The Instigator
hastie41
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Wanted797
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The West should take action against Iran now before they get Nuclear Weapons

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: 3/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 7575
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

hastie41

Pro

For the last 30 years since the Islamic revolution, the state of Iran has been a great threat to western countries such as the UK, France and the USA. Many events have taken place such as the kidnapping of british, american and french soldiers, the storming of terrorists on the Iranian Embassy in London, the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie and the supply of weapons to terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
There is no doubt as to Irans openness to its hatred of the west and its desire to 'wipe Israel off the map' as President Ahmedinijad put it. Since many other countries such as UK, USA, India and Russia have Nuclear weapons then Iran claims it too has the right to obtain Nuclear weapons.
I however, am strongly in favour of invading the country with assistance from the amercians and the Israelis, and disarming their nuclear programme before it progresses any further.
Wanted797

Con

This may be a big problem for the British, But why should we cause more war,pain and suffering. Storming the contry and disarming there WMDs would not be the best way to solving the probelm, it would only spark a retailation from allied countrys and then we would have a even bigger problem on our hands, No war has ever been won by fighting, they have all be resolved in the end by talking.......
Debate Round No. 1
hastie41

Pro

I would love for the british and the americans to be able to talk to the Iranians. we have tried this in the past and it has not worked. we have talked to the IRA over the past 20 years and yes this has made things better in northern ireland, however there are still many problems there as the IRA are now fighting back. Israel has attempted talks with Hamas and Palestine but this has not worked, Hamas rockets still fly into Israel. I agree that allied countries such as Syria and Lebanon and maybe even Russia will not like us going to war with Iran but we would have the french, americans and the Israelis and many more on side to assist us in disarming Iran. Also, considering we are next door in Iraq, we are already in a very good position to invade.
Wanted797

Con

This invasion though looking like the best option would be a terriable decision, This war in Iran has not esculated drastically, invading there country would casue this and that is the one thing we all wish to avoid. Take the war Iraq for example we have been in this war since 2003 and all it has cause is death and pain. Why invade a country when there is not extream need.
Debate Round No. 2
hastie41

Pro

we got to the point in iraq where we had to take action due to the worlds ignorance of what sadam hussein was doing to his own people. because nobody took action soon enough he was allowed to go on abusing and murdering his own people. we should learn from history and intervene early enough to stop it getting to 'drastic' measures. as for iraq, the country is a much better place now and we are able to pull our troops out. you say there has been much death and pain caused by our troops in iraq, this death and pain is not half as bad as under sadam and the country is slowly becoming a democracy. It has just had its first democratic elections and the people of iraq are very grateful of what we have done for them. I don't know if you are aware, but Iran write 'death to america' on the side of their missiles. they are openly in favour of physically destroying the state of Israel. They are a liability in the middle easy and we must intervene now to prevent them ever obtaining a nuclear missile with which they could threaten us and bully us out of the middle east, as Russia have done when we have intervened in eastern Europe. there is no point in leaving it until they fire a weapon at us as this will cause uneccesary pain and death which would have been prevented much earlier. the governments of the west will regret not taking action sooner when Iran launch weapons at us
Wanted797

Con

This argument has come to an end,

I do understand my oppoents claim, but still do disagree, Invading Iran would cause more problems then it would solve, America should not invade Irand and cause the death of thousands or people just because of threats that may be furtile, Should Iran attack the U.S and kill a large amount of people then I would back the american govenment in Invading Iran, but why should we attack Iran and kill a large number of people when they may not decide to attack...

What I am basically saying is that in attacking Iran there would be death and destruction Inevitable, By waiting there COULD be some inoccent people killed, but also there could not, therefore why attack and inevitably cause death and distruction when there is the chance no death will occur? This is a risk I would be willing to take.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
Pro, not just yet.

After we're done with Iraq and Afghanistan, and have a chance to rebuild our armed forces, I'm sure the American government will be perfectly agreeable to blowing Iran off the face of the Earth.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
hastie41Wanted797Tied
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 trendem 7 years ago
trendem
hastie41Wanted797Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40