the revolutionary war and paying taxes without representation, do we really have representation now? We are stuck in a system where the Federal Bank lends us money and then we have to pay them back with interest. We have more taxes now and not a whole big lot of representation.

As far as the Hitler guy goes, we funded him. Without the United States Hitler could not have done what he did. Our politicians enjoys war because guess what it does? Makes us borrow more money from the federal bank which in turn needs to be payed back. They get rich. =)

"As far as I can see, the KKK doesn't fund insurgents to kill Americans, nor anyone else."

>>Your right, they skip that step and kill Americans themselves. In rather brutal ways I might add.

"What an sss. Just go away."

>>Allow me to paraphrase, "I can't win this argument because i'm wrong.... LEAVE ME ALONE!!!" This being said in the voice used on this video:
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
"Except for the fact that going to war is still created by those same politicians that you despise so very much. Only a war actually hinges on political gain in some way."

You are simple. War happens for a variety of reasons. Political gain is rarely one of them. Religious differences can be a reason. Being attacked and having the balls to fight back is another reason.

"Politicians have gained something from every war we have been in."

Really? So we should cancel our military and rely on the UN to defend us if we're attacked again? Americans have gained too. Care to cancel the Civil War and keep slavery around? The Revolutionary War, so we can be part of Great Britain and pay taxes without representation? Or, ignore that Hitler guy? After all, what's 6 million jews?

"Secondly spewing anti-American "sht" in Iran won't get me killed.."

I said anti-Iranian sht-head.

"we have the KKK..."

As far as I can see, the KKK doesn't fund insurgents to kill Americans, nor anyone else.

"Thirdly, you say we do far more than anyone else. Erm... in what regard? What are we talking about here? We've been aiding Africa for 50 years…."

I'm talking about direct financial aide for famine, flood relief, AIDS prevention, Lend-Lease (billions during WW2). You need to visit a history class.

"Lastly accusing me of being sick and misinformed doesn't actually prove anything."

Judging by your anti-American non-sense, which I've cited, that is proof enough.

"The United States has purposefully hurt its own citizens…"

What an sss. Just go away.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Hahaha.

Except for the fact that going to war is still created by those same politicians that you despise so very much. Only a war actually hinges on political gain in some way.

Politicians have gained something from every war we have been in.

Secondly spewing anti-american "sht" in Iran won't get me killed, I'm sure they wouldn't mind. I'm not arguing Iran doesn't have radical parts of their society with hostility towards the U.S. I'm sure they do, look at us, we have the KKK, what is that if not radical. You'd even say that left wing liberals are radical. I'm saying the people in general are just as moral.

Thirdly, you say we do far more than anyone else. Erm... in what regard? What are we talking about here? We've been aiding Africa for 50 years and they are less wealthy than when we started. We've sort of destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq, we're attempting to rebuild/stabilize, obviously that isn't working so very well. I'm not actually seeing ll that much we are doing......

Lastly accusing me of being sick and misinformed doesn't actually prove anything. Everything I said was true. The United States has purposefully hurt its own citizens, look to operation Northwoods. What is that if not furthering our own agenda while hurting our citizens. Exploitation? Africa? The lower class through our quazi-capitalistic system?

And really, do you know who we are? Do you realize the votes you cast don't actually go to voting for a president but simply an electorate that can vote against popular consensus if so chosen? Do you realize that most bills in congress are never even discussed and simply pass? This country is not a democracy. =)
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
"I would argue that the Nuclear bomb was a bad idea overall. As is warfare in general. But.…"

But? Warfare is a bad idea in general? If you diplomatic heads could actually talk your way out of a paper bag once in a while, maybe there'd be no wars to fight. The UN is nothing but an intellectual debate society with no teeth. European socialists couldn't care less if the United States were attacked or if our strategic interests were threatened. And we shouldn't care about how we are perceived by others.

"Do you somehow believe that Iranians are any less moral than Americans?"

Yes. If you had spewed your anti-American sht in Iran against the religious mullahs you'd have already lost your ugly head. That's not my point. Iranian religious influence in the form of the mullahs and other extremists agitate hostility toward the US. Our contentions with them are reactionary.

"We're all people aren't we? What makes Americans somehow more moral than anyone else?"

Because we do far more for others than we get in return.

"And no, we are not a democracy. We are a federal republic. We have caused multiple wars, we have killed our own citizens to further our agendas. We have exploited numerous peoples. We have been one of the number one promoters of imperialism."

You are ready sick and misinformed. I don't need you to parse words with me. I know who we are. I don't.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Actually Mike, I would argue that the Nuclear bomb was a bad idea overall. As is warfare in general. But....

Do you somehow believe that Iranians are any less moral than Americans? We're all people aren't we? What makes Americans somehow more moral than anyone else? Answer your own argument my friend, how are Americans more moral?

And no, we are not a democracy. We are a federal republic. We have caused multiple wars, we have killed our own citizens to further our agendas. We have exploited numerous peoples. We have been one of the number one promoters of imperialism.

Prove your point. -.-
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
Yes. American is the arsenal of democracy. Are you suggesting moral equivalence between America and Iran regarding nuclear weapons? If you are, I think most mentally clear people would regard you as a dumb-sss. Let's hear more of your moral equivalency bullshit for laughs. Hitler? Pol Pot? How low will you go? Hitler wanted an a-bomb too but we beat him at the punch. Tell us, oh Mr. dumb-sss, how we had no right to beat Hitler at the bomb.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
The United States is undertaking a program to develop a Nuclear...... oh wait we already did. HAHA.
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
My "conservative croney friends"? Smell? Unlike you, my friends have varied opinions on things. They don't spend their time in a closed group jerking each other off, and they don't think with their nose. Smell? I'll leave you morons with one final statement. You can take it seriously, or you can go back into your hippie group and jerk each other off again.

Iran is undertaking a program of uranium enrichment with the intent to develop a nuclear bomb.
Posted by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
Ah, I'm sure even your conservative croney friends can smell your arrogance and ignorance before you reach them.

I'd be doing something beneficial and would be ensuring the freedom of expression under the constitution that you love so much if I went to a Gay Rights rally.

I'll let you get back to your meeting designed at how to more effectively oppress and exploit the American people.

You want a debate with reason and logic, I'm here.
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
I don't need to waist anymore time debating this subject. You can't talk sense with people who trot out Seymore Hersh or The New Yorker as a reference tool in debating anything regarding war and peace. I'd probably get a more balanced opinion at a hippie party. Aren't you supposed to be at a gay rights rally? Go away. I feel dirty even talking to you.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 Ithuwakaga 9 years ago
Ithuwakaga
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 9 years ago
blond_guy
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 miraquesuave 9 years ago
miraquesuave
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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 defleppard1691 9 years ago
defleppard1691
Mikegj1077defleppard1691Tied
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