The Instigator
AK-47debater
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
asian_invasion
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Israel should use preemptive military strikes against Iran, to take out their nuclear program.

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: 3,217 times Debate No: 298
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (20)

 

AK-47debater

Pro

Israel is under a direct threat from Iran. Iran will stop at nothing to "wipe israel off the map", as stated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's government is under influence from particularly violent iatolas and imams, who would love to see other Muslims gain palestine. For these reasons, Israel must take Iran's nuclear program out of the picture for their own safety.
asian_invasion

Con

Thank you for starting this debate. There are a few concerns I would like to address in my opening statement:

The middle East is an extremely delicate region. The Western world's 3 largest religions all view Jeruselem as their holy city. Therefore any rash actions could only fuel the wide spread conflict that exists there today.

If Israel were to launch preemptive strikes against Iran, it would not result in a clear victory for Israel. In fact, defeat is more likely. Iran currently has the largest and best equipped army in the region, nukes non-withstanding. Israel on the other hand, has its hands busy with Palestine, and Lebanon. Israel army would be too diverted for a war on three fronts.

While Iran's comments toward Israel were unjustified, a rash decision on Israel's part could cause it to lose backing of Western nations. Israel recently came under fire from these nations because of "preemptive strikes" on Hezbollah. Having Israel follow this rash strategy may cause many countries to refuse to back Israel. Since Western nations donate billions of dollars to aid Israel, and the UN has peace keeping troops in the region, Israel should not risk loosing these critical allies.

Also, Irans comments were extremely rash. However, Iran is already under Economic sanctions and extreme pressure from western nations. Israel does not need to make a military stand in order to punish Iran.
Debate Round No. 1
AK-47debater

Pro

1. When have economic sanctions worked. The economic sanctions on Iran will not work because they are not UN sanctions, therefore countries such as France, rely on Iran's oil won't stop trading with them.

2. Iran has no direct ground access to Israel. Iran has a large ground based military, but their air force is tiny compared to Israel's. Iraq and Iran are military enemies, so they can't travel by ground through Iraq. Turkey and The US are allies, (the US supports Israel) so the Iranian Military can't travel through Turkey. The Saudis would not allow them to go through because they are Sunni and Iran is Shi'ite. Jordan isn't an option because they have no military, except for what Israel supplies them with. Iran could possibly smuggle more weapons through to Hamas or the Hezzbollah, but then again that would just increase the power of one of the fronts. Therefore you see that there is no real way for Iran to intensely combat Israel, because there are very few countries who would risk giving or give Iran access to Israel.

3. In fact Israel would not lose its back from western nations, it would probably gain more. Although the US does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons they will not attack Iran because they are fighting in Iraq, where they are being shamed, they are fighting in Afghanistan, and have military bases in other countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. They can't afford this for both monetary reasons and international relations. Therefore the US, the main supporter of Israel, would give them even more support. Other countries who are enemies of Iran will also give Israel support, because they are afraid that Iran will attack them with the weapons. No country that already supports Israel (they probably oppose Iran's nuclear program) will stop supporting them.

4. The conflict that exists in Jerusalem can be fueled, but an attack on Iran won't necessarily trigger that. Any country who helped fuel these attacks would be internationally criticized because the attacks are not against Muslims or Christians. Fatah and Hamas can only make a certain amount of money to fuel these attacks, and eventually they will die down.

5. Israel must take out the threat before it is possible. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, they won't hesitate to attack. Israel must stop this threat.
asian_invasion

Con

Economic sanctions have worked in the past, such as in North Korea. For a developing nation, any economic pressure will have a large effect. Now, while current sanctions have been put in place by the United States, the UN Security council has also debated putting in sanctions on Iran. France in particular has a history of antagonism toward Iran, as France supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. The UN (which represents a great deal of europe) has already demonstrated an Anti-Iran stance. Now, because of the situation after the Iraqi invasion, the UN and even most citizens of the United States are favoring a more diplomatic approach. People have seen what can happen when proper diplomatic methods are not established and exhausted (no WMD's found in Iraq), and with so much support for diplomatic approach, there would be little support to be gained by Israel for preemptive strikes.
This is contrary to what you stated about no countries supporting Israel. To further see this from precedence, we can look toward the situation with the United States. Before the invasion of Iraq, we had an abundance of support for the War on Terror. There was also a lot of Anti-Saddam feeling in Europe. However, as soon as we jumped the gun without fully pursuing diplomatic solutions, support for the United States fell dramatically. A preemptive strike toward Iran from Israel clearly could not gain favor with Europe.

The WMD situation, or lack thereof, in Iraq showed that Saddam Hussein was simpling bluffing in order to put himself in a position of strength. Current signs show that Ahmadinejad is also severely exaggerating his capabilities. According to a recent US intellegence report, there is substantial evidence that Iran stopped it's Nuke program 4 years ago. While this is unproven, there is evidence that Iran's technology in Uranium enrichment is not even close to weapons-grade. This is the same ploy that Saddam Hussein employed by boasting about nukes he didn't have. This tactic was also used by Kim Jung Il, when he prematurely tested a "nuke" and having a failure. Iran has many motives to appear strong to other countries, and therefore it's threats toward Israel, while clearly provacative, should not be cause for Israel to launch a Preemptive attack.

You stated that Iran has no ground access to reinvade Israel, making it sound like victory would be assured for Israel. However, like I mentioned before, Israel has it's own internal struggles to worry about rather than a possible war with Iran. A preemptive attack would be essentially, a declaration of war. Like you said, the United states has its hands tied in Iraq, however, Israel currently also has it's military forces tied up, WITHIN Israel.
The simple statement that Israel has an advantage, of a stronger air force, does not justify an attack on Iran.
Debate Round No. 2
AK-47debater

Pro

1. Iran is continuing their nuclear reactor program. Weapons grade Uranium is only 0.25% more enriched than reactor uranium. Therefore, Iran could be using their nuclear reactor facilities as a front for creating weapons. The US does not have the technology to know whether Iran is creating WMD.

2. Iran would not risk war with Israel. Iran would not risk war with a country that has more monetary, political and military backing from the world's superpowers. Israel has recently had to put very little military effort into the war with Hezzbollah. Additionally, Israel uses no air force against Hamas and Hezzbollah leaving it open for war with Iran.

3. This situation is different from North Korea. North Korea had nothing that the outside world wanted, while Iran has a lot of oil. Also, North Korea didn't comply because of the sanctions, but because of the offers from the US.

4. Israel should take the opportunity to rid Iran of the possibility of getting rid of Israel before they can.
asian_invasion

Con

You stated that weapons grade uranium is only .25% more enriched than reactor uranium. This is no where close to the amount. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to about 90% U-235. Reactor grade uranium can be made with 5-10% U-235. (20% for higher, research reactors) This is my source for this data:
http://www.fas.org...

For your second point, It is clear that Israel is entangled in conflict within it's immediate region. You say that Israel has had to put very little effort into fighting Hezbollah, however Israel has had to put ALOT of effort into fighting Palestine. According to http://www.reuters.com...

Israel and Palestine are still undergoing land disputes. In fact, according to another article, http://www.reuters.com..., Israel's top general notes continued raids on Gaza, and a possibility of a major offensive into Gaza. Hamas controlled Palestine is also conducting further attacks upon Israel.

While you are saying that the Israeli air force is not being utilized, this does not assure immediate victory for Israel. Clearly a retaliation on Iran's part will occur if a wide scale preemptive attack is staged on it's Nuclear program. The fact is that Israel's attention would therefore be divided, which it can ill afford.
Just because a country has a strategic, militaristic, and economic advantage, does not justify an attack. Or else the United States would be attacking the entire world right now.

While yes, the situation is somewhat different from North Korea in that Iran's economy is much more stable, the power ploy of a weaker country arguement still holds true. Economic sanctions and international pressures also will still be effective against Iran. Also, my points about how Israel attacking Iran prematurely compared to US attacking Iraq prematurely were unaddressed.

Also much of your arguement is upon the fact that if Iran were to obtain nukes, Israel's destruction is imminent. Well, not only is Iran not very close to getting weapons grade Uranium, but Israel would still have defenses against Iran. According to a Jerusalem post article,
http://www.jpost.com...,
Israel has a functional ballistic missile defense system, capable of intercepting missiles. Therefore without this imminent danger of getting "wiped off the face of the earth" by Iran, Israel does not need to attack Iran preemptively and can instead rely on the diplomatic measures pursued by other Western Nations.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dulinl 9 years ago
dulinl
LMAO! I'm game...if he post it with his opening argument I'm down...just make sure u send it to me, if you leave it open some jerk goin to take it and mess up my argument lol.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
maybe you two should simply just debate it? I know a good place where you can do it......
Posted by dulinl 9 years ago
dulinl
But, Islam is the only one where violence has been a non-stop presence. We're not talking in the past. Islam has been violent, has always been and shows no current signs of future change.
Posted by Obie-ONE 9 years ago
Obie-ONE
I'm not saying that Islam hasn't been used by it's followers as an excuse to harm others. But if you looked at a history book you might find a info on the Episcopal Inquisition, the Papal Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, and the of course the Crusades. Most religions have been used at one time or another to harm others belonging to another faith.
Posted by dulinl 9 years ago
dulinl
Lol, don't get in a pissing contest with me bud. We can debate and i'll mop the floor with you. So, don't run your mouth anymore unless your sending a challenge with that too.
Posted by dulinl 9 years ago
dulinl
Wrong, Islam has only been spread by the sword. It is far from a peaceful religion.
Posted by Obie-ONE 9 years ago
Obie-ONE
con·spir·a·cy

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

Does that help dulinl? It seems like your confused...
Posted by Obie-ONE 9 years ago
Obie-ONE
Regarding Solarman's comment, your an idiot. If you looked into it, Islam actually preaches non-violence except in self-defense. Everything about "killing the non-believers" is actually taken out of context, according to a large number of religious scholars and theologians, (but what do they know, right?). After saying that, I do agree with A-ThiestSocialist in that Islam has had a negative influence on Iran's political situation as well as Iran's relations with other nations. Religion = Terrorism.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Haha, good response, a conspiracy nut. Well if you ignore the facts i say, it really isn't conspiratorial what so ever. The CIA acknowledges it assassinated the Shah of Iran in 1954, and it's a well known fact the problems we had with Iran in 1979 with the capturing of soldiers, and again with the Iran-Contra scandal. If reading the news makes me a conspiracy nut, then I am guilty as charged. I also like how your refutation to my newly presented arguments that all have backing with simply research are yet again an ad hominem attack. You need to learn how to argue, moreso politely and with intellect. You my friend need some medication, it is called the New York times, or a history text book.
Posted by dulinl 9 years ago
dulinl
no comment cuz your a conspiracy nut. no point to talking to you unless it's to offer you some medication.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 9 years ago
crazypenguin
AK-47debaterasian_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 undecided_voter 9 years ago
undecided_voter
AK-47debaterasian_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 sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
AK-47debaterasian_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:30 
Vote Placed by iluvdb8 9 years ago
iluvdb8
AK-47debaterasian_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 JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
AK-47debaterasian_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 Obie-ONE 9 years ago
Obie-ONE
AK-47debaterasian_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 Voltaire2.0 9 years ago
Voltaire2.0
AK-47debaterasian_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 jackattack 9 years ago
jackattack
AK-47debaterasian_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:30 
Vote Placed by The_Silent_Consensus 9 years ago
The_Silent_Consensus
AK-47debaterasian_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:30 
Vote Placed by willact723 9 years ago
willact723
AK-47debaterasian_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