The Instigator
rwebberc
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
righty10294
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

The US should go to war with 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
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: 1/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,322 times Debate No: 2203
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (12)

 

rwebberc

Con

I've seen your previous arguments and must say I strongly disagree with you and no one has been able to argue coherently against you, which is disappointing. Therefore, I have decided to challenge you to this debate.

One of the oldest problems in United States foreign policy is the debate of power vs. principle. In the past half-century, the United States has lost favor in the international community for favoring the former over the latter. Instead of another preemptive war similar to Iraq, in a country where it would be even more difficult, the US must wield the carrot instead of the stick. Iran relies heavily on foreign oil trade to sustain its economy, and a war with the United States would severely deplete its funds. Therefore, Iran has a great incentive NOT to get into a conflict with the US. We must instead use sanctions to coerce the Iranian government into working this situation out diplomatically. The United States is in enough trouble as it is as far as foreign policy is concerned, why further damage our reputation in the world?
righty10294

Pro

Hello

Thank you for the challenge and please no forfeiting.

IN your argument, you just say that Iran has no need for war, because their economy relies on foreign oil. That doesn't mean anything. President Ahmadinejad isn't looking for war. He has said "death to Israel." http://youtube.com... That is a threat to the Jewish people and Israelis. If he had the chance to attack them, he would.

He is helping Al Qaeda. He is helping them by letting Bin Laden sneak in and out of the country. Who do you think gives them the road side bombs, guns, etc.
Look at these links-
1) http://www.time.com...
2) http://www.csmonitor.com...
3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Therefore, they are feeding Al Qaeda. We need to stop them. Our soldiers are getting killed by them in other locations. There needs to be sanctions against them, but who knows if the UN will really give them the sanctions. Any way, there is nothing more powerful in the world than the military of the United States of America.
Then there is the threat of nuclear weapon's. Iran has shown that they are interested in nuclear warheads. If they were to get them, what will they do with them? Fire at Israel? Fire at Iraq or other allies? Give them to terrorist? It would be a disaster. There is also very suspicious activity at nuclear going on at nuclear power plants. http://en.wikipedia.org... I don't see why you need anti aircraft guns protecting your nuclear facility. It is very suspicious.

Another reason, is he has tested us. Many people aren't taking this most recent "attack" on The US Navy serious. The speed boats surrounded the fleet and said we'll blow up. The group of people on the speed boats were believed to be apart of the Revoultoinary Guard, which is a UN labeled terrorist group. The Iranian government said that they were only identifying the ships. IT was more of a threat rather than just identifying who they were. The ships by UN law are allowed to past threw the territory they were in, so Iran was out of its waters. Also, another incident came out that in December of '07 a Iranian boat was approaching a US warship, and when the ship fired off warning shots, it retreated.
Many people have forgotten about the 2007 incident, where the Iranian took 15 hostages of the Royal Navy. The sailors were aboard the HMS Cornwall. Iran's government said that they were in Iranian waters, but they were proved to be in Iraqi waters. Iran knew this too. Then after it was proved that they were in Iraqi waters, they released them without a statement. They got scared.
Also, there was another incident in 2004 when IRan seized 8 royal sailors. THey were again in Iraqi waters, but Iran doesn't believe that.
Debate Round No. 1
rwebberc

Con

rwebberc forfeited this round.
righty10294

Pro

Well, this is my third time I debated this, and it is the third times my oppentent has forfeited.

" I strongly disagree with you and no one has been able to argue coherently against you, which is disappointing."

This is the best because you say you won't forfeit, but you don't even make a second argument, and you've been on since I submited my argument.

My points-
1) Iranian government is helping terrorsist
2) nuclear bombs
3) Their tests on us

If anyone wants to debate me, and WILL NOT FORFEIT please challenge, I will accpet when i get to it.
Debate Round No. 2
rwebberc

Con

The MSNBC article and Christian Science Monitor article talk about how Iran has been rounding up and investigating Al Qaeda members in Iran; the Telegraph link takes you to the website's main page; and all the Time article says is that the Iranian government allowed Al Qaeda members to pass through its borders into Afghanistan 7 years ago. If the latter is enough justification to go to war with a country, then we should be going to war with Pakistan as well. Oddly enough, we support Pakistan, and despite our proclamation of being the defender of democracy, we also support its dictator, Pervez Musharraf.

Despite your claims to the contrary, there is evidence that the Iranians are helping the US-Iraqi forces to stabilize Iraq (http://www.usatoday.com...).

Here are two of your claims from the first round:
"President Ahmadinejad isn't looking for war"
"If he had the chance to attack them, he would".

Which one is it? It's hard to argue against someone who makes arguments for both sides of an issue.

So here are your points for why we should go to war

"1) Iranian government is helping terrorsist
2) nuclear bombs
3) Their tests on us"

1.As of yet you've shown no evidence that the Iranian government is currently active in supporting terrorist activities.

2.The National Intelligence Estimate said that the Iranian government ceased their weapons program years ago. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Agency said late last year after a tour of Iranian facilities that Iran posed "no clear and present danger" to anyone (http://www.newsweek.com...). Having said that, what right do we have to invade a sovereign nation over its nuclear weapons program? Iran is surrounded by nations such as Israel, India, China, and Pakistan who all have nuclear weapons. It seems fairly rational for Iran to want the safegurd of nuclear weapons as a buffer. After all, no two nations with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war with one another. In fact, we're the only nation that's ever even used a nuclear weapon! Who are we to claim some sort of moral high ground regarding Iranian proliferation? Your argument here is based entirely on theoretical statements and non sequiturs.

3.Really? You want to invade a sovereign nation of over 70 million people over these incidents? The only one you mentioned that involved the United States was the boat incident a few weeks ago. Even our own navy has said this appears to have actually been a hoax by a known radio heckler in the region known as "Filipino Monkey" (http://www.navytimes.com...). The thought of going to war over this event is honestly completely laughable.

Okay, now for my reasons why we shouldn't go to war with Iran:

1.Our troops are already stretched too thin
2.We aren't capable of handling the aftermath of a military invasion of Iran
3.Our image in the Middle East is tarnished enough as it is, we need to be repairing it, not hurting it even further
4.Iran could be a huge ally in the war on terrorism and in Iraq if we chose to engage them
5.Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected head of state, and we have no right to depose him
6.The people of Iran are already fed up with Ahmadinejad's administration and invading would give him the ability to rally their support
7.Iran doesn't pose a threat to our security

Now for my explanations:

1.As of December 2007, we have nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military has already eased its recruiting standards in order to fill its ranks, allowing high school dropouts, older adults, and even criminals to enlist in the armed forces. It is also increasing tours of duty for already enlisted soldiers. An invasion of a nation such as Iran would require significantly more personnel than did the invasion of Iraq. Iran is larger, more populous, and has a rougher terrain than its neighbor to the west.
2.As we have seen in Iraq, the aftermath of an invasion creates havoc. This means even more troops and even more money. The war in Iraq has already cost us almost half a trillion dollars (http://www.nationalpriorities.org...), and that's in a nation where we were supposed to be greeted as liberators. The US has greater problems at home, not the least of which is a slipping economy. Spending another trillion dollars fighting an unnecessary war isn't going to help. Also, as I previously alluded to, Iran is a very mountainous country, something which posed problems for us in Afghanistan. Mountains provide ample hiding places for insurgents and terrorists who know the terrain much better than we do. Finally, we must consider the human costs of war. Since the invasion, somewhere between 175,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Are you really prepared to kill more innocent people for such an uncertain cause?
3.One of the main problems in the war on terrorism is the fact that many people in the Middle East have a very negative image of the US. This negative perception turns into a hatred for some and is at the roots of terrorism itself. Invading one of the most influential nations in the Arab world isn't going to gain us any favor with anyone except Israel.
4.An article in the Yale Global by Professor Fawaz A. Gerges puts it best:
"Iran and Syria exercise more influence inside Iraq than pro-Western Arab states. Yet the Bush administration rejects talks with Iraq's powerful neighbors, Iran and Syria, saying the two countries support terrorism. "Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, asked the House Foreign Affairs Committee Friday." (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu...)
The Middle East is the main front in the war on terrorism, and yet we have very few allies there. If we truly intend to win this "war", then we must have support from the nations in which these terrorists operate.
5.We claim to be "promoters of democracy", and Iran is one of the few Middle Eastern countries which actually has some semblance of it. If we invade Iran because we don't like its leadership, we are sending a message to the world that we only want you to have democracy if you're going to elect someone we agree with.
6.There is a large feeling of discontent among the Iranian people over President Ahamdinejad's inability to bring the country into the 21st century. The Iranian people want to be modern, want to be successful, and want to be part of the global community, just like any other country. Nobel laureate and Iranian dissident Shirin Ebadi has said that "any attack on Iran will be good for the government and will actually damage the revolutionary movement." Invading a sovereign nation rarely ever gains you any favor with its citizens. Let's not be foolish enough to believe again that American bombs are going to be welcomed with flowers and confetti. A military strike would unite the Iranian people against the US, forcing them to put aside what differences they may have with the current government.
7.Almost no one alleges that Iran poses a threat of any serious nature to the United States, there are no allegations that an Iranian fleet is going to seize Boston Harbor, or that Iranian paratroopers are going to descend upon New York City. Like I said before, the IAEA chief has said that Iran isn't a threat, ant the NIE backed him up. So why should we invade them again? 60% of its budget comes from oil sales, and any conflict with the US would inevitably bankrupt its government. What makes you think that they desire any type of military engagement with us?

There you have it, I welcome your responses.
righty10294

Pro

righty10294 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
What's funny about that, joe, is that Iranians were taught to be anti-Zionist by anti-Zionist Jews living in Iran!
Posted by bluejoewho 9 years ago
bluejoewho
I stopped reading the pro argument after the first few sentences. He lies right off the bat. The president of Iran never said death to jews you idiot. He's talking about the zionist leadership in Israel. Theres a huge difference. This is one of the biggest lies in our media. To bad you don't read anything outside of fox news and CNN.

I would of stomped you in this debate.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
sorry for pointing out the obvious righty, but you forfeited round 3 AFTER complaining about con forfeiting in round 2. I think that is a little embarrassing, to say the least. Your points are not logical anyway:

"
1) Iranian government is helping terrorsist
2) nuclear bombs
3) Their tests on us
"

1) You don't provide much evidence for this at all. terrorism against our troops isn't completely unjustifiable anyway, as we could end all violence against our troops simply by pulling out of the area. If we had Iranian or Iraqi troops in America I would throw rocks and blow the SOB's up as well and I would never look one of them in the face (Iraqi/Iranian citizens) and tell them that they should just roll over and show their bellies because George Bush says we have a right to be there while the vast majority of his own citizens think he is DEAD WRONG. 911 Happened because we were unprepared, and we can't hope to hold down all possible terrorist organizations by spreading our army over every possible place in the world they could be.

2) every country on earth will inevitably develop nuclear bombs. It's called the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY and we are going to have to get used to the fact that we aren't going to have the entire planet in check-mate, militarily, forever. The greeks, romans, mongols, and english had to find that out the hard way and if we don't want America going down in history as merely the latest big empire to crumble miserably then we will have to learn from historical mistakes and find a way other than brute force to manipulate the world.

3) I think if the Iranian military was hovering close to our borders and capable of dishing out a devastating attack on us at any time if they so chose, we (american citizens and government) would not treat them with the utmost respect either. People who support the war are usually terrible with the virtue of empathy. I would like to put them in Iraq and see how it feels to get muscled around alittle
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Kind of disappointing he didn't finish. If anyone wants to debate this with me and feels they can come up with a solid, logical argument for the pro position I would love to hear it.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
The argument in favor lacks any consideration ability to win, and fails to define a victory condition. Any battle entered into on the basis of principle alone is the exercise of a fool. When a military embarks upon a fool's errand, many soldiers give their lives, their livelihood, and a host of other issues for foolish things.

Generalship is not about emotion or justification, it is about strategy and logistics. Fighting because you can, or because you think you should without even considering what your victory condition is, or the consequences of your actions are is pretty much a waste of life and resources.

Foreign Policy is about achieving what is ultimately best for your nation, and war as an instrument of foreign policy is never good for your nation unless you draw some sort of advantage for having fought the war in the first place.

Decisions on policy need to be a bit more mature than whining about another sovereign power refusing to do everything that makes us happy because we have the ability to bomb them.

Iran knows that we're over extended, and over committed. It doesn't take much to spot our economic troubles, our lack of industry, and our weakening position of both leadership and respect within the global community. There's no reason for them to do something just because we tell them to, and we have done nothing to make them interested in following our policies.

Consider that we deposed their democratic government in the 1950s when the British asked us to help.

Also consider that the United States has funded, supported, and supplied terrorists in the past when it fits our needs an interests, and that to date we have been the only nation in the world to purposefully use nuclear weapons against largely civilian targets.

Tactically, and diplomatically, a military action against Iran would be the biggest mistake of the 21st century.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
rwebberc, I don't think you need to apologize or reopen the debate. You made your points and won in my opinion. The US should NOT got to war with Iran... at this point in time.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
I profusely apologize for forfeiting this past round, my dad was in the hospital and I went home for Sunday, Mondya and Tuesday. When I got back I had too much work to catch up on to post until now. If you want to restart this debate I promise you I will not forfeit a round. Otherwise, I'm going to post my final round today.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
I'm just a little offended that you didn't think my arguments were coherent (I assume you were referring to the debate between righty and myself), but since we agree so much, I'll forgo the offense and skip over into denial.
Posted by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
rwebberc- I'm intrested in your debate, but I' going to wait till another deabte is over just to keep the stress low, it might be a day or a week, but I will accept the challenge.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by coutinho 9 years ago
coutinho
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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 mahjonga 9 years ago
mahjonga
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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 LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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 Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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 DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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 TheNextDylan 9 years ago
TheNextDylan
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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 RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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 Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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 lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
rwebbercrighty10294Tied
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