The Instigator
victork
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
A-ThiestSocialist
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

weather or not the us would be justified in persuing military action aginst 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: 12/14/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,567 times Debate No: 441
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (14)

 

victork

Con

here are three reasons why i dont support the resloution

Brookings.edu. testomony/2005/0908iran_byman.aspx

1. Iran has no nuclear weapons. The UN weapons inspectors could not find them or any sign of them in the country that is 4% smaller size than that of Alaska. However, what they did find were nuclear power plants that were using uranium and plutonium to produce electricity for the ever growing population. There are currently around 70 million people in Iran. And they are slowly dwindling there natural resources including oil.

Iran has all rights to produce nuclear power. They signed the Non Nuclear Poleferation Treaty. And have followed it since 2003.

Military.com/invade_iran/aspx
2.Persuing a war with iran would be bad for the united states. Other countries don't support us in iraq and they did have chemical weapons. The united states would be more secluded that it already is from the European Naions, (i/e, Germany, France, Sweden and that is to name a few) In wich nobody will be there to support us.

Orilley.com/talkingpoints

3.The good news is that U.S. intelligence now believes Iran stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon a few years ago. If that's true, it takes some of the urgency away from a confrontation with the Iranian mullahs. The bad news is that anti-American people will use the new intel to mock the USA and minimize the threat from radical Islam. Far-left people in America love the fact that U.S. intelligence has contradicted the president on Iran. And even though the president says he learned about the new intel only last week, Senator Joseph Biden immediately called the president a liar, claiming he 'misrepresented intelligence.' Because of the new intel, it will be more difficult to hold Iran and other nations for their murderous activities in the future. We can all be glad that new intel says Iran is pulling back. Hope is always a good thing, but so is being realistic.

In all reality we cannot tell people what to do with their nuclear weapons. When we ourselves have not signed the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

I'm first going to establish my case, then refute my opponents.

The United States would be justified in persuing military action against Iran.
Please keep in mind the question is justified, not should or shouldn't.
1. Iran poses a threat to US oil supply
2. A nuclear Iran would dismantle the Middle East
3. Iran supports terrorism.

Iran currently poses a threat to US oil supply. With continuing continuity changes in oil dynamics, and Irans control over over the strait of hormuz can threaten over 37% of the worlds oil. Should Iran continue it's radical policies and threaten this supply, the United States and the world has adedquate reasoning to protect it's interests.

Next, a Nuclear Iran would dismantle the Middle East. First, Iran is seeking Nuclear weapons. After the release of the NIE report, the Iranian government actually proclaimed that the report is false, and they are persuing nuclear technology. Also, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs are set on providing nuclear capabilites to the country, and are even working with Russia. In fact, Iran recently received 2 weeks ago its first shipment of nuclear fuel from Russia.
The major impact of a nuclear armed Iran is that a weapon could easily get into the hands of Hezbollah, or used by the Iranians as an actual weapon, or as a method of unneccessary exertion over the US.

Finally, Iran supports terrorism. Michael O'Hanlon in an article discussed how whatever weapons Iran has, Hezbollah has, but the major threat is Hezbollah will use them. Iran has direct links to Hezbollah insurgency, but also to insurgency in Iraq. The Iranian national guard is rumored to have trained and aided many of the inurgents, and time and time again we see on the news Iranian weapons are being used against our soldiers. Should this continue, the United States would be more than justified in persuing military action.

Next, refutations of the claims by the opposition.

"Iran has no nuclear weapons. The UN weapons inspectors could not find them or any sign of them in the country that is 4% smaller size than that of Alaska. However, what they did find were nuclear power plants that were using uranium and plutonium to produce electricity for the ever growing population. There are currently around 70 million people in Iran. And they are slowly dwindling there natural resources including oil. "

What you're saying is partially true. No one has ever really said "Iran has nuclear weapons." The problem is that they are trying to get nuclear technology and capability, and if they do, the US is justified in taking them out. You then say that they have nuclear power, but are simply using it for civilian usage. If this is true, then Iran has no reason to seek further nuclear technology since they already have the resources, but it simply isn't. Iran does have the rights to produce power, but when they pose a threat of giving nuclear materials to terrorists, (which they have given technology and weapons before) they pose a global threat.

" Persuing a war with iran would be bad for the united states. Other countries don't support us in iraq and they did have chemical weapons. The united states would be more secluded that it already is from the European Naions, (i/e, Germany, France, Sweden and that is to name a few) In wich nobody will be there to support us."

There are two problems with your argument. First, it's non-resolutional. The topic is if the US is justified in taking action, not if the US should or shouldn't or if the US could or couldn't. But pretending that it is, the US would have tremendous support. Currently France has incredible influence along with Britian over the EU. Britain would most likely support the US, and France, with Nicholas Sarkozy would most definitely support us. He himself has criticized the problems we're having with Iran.

"The good news is that U.S. intelligence now believes Iran stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon a few years ago. If that's true, it takes some of the urgency away from a confrontation with the Iranian mullahs. The bad news is that anti-American people will use the new intel to mock the USA and minimize the threat from radical Islam. Far-left people in America love the fact that U.S. intelligence has contradicted the president on Iran. And even though the president says he learned about the new intel only last week, Senator Joseph Biden immediately called the president a liar, claiming he 'misrepresented intelligence.' Because of the new intel, it will be more difficult to hold Iran and other nations for their murderous activities in the future. We can all be glad that new intel says Iran is pulling back. Hope is always a good thing, but so is being realistic."

I addressed most of this in my earlier claim, so for things I don't mention see above. The intelligence issue of holding Iran accountable isn't really and issue. We say Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, then they scream at us and tell us they do? I don't see an issue there. If we really use some basic logic here, the US had awful intelligence before Iraq, and Saddam said he didnt have anything, and he didn't, despite our convictions. Now we say Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, they proclaim they do. Do you see similar parallelism?

"In all reality we cannot tell people what to do with their nuclear weapons. When we ourselves have not signed the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty."

This again is a very contradictory statement. It's first simply incorrect. The US has signed the NPT of 1967, we practically brokered it, we simply don't follow it completely. Again this really isn't resolutional, it doesn't deal with justification of military action.

The fact is, Iran supports terrorism, harbors US interests, and would collapse the Middle East under continued policies. The US would be justified in taking military action.
Debate Round No. 1
victork

Con

They are not a threat to the united states. If you look at my obsevartion 1 then you would see that the weapon inspectors still have not found any eviddence aginst Teran. They looked. Anyway, how can we tell other countries what to do when they have signed the NNPT (Non-Nuclear Poleferation Treaty). And we have not. This is unjustifed by the United States Government.This is not fair Teran
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

Okay, you need to understand, that the US has signed into the NPT. If you read my post, I mentioned this. Simply google NPT and you'll see that the US is a signature.

The other purpose of this is if the US would be justified, and you answered none of my attacks on your arguments. The US would be justified.
On the issue of Iran's weapons, the concensus isn't out, and the issue isn't weapons, it's material. That's why I refuted your entire case it in my first response.
Debate Round No. 2
victork

Con

Okay, I will agree with you we have signed the NNPT but that leads me to ask the question of why are we violating articles 1 and 2 of the NNPT. here are what the articles state

Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
At the time the treaty was being negotiated, NATO had in place secret nuclear weapons sharing agreements whereby the United States provided nuclear weapons to be deployed by, and stored in, other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating Articles I and II of the treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controlled the weapons in storage within the NATO states, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT. These agreements were disclosed to a few of the states, including the Soviet Union, negotiating the treaty, but most of the states that signed the NPT in 1968 would not have known about these agreements and interpretations at that time [9].

As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements [10]. Many states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, now argue this violates Articles I and II of the treaty, and are applying diplomatic pressure to terminate these agreements. They point out that the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practice handling and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which must have involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information. NATO believes its "nuclear forces continue to play an essential role in war prevention, but their role is now more fundamentally political" [11].
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

Okay the US violating the NPT means nothing about justifying military action with Iran. Also, the US isn't the only country to ever violate the NPT. My opponent failed to respond to my points, and all of his were proven false or inadequate in this debate. Through this we see that the US is JUSTIFIED in persuing military action against Iran.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by cjet79 9 years ago
cjet79
Was this debate before the UN report that concluded Iran had dismantled its weapons program in 2003?
Posted by Felix_Karloff 9 years ago
Felix_Karloff
just like you know how to fuse two conflicting ideologies, theism and anarcho-syndicalism.
Also, the fact that I submitted my comment on the MEMBER COMMENTS portion of the page does not exclusively signify that I was "judging" the debate. MEMBER COMMENTS is a "form to add your comments to this debate".
I believe that I used the MEMBER COMMENTS precisely as intended.
Your extremely defensive attitude in reference to my comments only shows me that you dislike commentary that clashes with your personal and your debate position, especially if it is substantiated with factual evidence.
I am sure you would be equally as upset to hear that the founders of the anarcho-sydicalist movement and its practitioners were violently anti-religious. During the spanish civil war anarcho-syndicalists destroyed more churches than any other group during the civil war.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
congrats, you know how to not judge a debate, yet vote simply how you feel on the issue, then proceed to comment and interject your opinion that doesn't really matter to the voting of the round.
Posted by Felix_Karloff 9 years ago
Felix_Karloff
I bet you feel silly. All 14 intelligence agencies in the USA unanimously agreed that Iran has long since stopped its production of enriched uranium. The belligerence of the Bush administration and its "gut feeling" method of decision making has again led the USA to the possibility of another war. This was predicted by VI Lenin. Lenin said that the capitalist system inevitably lead towards war. Much like Marx's crisis theory in economics, Lenin predicted that the conflict between competing imperialist, first world nations would increase to a point of unending war.
Posted by asian_invasion 9 years ago
asian_invasion
WHETHER or not.
not weather lol
Posted by zombiegoldfish 9 years ago
zombiegoldfish
this is the december topic for high school public forum debate

nice ;)
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
I'll be more than happy to debate this, however I'm going to be going against my beliefs, so it will be a little hard.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cjet79 9 years ago
cjet79
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 chrispy4 9 years ago
chrispy4
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 buckaroo54 9 years ago
buckaroo54
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 Felix_Karloff 9 years ago
Felix_Karloff
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 mrumno 9 years ago
mrumno
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 Blizzwind 9 years ago
Blizzwind
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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 victork 9 years ago
victork
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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
victorkA-ThiestSocialistTied
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