The Instigator
Eradicatorer
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
TheLibertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

US has the right to pursue millitary options in 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: 12/12/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 319
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Eradicatorer

Con

The argument has been made lately that the US has the "right" to invade to Iran, due to alleged threats, and nuclear capabilities. I wish to debate this point, and welcome a worthy opponent.
TheLibertarian

Pro

First off, I would just like to say mazel tov one your job at US, and I look forward to seeing you at some tournaments (I go to Beachwood and do Student Congress). Now, on to the debate.

For three reasons, we have, without a doubt, the right to pursue military options with Iran:
1. They have invaded US-controlled Iraq,
2. They have been consistently sending resources to Hamas and Hezbollah, and finally and most importantly,
3. We have tried all other possible options

My first point, that they have invaded Iraq. Starting last June, and occurring consistently, Iranian civilians have been crossing the Iran-Iraq border and raiding villages and than returning back to the sanctity of Iran. The Iranian government has denied affiliation, but state that they will take action against any Us or Iraqi forces attempting to oppose them. This would be like some American patriots going into Canada and screwing with people, and than returning to America when they need to. But OH NO! If those evil Canadians harm these innocent Americans we will invade them before they can say "eh?". Obviously, you this obvious denial of any peaceful foreign policy by the Ayatollahs, and action must be taken.

My second point is that they have been aiding and sending resources to the enemies of one our biggest alllies in the MIddle East, Israel. Ever since the second Intifada began in 2000, Iran has been sending money and resources to Hamas, the radical Palestinian party opposite to Fatah, and Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist faction. During the summer of 2006, when Hezbollah took over the Lebanese government and sent missiles into northern Israel, Iran spat in the America's face by directly going against their actions and sending a great deal of foodstuffs and money to help support the terrorist cause. In addition, they have doing in essence the same thing now with Hamas, and defying Israel and America in the process. This alone would be reason to take military action, as by a proxy war, they have fought against America and her allies.

My third and most importantly, we have tried all other options, and they have failed. Ask almost any foreign policy expert, and they will all tell you that one must never even CONSIDER militaristic options until all others have been tried, which I feel is the case in Iran. We have tried time and time again to influence their policies through diplomatic means, and they have all failed. Examples of these are economic sanctions, where they have just laughed and found other sources to get goods. We have declared them terrorist organization to try and scrae thyem, and they have just gone back and declared US a terrorist nation. These are just some of the examples which show just how diplomacy will not work in Iran, and we must consider militaristic options.

So again, for these three reasons,
1. They have invaded US-controlled Iraq,
2. They have been consistently sending resources to Hamas and Hezbollah, and finally and most importantly,
3. We have tried all other possible options and they have failed,
I am for the United States has the right to pursue military options in Iran. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Eradicatorer

Con

First of all, I believe my friend Andrew Schriver knows you, and that would mean I know who you are, which would enthral me to no end. But on to the debate.

I will first be countering my opponents points, then establishing main points of my own.

First, Iran is allowing their civilians to invade Iraq

This point falls for 2 points

1.) This, although it main be a problem, is in no way justification for military action. There has been a steady flow of arms and people coming from Iran into Iraq, but this problem is actually being solved diplomatically. An article in BBC news highlights a decrease in arms and personal shipment from Iran to Iraq as a direct result of diplomatic efforts between the US and Iran. Since diplomatic efforts are still being pursued and executed, there is, by the definition of a just war by the stanford encyclopaedist of philosophy, no justification for a military action.

2.) The reason for this semi-quasi anarchy in Iran is 85 percent of their population hates the current regime in power, as well as that regimes extremist policies. The reason this issue will take care of itself is within a year and a half, both the parliamentary as well as the presidential positions are up for grabs, and the pro-us reformist party demolished the conservative party in power in the 2005 local elections, and will do the same in the next elections. Since the issues of a government having problems controlling their citizens will fix itself, military option is unnecessary.

Secondly, Iran is funding terrorist organizations such as hamas and Hezbollah.

2 responses

1.) you provided no sorce and i am hesitant to belive this is still in occurrence with the UN so heavily involved in all Iran is doing however even if it was i have another response

2.) You states that Iran is sponsoring terrorism that has attacked Israel. This may be true, and Israel is a US ally, but military options against Iran would be illegal and unnecessary. Illegal because the US signed the UN charter which specifically states that all conflict resolution goes to the security council until the security council fails. Since the UN has not failed, the US would be in violation of international law if we pursued any kind of military action. Also Israel, as was shown in the 6 day war, is the single strongest military force in the Middle East as is more than capable of taking care of itself with regards to all military options.

Your final Point is that we have exhausted all diplomatic options. This is simply not true based on

1.) The successful reduction of Iranian arms flow through 1 on 1 diplomatic talks with Iran

2.) Iran has been mostly cooperating with the UN's IAEA as far as their nuclear issues are concerned, as was stated in an article issued by the NYT.

Therefore, all my opponents points fall.

My Case stands as such

1.) We have not exhausted all diplomatic options

I already stated why, but it includes the successful arms reductions talks, and the IAEA being successful.

2.) It would break international law.

Any action at this point would blatantly violate the UN charter, which the US signed, therefore the US would break an international treaty and destroy its credibility as a nation, by hypocritically violating the guidelines we swore to uphold.

3.) The problems will fix itself

as I stated earlier, in the 2005 local elections, out of 1500 positions up for election, only 52 of the current presidents allies were placed in, or back in power. In the nearby parliamentary and presidential elections, Iran will replace their currents leaders, with the pro-US reformist party as they did in the local elections, and the problem will solve itself, therefore the US cannot be just in pursuing military options because this is yet another peaceful alternative that must, at very least, be given a chance before military options are pursued.

Thus, my opponents case falls.
TheLibertarian

Pro

TheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Eradicatorer

Con

Thats ok, I understand that you were out of town. So, I'll just not say anything since there isn't much at the current time to say.
TheLibertarian

Pro

TheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
stated like a true congress-dude. God i'm getting sick of congress. but i still like your speaking style
Posted by Eradicatorer 9 years ago
Eradicatorer
I would cite it, but the debate is over and I have no more rounds, so I feel it would be unethical to site it within the context of this debate. However if you want it simply out of curiosity, just send a message to my email and I'd be happy to show you the article.
Posted by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
Eradicatorer you mention a bbc article in your 2nd round from the BBC. could you cite that please?
Posted by TheLibertarian 9 years ago
TheLibertarian
shoot, sorry about that, Eradicatorer, I was out of town
Posted by Eradicatorer 9 years ago
Eradicatorer
lol, I can tell your an experienced congress person (odd that that's what they call you guys) It comes across in your style. Very proposal like, I must admit I enjoy it. Of course, I am hoping my PF experience will help me win here, as I always do, but good debate so far.
Posted by Eradicatorer 9 years ago
Eradicatorer
lol, I can tell your an experienced congress person (odd that that's what they call you guys) It comes across in your style. Very proposal like, I must admit I enjoy it. Of course, I am hoping my PF experience will help me win here, as I always do, but good debate so far.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
EradicatorerTheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
EradicatorerTheLibertarianTied
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 Eradicatorer 9 years ago
Eradicatorer
EradicatorerTheLibertarianTied
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 iloveher666 9 years ago
iloveher666
EradicatorerTheLibertarianTied
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 moderate84 9 years ago
moderate84
EradicatorerTheLibertarianTied
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