CreateDebate


Debate Info

29
32
Yes, America should Intervene No, America should not
Debate Score:61
Arguments:56
Total Votes:66
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Debate Creator

jimbo23(18) pic



America Intervention in Iran

It is known that Iran wishes to aquire a nuclear weapon, and it is also known that Iran wishes to "wipe Israel off of the map".  Given our nations debt and failures in previous Middle Eastern interventions what should be done?  If Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz will that give America the justification it needs to take military action against Iran?  Keep in mind sanctions have failed, and we lack support from both China and Russia.

 

Yes, America should Intervene

Side Score: 29
VS.

No, America should not

Side Score: 32

"Sanctions haven't failed yet,"

Economic sanctions are an act of war, and what do you mean they haven't failed yet?

"Sanctions take months to have an impact."

They are already adversely affecting the Iranian economy.

"Russia and China will have no choice but to come around eventually."

Russia and China won't submit to your plans for global hegemony, the US doesn't want to tolerate any resistance in the Arab world, that's why they so determined to topple the Iranian regime, regardless of the fact that Iran is more democratic and free than most of the countries in the US supports supports in the middle east.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

"It would be suicide for Iran to attack Israel"

Iran won't attack Isreal unless Isreal attacks Iran first, of this I have no doubt.

"because they cannot compete with the US"

Ya, but Russia and China can, and they won't sit idly by when their interests in the middle east are seriously threatened, the US might have the largest piece of the pie, but if it get's too greedy and tries to steal more from other people the world could get sucked into a third world war in an instant.

Iranian are highly intelligent proud people, I've been to the country, they feel it is their right to develop nuclear energy, and they are currently complying fully with the IAEA.

"I fear that without the support of the other super powers there can be nothing done to prevent Iran or any other country from getting a Nuclear weapon."

What about Isreal, they have 300 nuclear warheads, they have proven to be consistent violators of international law and human rights, why are some countries allowed to have nuclear weapons but others are not? And don;t try that bullshit that only some countries can handle them.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html

The IAEA acknowledging that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon, as well as Iran hiding nuclear facilities does not persuade you that maybe they are doing something they don't want people to know about? THEY ARE NOT COMPLYING AT ALL!

And as for Iran/Israeli relations. You can interpret his comments how you want, but I have watched him speak countless times about how the holocaust is a hoax and this + a Nuclear Weapon=??? I don't know, hence why I started the debate.

"What do you mean what should be done, you sicken me"

-So I am assuming you have the answer to this then, I would love to hear it.

Sanctions are intended to hurt the government not the people. If the average Iranian does not like his hardships he should bring it up to his bat shit crazy government. Iran can comply with sanctions and we would be glad to remove them.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

That's right bitches. I'm on this side (not for the reason you think).

-

1) There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Iran;

a. Is developing nuclear weapons (FUN FACT: Israel has nukes)

b. wishes to develop nuclear capabilities.

The IAEA put out a bullshit report full of UN propaganda stating that it was probable that they were developing nukes, yet they gave ZERO evidence to support that political claim.

2) Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (FUN FACT: Israel has not)

This directly contradicts the claim by Republicans (alternate spelling: d-u-m-b-a-s-s-e-s) and the IAEA that they wish to and are developing nuclear weapons.

3) Iran allows IAEA inspectors to visit their nuclear sites (FUN FACT: Israel refuses to)

4) How many wars has Iran started in say...the past six decades?

None. Fancy that- a peaceful country. And the US? FIVE! Oh, and who has more nukes now than Iran will ever have? Both Israel and the US.

-

So why am I on this side?

We need to intervene by demanding all other countries cease sanctions on Iran, remove any pressure from counties and allow them to proceed with their nuclear program (not weapons).

The dumbass republicans need something else to fuel their war-mongering nature. By the way, in how many of those five wars we started in the past 60 years did we win a clear victory? None. Fancy that. What was the result? Millions of dead civilians, trillions in debt, thousands of dead soldiers. But these right-wing nutjobs will do anything to continue their war in the Middle East.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

"Personally, I don't support their nuclear weapons program (if any exists), but I don't think sanctions is the right way to reduce a risk, it's just alienating those who you should be befriending."

The only way to convince Iran to halt it's nuclear activities, if indeed they are developing the bomb, is for all other countries holding nucs to do likewise, or at the very least force all the budding nuclear powers that are close to Iran (geopolitically) to do likewise i.e. Isreal, Pakistan, India

Otherwise, there is simply no justification for telling Iran they cannot develop nuc's (if they are), your effectively telling them: "your going to is going to remain weak, you are going to allow us to dominate you, you have no right to the same power we do, you are our bitch!!!"

No country as proud as Iran will submit to this.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

Let's kick some little Shiite butt ;)

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

For starters I am merely playing devils advocate in order to foster debate, so I wish you would quit with insults and insinuations about who I am. I am not a war monger-er at all, and I as well as most Americans were not in favor of the war in Iraq. As an American though I know the devastation a Nuclear Weapon can cause and would like to be cautious about putting in the hands of unstable countries. What happens when there is an Iranian revolution much like Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and so on? Besides the fact it's not out of the question that they could use it on their own people, if a government in disarray with a nuke is a scary to many.

n the article that I posted it stated "thousands" of documents pertaining only to creating nuclear weapons were found. Either way, you can look at actual statements from the IAEA expressing concerns about Iran's intentions.

Didn't that genocidal and illegal war rid the world of Sadaam Husein and thousands of terrorists, including the one responsible for attacks on civilians on US soil?

And as for Americans hating Iranian people, why did the American military rescue Iranian fisherman 3 times last month, and not the Iranian government? http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-19/middleeast/world_meast_iran-us-rescue_1_vessel-crew-members-iranian-sailors?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
2 points

US should intervene to Iran not for creating democratic society

That's a ridiculous idea. Democracy is by no means the best form of government, it's simply the most popular. I live in a successful democracy, where the people love the ruling family (Qatar), and there's a huge number of examples where the same is true over history. To say that a dictatorship is bad, and punishable by invasion, is crazy.

Further, the US supported and supports dictators around the world. To single out Iran would be ridiculous. And then there's the fact that the US democratic model is awful, it's representative democracy for a start, and it's so complex, and undemocratic, and unequal. To pretend that the US should go around killing people who don't have democracy is an idea not based in logic.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

yeap, but US interprets everything (any state model) by own including own

interests more that tries to achieve justice. No one country cannot interfere to other, if it is not threating for this country.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

As an American, I'm not sure if I would feel safe with a country such as Iran having nuclear capability. For one, they have readily chanted "death to Israel....death to America." You say they have not been in a war for decades, which is true. The thing is they support terrorist organizations, which in itself is an act of war. My fear is with nuclear capability, they will provide those organizations with nukes, taking terrorism to a new level. Now I realize this is a pessimistic view, but I believe that with an efficacy such as this, the solidarity between the two could have deathly repercussions.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

You are in complete solidarity with Iran, with a pachyderm that is un-paralled by any normal person. That "3 months" in Iran has clearly gotten to your head, as your hatred of America ectypes that of the few extremists in that country.

Your saying of the media being false, the media lying just to create a good story, doubting their word. But then, you have the profligacy to denounce someone else for doubting the word of Iran, a region known for lying. Your insolence, saying whatever you wish to support your argument, leaves me truly flummoxed, for I thought only Mitt Romney was capable of such doing. Hypocrisy is a disease that has engulfed your mind, you cannot take the word of one just to deny that of another.

You say they are not building nukes, and are complying with the IAEA, but I don't think causing frustration means complyment. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/transcripts/2011/wp140211.html

And there history with this is one of disobeying, http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iran_timeline2.shtml

Try to call the IAEA "war mongers"

How dare you accuse the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of genocide, of an illegal invasion. It was a result in the death of sons, the death of Americans. We Americans were grieving, grieving for the needless attack against the country we love. We were vengeful, vengeful at the SOB'S such as yourself who applauded the attack on the day 9/11. I feel for those in Iraq who were not part of the attack,but they it is the fault of those in the insurgency for the death of civilians, not of the country protecting her own. Your rampant accusations of the U.S. disgust me, I am NOT disgusted by a country that protects her and her allies.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's earlylight,

What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's lastgleaming?

Whose broadstripes and bright stars, thro' theperilous fight,

O'er theramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?

And therockets' red glare,the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof thro' thenightthat ourflag was still there.

O say, does that star-spangledbanneryetwave

O'er theland ofthefree and thehome ofthebrave

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

I agree with you that America should not go around invading countries because of their government model. America does support dictators, not for their regime, I hope. I do know they do support them if they support "the war on terror" as one reason (such as with Saudi Arabia) but I could not tell you the others reasons.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

Funny thing about the strait of Hormutz...., it ain't straight. ;)

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

The sanctions are putting pressure on their government. Their economy is in dire straits ;)

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

I posted on this side to help this side catch up to that side but I just noticed that some else posted on that side so now I'll have to post again on this side. ;)

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

If Iran acts first, we'll have to respond. We shouldn't act first. If they want the bomb bad enough, they'll get it in spite of the sanctions. Hell..., they may even get it in the event of an Israeli first strike.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

Iran has been asking for an ass whipping for quite a long time ;)

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

the United States has provoked the Iranians into a defensive position, from which they are given rights under international law to defend themselves

"But changing our policy doesn't fall under the category of "intervention." Does it?"

That exactly my point, so why do you say the US needs to intervene?

"If by "your" you mean my, Apollo's, policies, not the current policies of this country"

Sorry, I was referring to the USA as "you" and Europe as "me".

"Obama is instating that is finally turning our imperialist tide of the past 60 years"

I do not beleive this to be the case, whilst I am prepared to admit his policies may not be as hawkish as his republican counterparts, what convinces you that he is finally turning our imperialist tide of the past 60 years?

"That contradicts what I would deem as "[working] out exactly as intended." There is no benefit from forcefully subduing innocent civilians."

The word "subdue" doesn't necessarily imply the use of force, it merely implies the capitulation of a group in the face of vastly superior power and will.

"If it was for self-defense (and I would want to be absolutely sure that a preemptive strike was warranted"

How can a preemptive strike be warranted though? I mean, by that logic the bombing of pearl harbour was warranted, I mean the US had cut off trade relations with Japan, and they interpreted it as an act of war, some historians even beleive they were right to do so (RE: Gore Vidal), it is interesting to draw a parallel between the two situations.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

Firstly, America is not the only country to consider hamas a terrorist organization, not a country. You pointed out Israel, but failed to recognize the other two countries; Japan and Canada.

Now supporting your deranged view is Russia and Sw

itzerland. Russia, like yourself hates America, and Switzerland a country that provides assylum to those who brake the law. I wonder why they consider Hamas to be a country....

I am not sure what "track record" you are talking about, America supported the Egyptian rebels against their ally, Hosni Mubarak, in the support of democracy. This was without assurance of continued piece with them, only for the sake of democracy, not "domination."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8289686/Egypt-protests-Americas-secret-backing-for-rebel-leaders-behind-uprising.html

They supported libian rebels in the name of democracy, giving them everything necessary to overthrow their dictatorship. Not in the name of domination.

America voted for the assistance of Sryian rebels,to allow them to have the freedoms in which they deserve. But instead, Russia and China choose to partake in the genocide occuring in the country, they are effectivly the cause for thousands of deaths, not America.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

The 9/11 attack was justification for that attack on Iraq. But why debate you on an issue already proven?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml

I wonder, what you would call the acts of Russia and China, supporting the killing of innocent rebels in Syria,that is an act of genocide, America has justification. They do not.

"Why not try hammering out the issues, I can promise you that I have a logical and rational explanation for every position I hold, my accusations are based on facts, if you're a too small minded to be open to the truth, even if that truth may upset you, that is your problem, go fling your mud elsewhere."

This is just one example of your hipocrisy, not one justification, only insults. Your arogance is incesant and blinding, trying to make the U.S. a horrible country, I assure you, is a battle you will lose.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

"people have the legal right to resist a foreign occupier, the insurgency were entirely justified in resisting the foreign troops"

The insurgents did not represent the consensus among the Iraqi people, the resistance is comprised of extremists. You are also implying that Americas intentions represent that of an imperilistic nation, which is clearly false. They are clearly as much at fault for civilian deaths as America, the differnce is, America TRIES to limit colateral damage.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

Operation Iraqi Freedom: also called the second Iraq war, was meant to end the dictator ship of Saddam Hussien and end terrorist oganization in the country. It is not the war you make it out to be, they tried to implement a democratic society and remove terror organization. While doing this, they provided aide to civilians affected, again making it a completly different kind of war than you make it out to be.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/04/operation-iraqi-freedom-military-objectives-met

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

they will provide those organizations with nukes

I later went on to say "I realize this is an extremely pessimistic view"

Meaning not feasible, that I didn't think this was a likely outcome.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene

I would prefer you to know what a democracy is, and then have a valid reason to claim that the US is a perfect example of such. Then to stop using big words that just sound a little redundant, it doesn't achieve anything.

The basis of a democracy is that one person equals one vote. With corporatism, SuperPACs, and large scale lobbying, I really doubt you have chance of claiming that each person has equal representation under the current system.

And to claim that you can't think of anywhere else that is more democratic is an awful argument. Just as in anything else, you support something on its own reasoning, rather than the lack of others. Even if it was the best democracy, that doesn't make it a pure democracy.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

Your joking right? You are either playing dum, or just ignorant by nature. That post, was in direct correlation with "The insurgents did not represent the consensus among the Iraqi people" and your wrong assertion of the Iraq war being all out. But, then again,you clearly do not have the aptitude to find the meaning in anything.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

"claims that Saddam had links to AL Queda was debunked as blatantly false and intentionally fabricated lies a long time ago.”That article was only to show why the U.S. started the war, because at that time, Saddam was linked to Al Queda.

If you would check the date of the report, it was 2002. Just incase you forgot, at this time, the two were linked. Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. This proves what i said, at the start of the war, their was evidence to show that their were ties between the two, it was only years later that we discovered there was actually no tie, when it was too late to back out.

You fail to see the point in anything, your blinded by arrogance, If you want to see a proper debate (to kknwo what you're doing wrong) check my debates with the US Marine Bohemian as this statement makes blantinly clear.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

"here doesn't have to be a consensus, if China invades america people don't have to get together and vote on whether they should resist, some will, some won’t.”

That response was in correlation to when you accused the united states of genocide, calling it all out war with Iraq, which is what that quote says.

Sure it does, that's why before the second Iraq war they imposed crippling sanctions that caused the deaths of over 1 million of the poorest weakest people in the country, and 500,000 of them were children, they imposed these sanctions in order to starve the people of food and medicine in the hopes that they would rise up and overthrow Saddam, incidentally this is also what is being done to Iran, although Iran is much more powerful and can cope. But look what the then secretary of state Madeline Albright had to say when questioned about it:

I suppose you don’t remember that statement

Again, this doesn't refute or disupte anything any I said, you provide nothing tangible to back up what you're saying except the offical dogma which has been completely discredited.

Now again, America was not involved in an all out war with Iraq like you make it to be:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/04/operation-iraqi-freedom-military-objectives-met

"the offical dogma which has been completely discredited.”

Your ignorance is becoming annoying, that article was to show you justification for starting the war, not carry on with it. Again it was created in 2002, before all the information came out. This referenda should be needed again.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, America should Intervene
1 point

I do not believe that America should enter into another pointless war, and that respecting states sovereignty is our greatest chance of patching relations with countries in the Middle East. It would be suicide for Iran to attack Israel, because they cannot compete with the US. I fear that without the support of the other super powers there can be nothing done to prevent Iran or any other country from getting a Nuclear weapon.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
2 points

Sanctions haven't failed yet, that's just what the right wing nuts running for pres and fox keep saying because they have a war fetish. Sanctions take months to have an impact. They'll work eventually, and if we cut out all the nuclear holocaust bs talk in the media Russia and China will have no choice but to come around eventually.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"It is known that Iran wishes to aquire a nuclear weapon"

Known? Known by who? I admit it is a strong possiblity, but there is no proof, none whatsoever, and Iran have strenuously denied it, so when you say known, what you are really saying is I heard it on my corporate controlled media.

"and it is also known that Iran wishes to "wipe Israel off of the map"."

Well, now you're just talking shit, I mean, I can admit there is a strong chance Iran want a nuc (although there isn;t a shred of evidence to support it and they are complying fully with the IAEA), but saying Iran want to wipe Isreal off the map is simply a lie.

I've heard this time and time again on UC corporate controlled media, it's been repeated so much for obvious reasons, but it is false, the Iranian president said he wanted to wipe zionism off the map, he was completely misinterpreted. When the West wanted to eradicate Stalinism, they didn't mean wipe Russia off the map, did they?

"Given our nations debt and failures in previous Middle Eastern interventions what should be done?"

What do you mean what should be done, you sicken me.

"Keep in mind sanctions have failed,"

Don't worry you've done a good job in making life for the average Iranian a hell of lot harder.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

2) Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (FUN FACT: Israel has not)

This directly contradicts the claim by Republicans (alternate spelling: d-u-m-b-a-s-s-e-s) and the IAEA that they wish to and are developing nuclear weapons.

This is assuming that countries follow both the position they claim to have, and General Assembly resolutions. I think you know that both of these are not true. (FUN FACT: DPRK were signed onto the NPT when they developed their nuclear weapons).

I agree that there should be an end to sanctions, and no intervention or any of that bullshit, but I think that claiming that Iran actually believes its claims goes against the trend in international politics, where lying is the standard. Personally, I don't support their nuclear weapons program (if any exists), but I don't think sanctions is the right way to reduce a risk, it's just alienating those who you should be befriending.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
2 points

"The IAEA acknowledging that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon,"

They did no such thing, stop spreading demonstrably false lies, where in the heavily biased and propagandised article did it say Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon? Firstly, let me demonstrate how the article you posted is deliberately distorting the facts i.e.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency released a trove of evidence"

This is a complete fabrication, but if you look at it closely you'll notice it is worded very carefully, it doesn't say when this evidence was recovered, it simply says the IAEA released a trove of evidence, the reality is the report released in 2011 had no new evidence, it was a complete rehash of previous reports, except this time the rhetoric was more politicised.

"they said makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device”

Notice how weak this wording is, "relevant to the development of a nuclear device", they have next to nothing.

"that the project may still be under way"

This implies it was previously underway, a fact that was also never proven, notice the crucial word here is may, no specifics, just vague general statements designed to give the reader the impression that Iran is developing nucs even though they have no new evidence. The material used was from 2004 just manipulated.

It's also well known that the unbiased former IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei was replaced because he was arriving at the wrong conclusions about the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, with american pressure he was replaced by Yukiya Amano, a man known to be more amenable to their interests i.e.

"In November 2010, British newspaper The Guardian reported on a U.S. diplomatic cable originating a year earlier in Vienna and supplied to the newspaper by WikiLeaks, detailing a meeting between Amano and an American ambassador. The author of the cable summarized a statement by Amano in which the latter offered that he "was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program."

"Yukiya Amano's election to the IAEA was a political appointment, heavily backed by the US administration, and that the IAEA report[12] on Iran's ability or desire to produce a nuclear weapon relies on no new evidence and that many experts in the IAEA"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukiya_Amano

Also, please check out this interview with the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, one of the few credible journalists within the mainstream media: http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/democracy_now_seymour_hersh_on_the_iaeas_racket_in_iran_20111121/

"as well as Iran hiding nuclear facilities does not persuade you that maybe they are doing something they don't want people to know about?"

You are severely misinformed, and speculating on this is a valueless exercise.

"THEY ARE NOT COMPLYING AT ALL!"

They are complying fully, you haven't a clue.

"You can interpret his comments how you want"

Well, ya, I'd rather take him on his word than take him on your biased war mongering word.

"but I have watched him speak countless times about how the holocaust is a hoax + a Nuclear Weapon=???"

I'm not saying he hasn;t said some wacky things, but how that justify anything? You seem to be giving these people far too little credit, they are about their own survival, they are even more rational than the US.

"I don't know, hence why I started the debate."

Ya, you don't know, I've been to the country for 3 months, I've been follwing this story quite closely for a long time, I can clearly see you are basing your opinion on biased war mongering propaganda that has very very very little truth to it.

"So I am assuming you have the answer to this then, I would love to hear it."

They are complying with the IAEA, so you don't have to do anything, your war mongering propaganda has simply implanted that idea in your head.

"Sanctions are intended to hurt the government not the people."

You are quite simply blind, but what should I expect from someone who holds your opinions, watch this and tell me that again (it's only 20seconds):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

"e. If the average Iranian does not like his hardships he should bring it up to his bat shit crazy government."

They could say the same about your bat shit crazy government you fucking hypocrite, Iran isn't responsible for killing over 600,000 people in Iraq since 2003 in an illegal invasion, get a fucking grip. Your country has committed genocide, you should be ashamed of your countries actions, you have no fucking right to preach to anyone.

"Iran can comply with sanctions and we would be glad to remove them."

I can guarantee you one thing my friend, and I speak from personal experience, Iran will not bow down to the US, they are proud people willing to die in order not to be your slaves, if you push them, they will push back, they are not crazy muslims like your media says, but they will not submit to domination. If you want to know what is really going on here, please read this article:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111122142555908626.html

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
1 point

Iran hasn't statrted any wars in over 300 years

I chose 60 to emphasize the US statistic.

I don't know what to say to this, it's a joke right?

There is no logical reason to prevent a nation from carrying out activities that we ourselves have engaged in for decades. Why are we urging Iran (who has been relatively compliant) to cease their nuclear program while we freely allow Israel (who refuses to comply with anyone's demands) to continue theirs. Sanctions are ineffective in pressuring the government when it truly effects only innocent parties. Even our UN representative had admitted that.

Actually the US has intervened in over 50 countries in the last 60 years, and many of them can be considered wars, much more than 5 anyway.

But it has only started 5 serious military engagements that would rival an invasion of Iran.

if you had won those wars, it would have all been worth it, is that what you mean? I mean, do you consider a few million dead here and there just collateral damage?

What? That is the exact opposite of what I am saying. The cost of our military imperialism has FAR FAR FAR exceeded the benefits (if there have been any). Why should we continue this failed policy? I think you misread my statements.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

we already intervened and it lead directly to the "islamic revolution". Toppling over democratically elected constitutional monarchs in favor of a us friendly absolute one eventually lead to the current situation. To be frank, the USA doesn't know how to act in it's own interest enough to Intervene.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

No, that's the only morally correct way. I was talking about the only realistic way. However much I wish they would, for at least the next ten years or so, there will be nuclear weapons on this planet. But yes, I agree, it's wrong to for NWS's to tell Iran not to develop weapons, and even worse for them to enforce the sort of sanctions that it has.

But I would imagine it would only take Israel renouncing there weapons, I cant imagine Iran's too threatened by India & Pakistan. I mean, obviously it wouldn't be unhappy if they did, but Israel is the only one that really worries them, I'd imagine.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

As an American though I know the devastation a Nuclear Weapon can cause

What? If you have a point, please explain it.

would like to be cautious about putting in the hands of unstable countries.

There's a difference between putting nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable countries, and ripping it out by robbing from its citizens and bombing its nuclear facilities (first bits being done, second bit's what the US is potentially going to allow Israel to do - it has already done this in Iraq).

What happens when there is an Iranian revolution much like Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and so on?

First of all, it's not going to happen. Iran's stable within its own country, definitely so without sanctions on it. It's a proud country, and very politically different to Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, or Syria. And there is zero chance that Iran would use a nuclear weapon on its own people, that's a senseless idea. Also, remember the Occupy movement, there's more of an American revolution going on right now than an Iranian one.

Didn't that genocidal and illegal war rid the world of Sadaam Husein and thousands of terrorists, including the one responsible for attacks on civilians on US soil?

Do you know how many civilians Sadaam Husein killed over the years? I think it was about 10,000 a year, for quite a while. Do you know how many Iraqi civilians were killed by the US military? Estimates reach over a million, depending on the source. But you've already said you were against Iraq, it feels like your clutching at straws here.

And as for Americans hating Iranian people, why did the American military rescue Iranian fisherman 3 times last month, and not the Iranian government?

The real question is why is the American military that close to Iranian land? That's a much bigger issue than that of 3 fishermen.

By the way, I also was for Western sanctions & intervention in Iran a few months ago, but after reading up on the subject, debating it, and just examining the morals behind it, I personally can't justify any action, or even sanctions really. It's purely hypocritical for any NWS to intervene to the extent that they would have to, simply to prevent/slow down Iran from getting something that the NWS has itself.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
1 point

only one argument - US should intervene to Iran not for creating democratic society, but for saving power as lider, and rescuing of falling economic. Any other reasons are only occasion.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"For starters I am merely playing devils advocate in order to foster debate, "

You're debating a very serious topic, so expect a serious response, we're debating the possibilty of a war that could potentially kill millions of people, the only reason you can be so non-chalant about it is because you know they won't be american lives. You'll be sitting back watching CNN with a can of bud in your hand while millions of Iranian's will be on their kness cowering in fear being blown apart with your bombs.

"so I wish you would quit with insults "

Observations not insults.

"nsinuations about who I am."

I have no idea who you are, but I know misinformation when I see it.

". I am not a war monger-er at al"

I disagree.

"s an American though I know the devastation a Nuclear Weapon can cause"

Really, I don't ever remember a nuke being launched on the US, you think because you dropped two atomic weapons on Japan that gives to the right to talk about the devastation a Nuclear Weapon can cause, I think the opposite. A japanese person knows the devastation a Nuclear Weapon can cause because they lived through, you are ignorant of the suffering you inflict on others around the world. I think because you are the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on another you should shut your mouth about it, any decent person would be ashamed of that part of their countries history, like the Germans are ashamed of their countries actions in WW2.

"would like to be cautious about putting in the hands of unstable countries. "

You started an illegal war that has killed well over 600,000 people, and you think you have the right to preach about the danger of unstable countries, wow.

"Besides the fact it's not out of the question that they could use it on their own people,"

Get a grip.

"n the article that I posted it stated "thousands" of documents pertaining only to creating nuclear weapons were found."

There isn't even a point in debating you, you won't listen to reason, you clearly didn't look at any of the links I provided.

"Either way, you can look at actual statements from the IAEA expressing concerns about Iran's intentions."

All you are doing is blowing meaningless hot air my friend.

"Didn't that genocidal and illegal war rid the world of Sadaam Husein and thousands of terrorists,"

How do you measure who a terrorist is? You supported Saddam when he was gasing kurds and encouraged him to invade Iran, you supplied him with his weapons arsenal, it was only in the late 80s early 90s when he disobeyed you that you turned against him. You have caused the deaths of millions in Iraqis over the last 2 decades, can you not see how crazy you sound, what are you trying to say, we need to kill millions of people in order to ensure millions of people don't die? You've got some twisted fucking logic my friend.

"including the one responsible for attacks on civilians on US soil? "

The claims that Saddam had links to AL Queda was debunked as blatantly false and intentionally fabricated lies a long time ago. I'm not surprised you don't know that.

"And as for Americans hating Iranian people, why did the American military rescue Iranian fisherman 3 times last month, and not the Iranian government?"

I never said the average american hates the Iranian people, what the hell do you think you are even proving in posting that?

If you want to know what is really going on here read the following article, I posted it already, I hope you will read it, if americans really knew what was going on they would not be in favour of any intervention:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111122142555908626.html

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"y going to allow Israel to do - it has already done this in Iraq)."

And Syria.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"There is no logical reason to prevent a nation from carrying out activities that we ourselves have engaged in for decades. Why are we urging Iran (who has been relatively compliant) to cease their nuclear program while we freely allow Israel (who refuses to comply with anyone's demands) to continue theirs. Sanctions are ineffective in pressuring the government when it truly effects only innocent parties. Even our UN representative had admitted that."

I apologise, I misinterpreted what you wrote.

"So why am I on this side?

We need to intervene by demanding all other countries cease sanctions on Iran, "

You do realise you are the ones forcing other countries to go along with these sanction, Europe has simply kowtowed to american pressure, europe is in nad shape, going along with this is not in Europes interest, Iran supplies 20% of our oil, america doesn't need to intervene anywhere to stop this, if it changed its policy, Isreal would be forced to change theirs. This is entirely dependent on the US, and they want to wipe out Iran because Iran represents the last bastion of real resistance to US domination of the middle east.

"What? That is the exact opposite of what I am saying."

Not necessarily, let me re-phrase it. If you had won a clear victory, if your polcies had worked out exactly as intended, and you had completely subdued the populations of the countries you had invaded at very little cost (i.e. not that much debt), would it have been worth it? I mean, would the loss of life simply have been collateral damage?

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
1 point

I would prefer you to not call stringently opinionated views "facts". I would really like you to attempt to expostulate how in any way the US democratic model is not democratic and unequal. I feel you will reach cessation before even the opprtuninty to stagnate, because I can not think of a more democratic model than that of the US.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

Hey, you're the same guy who never responded to any of my arguments on the USSR, why should I spend my time rebutting this if you're just not going to respond?

"You are in complete solidarity with Iran, with a pachyderm that is un-paralled by any normal person."

You know, using obscure and esoteric words in place of more common place words doesn't make you look like a better debator, I'm wasn't even going to respond to the above statement as it has zero value, but I feel impelled to point out that expressing solidarity with a group on certain issues of sovereignty or independence does not imply that I am in complete solidarity with them, their policies or their politics.

"That "3 months" in Iran has clearly gotten to your head"

How about we debate the issues, don't try to talk like you know anything about me.

"as your hatred of America ectypes that of the few extremists in that country."

This statement isn't worth the chemical bonds you severed in typing it.

"Your saying of the media being false, the media lying just to create a good story, doubting their word."

Ya, pretty much, why not try actually debating instead of just trying to slander me, for instance, if you beleive their word to be true, tell me why, tell me why my sources are wrong, all you're doing is throwing out your smalll minded opinion and trying to pass it off as a good argument.

"But then, you have the profligacy to denounce someone else for doubting the word of Iran,"

Nobody is taking Iran at their word, that is why the IAEA are currently in their country, and the latest reports show that they are very satisfied with their finding's, but we won;t hear about that on the mainstream media.

"Your insolence, saying whatever you wish to support your argument, leaves me truly flummoxed, for I thought only Mitt Romney was capable of such doing."

I have facts to back up my assertions, clearly you have none, I also don't resort to petty ad hominems which seems to be the primary weapon in your arsenal of debating tactics.

Yes, I'm insolent, I'm like Mitt Romney with a bad case of crabs, what is your point? You haven't really made one yet as far as I can tell, all you've done is resorted to opinion based ad hominems probably because you know if you argue with me directly I'll tear you a new asshole;-)

"Hypocrisy is a disease that has engulfed your mind, you cannot take the word of one just to deny that of another."

Please explain exactly how I am being hypocritical, seriously, I would like to know, I don't mean that disingenuously, again merely slandering me only makes you look bad, you seem incapable of explaining yourself, you bear all the hallmarks of a bad debator.

"You say they are not building nukes, and are complying with the IAEA, but I don't think causing frustration means complyment. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/transcripts/2011/wp140211.html "

Finally, something tangible!!! It took you while, had to get that mad rant out of the way first, eh? Actually, casuing frustration doesn't necessarily imply that they aren't complying.

Where exactly in that article doe it say Iran are not complying, do you not think if Iran stoppped complying it would be the top story on every US media station? Do you seriously think you are proving they are not complying by posting this interview with the head of the IAEA Yukiya Amano who american put in power because the former head Mohamed El Baradei was arriving at the wrong conclusions (see above argument).

What exactly do you think this article proves, because it isn't Iran's non compliance. It's appraent to anyone with a brain that they are complying fully. The standard for non-compliance isn't a little frustration in the process of inquiry, but that fact has clearly escaped you.

"And there history with this is one of disobeying, http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iran_timeline2.shtml "

This details the difficulty experienced by the IAEA in 2005, along with it's failure to comply fully in September of that year, it definitely doesn't document a history of disobeying, what do you think qualifies as disobeying?

Also, Isreal has 300 nuc's, and hasn't ever singed the non-proliferation treaty like Iran, nor has it allowed IAEA inspectors into it's country, does that not seem a little hypocritical to you? Oh wait, but Iran are crazy muslims, not like Isreal, Isreal have never breached international law have they.

"Try to call the IAEA "war mongers""

Please show me where I called the IAEA war mongers.

"How dare you accuse the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of genocide, of an illegal invasion."

The US invaded Iraq illegally, this is a well established fact among people who care about the truth, even Richard Pearle the then advisor to the US defence secretary admitted the invasion was illegal, i.e.

"nfluential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." "

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1

The the head of UN Kofi Annan concurred, i.e.

"Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter"

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm

The war killed (depending on what estimate you beleive) upwards of 600,000 people, that's almost the same number killed in the Rwandan genocide, please explain why it should not be interpreted as genocide, and why the Iraq war was, in fact, legal.

"It was a result in the death of sons, the death of Americans. We Americans were grieving, grieving for the needless attack against the country we love."

It is abundantly clear to me that you haven't a clue about the issue's which you are discussing, I could try to tell you about all the horrible deeds your country is guilty of committing, the millions of deaths your country caused which gave rise to the extremism which led to 9/11, but I can tell I'd be wasting my breath.

"We were vengeful, vengeful at the SOB'S such as yourself who applauded the attack on the day 9/11"

You can't type two sentences without resorting to an ad hominem, can you? To claim that I would applaud the deaths of over 3,000 innocent civilians is deeply insulting, and not worthy of a serious reply, also, being vengeful is a pathetic excuse for the rape and pilage of another peoples country which resulted in deaths of over 600,000 of them.

"I feel for those in Iraq who were not part of the attack"

I doubt that since you are trying to deny genocide ever took place.

"but they it is the fault of those in the insurgency for the death of civilians"

All people have the legal right to resist a foreign occupier, the insurgency were entirely justified in resisting the foreign troops invading their country, you clearly know nothing about international law, what if China inavded the US, would the deaths of civilians be the fault of the US citizens who resisted the Chinese occupation?

You see, you falsely accuse me of being a hypocrite while providing no evidence for the claim, or any real explanation, but your own hypocrisy is as clear a day, can you not see that?

"Your rampant accusations of the U.S. disgust me"

Why not try hammering out the issues, I can promise you that I have a logical and rational explanation for every position I hold, my accusations are based on facts, if you're a too small minded to be open to the truth, even if that truth may upset you, that is your problem, go fling your mud elsewhere.

"I am NOT disgusted by a country that protects her and her allies."

Your views are too infantile to be taken seriously, and not borne out by the facts.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"s an American though I know the devastation a Nuclear Weapon can cause and would like to be cautious about putting in the hands of unstable countries."

You know nothing about the devastation a Nuclear Weapon can cause, just because you dropped two fo them onto Japan you think that gives you the righ to preach about their devastation, you're unbeleivable.

Iran is only an unstable coutnry in the eyes of the West.

"Didn't that genocidal and illegal war rid the world of Sadaam Husein "

What you mean your former ally, who you funded and propped up when he was gasing Kurds, and who you funded when he attacked Iran, again, you're unbeleivable.

"nd thousands of terrorists, including the one responsible for attacks on civilians on US soil? "

The fact that you beleive a lie intentionally fabricated by the US administration, and subsequently debunked after the invasion speaks volumes about you my friend.

"And as for Americans hating Iranian people, why did the American military rescue Iranian fisherman 3 times last month, and not the Iranian government"

I never said american hate Iranians, you are being trained to fear them and hate them so the eventual invasion won't hurt your feelings so much.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"America does support dictators, not for their regime, I hope."

Your hope is misplaced, they support them becauwse of their regime, this is a fact, the US uses dictators or slave democracies as a mean of controlling countries in the middle east, and having privileged access to their resources, your countries motives are not noble, they are ignoble.

"I do know they do support them if they support "the war on terror""

The so called "war on terror" was fabricated as means of further US global hegemony, it is better known by non-americans as the "war of terror", you call others terrorists while you invade their countries and kill hundreds of thousands of them.

"as one reason (such as with Saudi Arabia)"

It has nothing to with opposing terrorism, the Saudi regime is probably the worst place in the world to live (maybe North Korea), it is literally hell on earth, but it does the bidding of the US, and has a lot of oil, so the US keeps it going, supplied it with the latest military hardware, which it used this year to repress the people of Bahrain when they tried to demand freedom, this is all about power, oil, and domination.

"but I could not tell you the others reasons."

I wonder why.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

These were the only two points worth answering:

"The thing is they support terrorist organizations, which in itself is an act of war."

You support terrorist organisations all over the world, the MEK is a prime example, they have been performing suicide bombings in Iran for decades at the behest at the behest of the US, is that not an act of war?

Okay, let's look at these so called "terrorists" Iran is supporting, Iran provides support to Hezzbollah, a democratically elected political party and militant group in Lebanon, Hamas another "terrorist" group was elected democratically in Gaza, but the USA and Isreal refused to recognise their legitmacy as the people voted the wrong way in a democratic election, this isn't a mere isolated incident, the US's track record shows it doesn't give a dam about democracy, that has been demonsrated time and time again, the US cares about domination, and Iran is currently the last bastion of resistance to US domination left in the middle east

Your view of terrorism is so hypocritical, it's hard to take you seriously.

"taking terrorism to a new level"

The US is the only country that has taken terrorism to a new level, I can assure you.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"Why not try hammering out the issues, I can promise you that I have a logical and rational explanation for every position I hold, my accusations are based on facts, if you're a too small minded to be open to the truth, even if that truth may upset you, that is your problem, go fling your mud elsewhere

This is just one example of your hipocrisy, not one justification, only insults. Your arogance is incesant and blinding, trying to make the U.S. a horrible country, I assure you, is a battle you will lose."

Wow, you have the cheek to accuse me of insulting you, and then calling me a hypocrite, you call me delusional while simultaneously failing to apply your own high standard to yourself. Go re-read your own argument.

"The 9/11 attack was justification for that attack on Iraq."

This proves you have no idea what you are talking about, you simply haven't a clue, I'm not saying this just to insult you, if someone else showed this argument to me I would say the same thing. As I said in an argument above the claims that Saddam had links to AL Queda was debunked as blatantly false and intentionally fabricated lies a long time ago. No links between Al Queda and Saddam were ever found, Saddam's regime was atheististic, Al Queda was his sworn enemy, if you knew anything you'd know that, how are so ignorant that you don't know this?

The links were fabricated intentionally like the WMDs, this has already been conclusively disproven, you're incredibly ignorant of recent history, the kind of history that every american should be well aware of, i.e.

"In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

"But why debate you on an issue already proven? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml "

Are you actually serious? I simply can't debate with this level of ignorance. The source is a pathetic attempt to link Saddam and AL Queda, serious people dismiss propagandised garbage such as this without a second thought, you simply can't tell fact from fiction. If you want to see a proper debate (to kknwo what you're doing wrong) check my debates with the US Marine Bohemian (tiger avatar):

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Maybe_they_should_NOT_have_danced_on_the_streets_on_9_11#arg224277

"I wonder, what you would call the acts of Russia and China, supporting the killing of innocent rebels in Syria,that is an act of genocide, America has justification. They do not."

You just don't have a clue.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

I think I gave you far more credit than you originally deserved.

"The insurgents did not represent the consensus among the Iraqi people"

There doesn't have to be a consensus, if China invades america people don't have to get together and vote on whether they should resist, some will, some won't. You haven't a clue about what you talking about, and it is glaringly obvious.

"the resistance is comprised of extremists."

Extremist is a relative term.

"You are also implying that Americas intentions represent that of an imperilistic nation, "

That's exactly right, because they are, all great powers are imperialists, the bed time story you beleive is just something to keep the masses apathetic and ignorant.

"which is clearly false."

Clearly.

"They are clearly as much at fault for civilian deaths as America"

Yes, it's all very clear in your head isn't it.

"America TRIES to limit colateral damage"

Sure it does, that's why before the second Iraq war they imposed crippling sanctions that caused the deaths of over 1 million of the poorest weakest people in the country, and 500,000 of them were children, they imposed these sanctions in order to starve the people of food and medicine in the hopes that they would rise up and overthrow Saddam, incidentally this is also what is being done to Iran, although Iran is much more powerful and can cope. But look what the then secretary of state Madeline Albright had to say when questioned about it:

Albright brushes aside the deaths of 500,000 children

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
1 point

I'm not sure if I would feel safe with a country such as Iran having nuclear capability

Do you feel comfortable that China has nukes? Or the fact that N. Korea has nukes? That isn't grounds for war.

they have readily chanted "death to Israel....death to America."

And we have readily chanted "Death to Iran."

The thing is they support terrorist organizations

As did we when we supplied Afghanistanis with weapons to fight the Soviets. And we do today by giving money to the Pakistani government who then gives money to terrorists.

which in itself is an act of war

How?

they will provide those organizations with nukes

I don't think you realize how incredibly unfeasible that is.

the solidarity between the two could have deathly repercussions.

And going to war with Iran wouldn't?

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"Firstly, America is not the only country to consider hamas a terrorist organization, not a country. You pointed out Israel, but failed to recognize the other two countries; Japan and Canada."

So what? Who gives a dam whether certain countries consider them this or that, they were democratically elected, other countries are supposed to respect the sovereignty of others, that's why we have international law, you seem to be skipping over the very obvious fact that you didn't acknowledge their political legitimacy even thought they were elected.

"Switzerland a country that provides assylum to those who brake the law"

Really, your own country is quite good at providing aslym to terrorists and murders who have done the bidding of the US. The contras, the school of the americas, the MEK, the Mujahadin, the list is endless.

"I am not sure what "track record" you are talking about,"

The entire history of US foreign policy since the end of the 2nd world war, of which you are completely ignorant, and when I say completely, I really mean it.

"America supported the Egyptian rebels against their ally, Hosni Mubarak, in the support of democracy"

Firstly, Mubarak was a US puppet, the US supports their puppets until their position becomes untenable, they replace him with another puppet, this has been done time and time again all over the world, in Asia and Latin america and Africa and Middle East, and this case is no different, i.e.

"AUTHORITY forgets a dying king. So said Tennyson. America, on the other hand, was in no rush at the start of the fast-moving changes in Egypt to give up on Hosni Mubarak. Soon after the demonstrations began, Vice-President Joe Biden called Mr Mubarak an ally and Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, said his government was “stable”. Not until the game looked almost up for Egypt’s president did the Obama administration begin to call for an “orderly transition”. And not until the evening of February 1st did Barack Obama himself declare, after a phone call to Mr Mubarak, that the transition “must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.”

Now that Mubarak is gone the military is the new dictatorship, fully backed by the US of course, but the people are still demanding freedom, freedom which you are opposed to.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/18065673

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8289686/Egypt-protests-Americas-secret-backing-for-rebel-leaders-behind-uprising.html"

This doesn't prove anything, the riots weren't due to the fact that one dissident was granted a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, it boggles me mind what you think you are proving here, maybe I'm just can't see what you see.

"They supported libian rebels in the name of democracy, giving them everything necessary to overthrow their dictatorship"

Yes, they also broke international law in the process, which is one of the primary reason Russia and China are so reluctant to allow something similar to happen in Syria. Have you check out what Lybia has become since? People are being killed just for mentioning Gaddafi, it's lawless, roaming mobs with machines rule most areas, the West didn't intervene for any noble reason, how people are stupid enough to beleive that I will never know, Lybia has lots of oil, water, and resources, Gaddafi was planning to set up an african currency to rival the dollar, and was demanding he be paid in gold.

"America voted for the assistance of Sryian rebels,to allow them to have the freedoms in which they deserve. "

Were talking about sovereignty here, we have inadequate information, we know Al Queda is operating there, and there is evidence that the US (and others) are providing them with weapons and funding.

"But instead, Russia and China choose to partake in the genocide occuring in the country,"

Russia and China have been pushing for a diplomatic solution since it began, the problem is the opposition groups are being told by america and west not to go into any negotiations, and so they won't becuase they know they are being backed by the west, the west doesn't give two fucks how many Syrian die, just like they didn't give a fuck how many libyans died, their bombs killed more ibyans than Gaadafi ever would have, and now the country is exactly the way they wanted it, divided, lawless, and easily exploited, this is the truth, whther you want to hear it or not, it's called divide and conquer.

Syria is just a percursor to invading Iran, they are trying to destroy Iran allies to weaken and isolate it, Iran is not a crazy country, it is far more democractic than most US allies in the region, this is all about power, Iran represents the only real tangible threat to US power in the region.

"they are effectivly the cause for thousands of deaths, not America."

It's far more complex than that, but I don't expect you to understand.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

That's it, don't argue against any of my points, don't try to address anything, just shut your eyes and ears, and spew out your nationlistic propaganda.

You either don't know how to debate, or don't want to, I don't need to answer what you just wrote, you've gone completely off on a rant that bears no relation to the previous post, come back when you actually want to debate.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
1 point

We musn't intervene in this. We don't have the money for one. Far more important than that, I don't want people to die over someone else's conflict. Ever see a map of our military bases in the middle east? Dozens of them surround Iran, yet THEY are the threat?

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"Your joking right?"

Honestly, I'm not.

"You are either playing dum, or just ignorant by nature."

You haven't responded to any my arguments, unfortunately for you throwing insults can't change that.

"That post, was in direct correlation with "The insurgents did not represent the consensus among the Iraqi people"

How? Let's look at it piece by piece:

"Operation Iraqi Freedom: also called the second Iraq war, was meant to end the dictator ship of Saddam Hussien and end terrorist oganization in the country."

This has nothing to do with anything I posted, it is nothing but an nationalistic affirmation of the official US position on the war, how does it dispute anything I said?

The problem with this statement is that it is easily brushed aside as meaningless by considering all the dictatorships that sponsor terrorism that the US supports, and in fact puts into power. You are blind to the fact that the US commits more acts of terrorism than any other group.

"It is not the war you make it out to be, they tried to implement a democratic society and remove terror organization."

Again, this doesn't refute or disupte anything any I said, you provide nothing tangible to back up what you're saying except the offical dogma which has been completely discredited.

"While doing this, they provided aide to civilians affected, again making it a completly different kind of war than you make it out to be."

Yep, you've completely proved me wrong, despite that fact that you haven't successfully refuted a single thing I've said, and clearly have no idea how a debate is supposed to be conducted.

"and your wrong assertion of the Iraq war being all out."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

"But, then again,you clearly do not have the aptitude to find the meaning in anything."

See my second statement.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"That article was only to show why the U.S. started the war, because at that time, Saddam was linked to Al Queda."

So you're saying the lies intentionally fabricated by the US administration serve as justification for an illegal invasion that resulted in 600,000 Iraqis dead?

"If you would check the date of the report, it was 2002. Just incase you forgot, at this time, the two were linked."

No, I hadn't forgot, 9/11 was linked to Saddam in order to manufacture the consent of the US population, so they wouldn't feel so bad about dropping loads of bombs on top of impoverisheed brown people.

"This proves what i said, at the start of the war, their was evidence to show that their were ties between the two, it was only years later that we discovered there was actually no tie, when it was too late to back out."

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? The US had no evidence, it was intentionally fabricated, remember Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, the claims that any evidence ever existed between Saddam and 9/11 were debunked, the US administration were caught blatantly lying in order to secure the approval of the US population for an imperialistic war, I don't see why I should waste my time explaining something as elementary as this.

"You fail to see the point in anything, your blinded by arrogance,"

Yes, I'm blind and ignorant.

"as this statement makes blantinly clear."

If you actually checked that debate you'd realise the stark difference between this debate and that one, you can't debate, you have no idea what you're talking about.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
1 point

And to claim that you can't think of anywhere else that is more democratic is an awful argument. Just as in anything else, you support something on its own reasoning, rather than the lack of others. Even if it was the best democracy, that doesn't make it a pure democracy.”

This is true.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not

"That response was in correlation to when you accused the united states of genocide"

You don't consider the illegal invasion of a country resulting 600,000 dead genocide?

"calling it all out war with Iraq, which is what that quote says."

You clearly have no idea what the quote says.

"I suppose you don’t remember that statement"

Can you read? Look at the statement:

"Sure it does, that's why before the second Iraq war they imposed crippling sanctions that caused the deaths of over 1 million of the poorest weakest people in the country, and 500,000 of them were children, they imposed these sanctions in order to starve the people of food and medicine in the hopes that they would rise up and overthrow Saddam, incidentally this is also what is being done to Iran, although Iran is much more powerful and can cope. But look what the then secretary of state Madeline Albright had to say when questioned about it:"

This does not reference the 2003 invasion at all.

"Now again, America was not involved in an all out war with Iraq like you make it to be:"

Let's a establish first what you think an all out war is. In my opinion it is when one country invades an other and destroy that countries military apparatus (i.e. the only thing that can defend a country from potential aggressors) in order to further their own imperialistic interests. Do you except that definition?

"http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/04/operation-iraqi-freedom-military-objectives-met "

What do you think you are proving by posting a link from a far right propaganda think tank?

"Your ignorance is becoming annoying"

Ya, I'm the ignorant one.

"that article was to show you justification for starting the war"

I know exactly what it was supposed to do, unfortunately your coutnry can't simply decide when they want to invade other countries, e.g. China want's to free the people of Saudi Arabia from the ruthless US backed regime, so they draw up a plan with 8 objectives, and they make up some bullshit about the Saudi's building nuc's and Chemical weapons and funding Al Queda (that part wouldn't actually be bullshit) to appease their population, they just want to free the people, help them achieve democracy, you know. So, by your logic China has perfect justification to invade. Never mind international law, Donald Rumsfeld says it ok, he says they just want to help the people.

2 years ago | Side: No, America should not
1 point

What happened in Vietnam? AND in North Korea AND in Iraq AND in Afghanistan??? And have we forgotten what the CIA did 55 years ago to the Iranian administration? The overthrow of the supposedly 'hostile' Iranian government by the CIA in the 50's was one of the first signs of the evil, oil-hungry agenda of the United States of America. And now are we gonna believe that suddenly they have somehow cleansed their intentions?

The USA are only doing this for their oil. And frankly, the Iranians are better off without the power-hungry Americans on their soil

1 year ago | Side: No, America should not


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.