The Instigator
moderate84
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
miroslava
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Iran is still a threat despite 2003 report that the nuclear weapon develop was stopped.

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: 12/14/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,067 times Debate No: 427
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (19)

 

moderate84

Pro

To make this simple I am going to just use bullet points. As a start I say they still are a threat cause;
* The ruler has vowed to destroy Israel, which would push the United States into another conflict.
* Just because he stopped doesn't mean he won't try again
* Being as he stopped means at one point he came close to his ambitions
miroslava

Con

ok... it's true that Iran has a certain hate against Israel
but the lack of topic specification allows this resolution to be all over the place.
2nd of all, you should not base you argument on a report published on 2003
but due to fact that u mentioned nuclear weapons and for some reason the only one who can be a victim if that threat would be the US. A U.S. intelligence report released on Dec. 3 expressed that Iran would not be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015.

And let's also say that if Iran had, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons,they would've used them already at the past of a weak time for the US when the military is streched thin and a weak economy.
truth is that due to the tecnological advantege of wealfare in the US, no one will attack the US due to the nuclear responce that we are most likely to have.

the fear tactic works. reason why no nation has taken action against the US.
Diplomacy works, economyc sancions and INTERNATIONAL action against Iran's nuclear program made this program fade and no action of the irani government has raised any alarm to think that a nuclear weapon will be their ambtion.
Debate Round No. 1
moderate84

Pro

That is true about the 2010/2012 dates and I did hear that report which to me means they should be watched. My other reason incubuses many so I will keep it short. Iran has an influence in the current war in Iraq and supplying weapons that kill American troops is aiding and abetting our enemies. Also they have been recognized as a terrorist state.

* I do agree for right now I do agree that military would not be the best and support the current strategy. My only fear as an American citizen is that so many people dislike/distrust bush and view Iran the same as Iraq. The risk with this is that instead of looking at the long-term threat they will ignore it.
miroslava

Con

i get that people are mixing up the conflicts between both nations.
But 1st of all, if Iran will not be a nuclear threat until 2015, the lack of support for the Bush administrations should be the less of your worries.
He's gone next year and with the brink of civil war in iraq, the americans demand for the troops to be out of there, and that is something that the next president WILL have to do.
If we ought to be worried by a country, we should panic about China.
[i'll start a debate on that lol]

on the other side, they have recognized as a terrorist state but diplomacy with Iran will not stop so the whole idea that every middle east nation is a terrorist supporting Al-Qaeda should really stop.
And even though the weapons come from iran, there is, according to "american officials" [http://www.nytimes.com...] there is no evidence that the government has anything to do with it.

and at this point, avoiding a conflict with iran is one more benefit from withdrawing from Iraq.
Debate Round No. 2
moderate84

Pro

totally agree bout china and when you get that debate posted will jump in. In terms of Iran I do support the diplomatic efforts. I'll leave it at this regardless of what Bush has done right now and in the future areas of the middle east will be a possible threat. Same goes for Iraq and I know this will sound just like bush but terrorism is going to be a global fight where we need to gather good intelligence, monitor, and look for possible sanctions and if we get certain high valued targets take aggressive action.
miroslava

Con

yes, terrorism.
terrorims is not caused by nations, but rather by individuals and international organizations. Iraq was accused of having nuclear weapons that we never found, then of supporting Al-Qaeda and the leaders weren't even in Iraq, then to spread democracy, that i get, but it was all trough the wrong means.
now cross apply this argment with the iran scenario.
the difference here, is that Iran is much more influential and has allies that could harm the US, and im not talking about terrorism, im talking about international action agains the US if we take the 1st step against iran.
Venezuela will raise the oil price like crazy and we are going to be paying more than we already do.
Russia already warned that he will not stand for the US invading iran, and Russia is ot exacly the country we wanna piss off.

So the US when it comes to terrorism is pushing it to much [patriot act, guantanamo bay, wire-tapping, racial profiling, airport security, etc etc]

It's true, terrorism needs a global effort, and if Iran is a high valued target, either the US or most likely Britain would've taken that aggresive action already.

so, in orther to kinda sum up, i can tell you im not just thinking about Iran holding nuclear weapons, but the actions the US would take [if true] and the consequences of that.
I think we can let go of the idea that middle east nations are terrosists and rather hunt down Osama and all of Al-Queda that, let me remind you, are everywhere.
we should really stop policing the world and let every country to protect their homeland, after all, we are not the only ones who have been attacked.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by miroslava 9 years ago
miroslava
to Curtispov11
thanks for the comments, I'm glad you enjoyed this debate.
and well, as we know, we are never going to find the perfect presidential candidate, but Clinton is the one i agree the most on other important issues.
and yes, what you say it's true but most democrats won't use it as a reason to attack Iran, and i doubt that if she gets elected, she will act like Bush and not get congressional approval for whatever action she wants to take in regards of Iran.
Posted by Curtispov11 9 years ago
Curtispov11
this is a question to miroslava

If you are against military action to Iran, then why do you support Hilary Clinton?

Out of all the Democrats running, she is probably the most prone to going to war with Iran.

By the way, good debate, i had to give it to you
Posted by iloveher666 9 years ago
iloveher666
their is always a possibility for any nation to be a military threat with nuclear weapon's. you cant predict human thoughts and reasons
Posted by miroslava 9 years ago
miroslava
for the last 2 comments..
lets also remember that Russia already condemned any attack of the US in Iran, so if Iran doesn't have nukes, Russia does.
it's more about the DAs, impiclations and impact of the actions the US could take against Iran.
Posted by zombiegoldfish 9 years ago
zombiegoldfish
where are the WMD's? they have no nukes, won't be able to produce them until 2013-2015.

the united states does not have "the right to invade". we support and have supported groups deemed by other countries to be "terrorist" and some groups that we now call terrorist, yet they did not have the right to invade us!

by thinking we as america have the "right to invade" we are inflating our own egotistical ideas on our self-worth and forgetting that the world is not just us, there are other people whose lives are just as important. i think it is more important to look at the wider picture of the consequences of going to war because we want to rather than a real need.

by attacking iran without a DIRECT ATTACK by the iranian government on america would be classified as a war of aggresion as stated in the UN charter, therefor by attacking we would be going against UN laws. The UN is the only body that can determine whether a country is terrorist or not, we are under obligations to the UN, we can not become a rogue nation ourselves just because we think we have the right to kick the crap out of anyone we dont like. many countries sponsor "terrorist" groups, the money given to these groups does not go to kill only americans or only our allies, no, it is meant to kill over all, supporting "terrorists" is not a direct attack against america.

we CAN negotiate seeing as we would be dealing with diplomats, not the revolutionary guard, problems like this in the past have been solved successfully through diplomacy rather than through killing.
Posted by Klashbash 9 years ago
Klashbash
zombiegoldfish,

#1. The Revolutionary Guard is an arm of the Iranian government. Where do you think it gets its power? Private donations?

#2. The U.S. is under no obligation to unseat brutal dictators. It does have the right to invade however if it so desires either because of the declaration of war against freedom or sovereignty. There is no contradiction. It's not about whether a country agrees with America or not. It's about the declaration of war by Iran through the direct or indirect assistance of terrorist groups to massacre U.S. troops.

#3. Even if you were right the point is moot until Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist, ceases supporting terror and guarantees human rights for its citizens.

#4. A rogue state in possession of a WMD is not the only justifiable reason to invade a country is it?
Posted by miroslava 9 years ago
miroslava
hey... well this was my 1st debate here
=)
thank u so much moderate84 for the great topic and argumentation.
thanks to all of those wo commented and took the time to read this.
i loved the website so you guys will def. be reading more of me
thanx
~miros~
Posted by zombiegoldfish 9 years ago
zombiegoldfish
1st. The country itself is not terrorist, the terrorist entity is the Revolutionary Guard-not the government.
2nd. There are many countries who fund what we call terrorists, not just iran, so if you propose we go in and harm iran then following that line of logic we should also go into all other countries who do not completely agree with america.
3rd. The leaders of both countries will be leaving soon, our presidential elections are in the next year and bush cannot legally be re-elected. The presidential elections of iran are in two years, and Amadinejad's approval ratings are even lower than bush's (around less than 25%) so he will be out of office as well.
4th. The 2003 report does not hold much water anymore in light of the NIE and other information the US has garnered on the politics and current events in iran.
Posted by moderate84 9 years ago
moderate84
Due to the current view of the United States I figured this topic would go one-way or the other with people. At least I got one on my side good looking out klashbash. I thought you would be on my side la_bella_vita (kidding) talk to you later. Anyone want to pick up the; What our role in the world should be debate. Just out of curiosity anyone feel free to post a comment what would you describe as a "moderate" republican?
Posted by Klashbash 9 years ago
Klashbash
A dictator by simply existing has declared war on the free world. Iran's activities in contributing to the proliferation of terrorism are enough of a substantial reason to invade. Any sovereign nation that actively shelters, harbors and finances terrorist groups cannot possibly want peaceful co-existence.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 Curtispov11 9 years ago
Curtispov11
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 Drewseph 9 years ago
Drewseph
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 Klashbash 9 years ago
Klashbash
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 FrontLineConservative 9 years ago
FrontLineConservative
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 asian_invasion 9 years ago
asian_invasion
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
moderate84miroslavaTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
moderate84miroslavaTied
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