CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
36
Yes, because No, because
Debate Score:72
Arguments:43
Total Votes:100
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because (24)
 
 No, because (18)

Debate Creator

ta9798(316) pic



Are we going to attack Iran and why or why not?

What does history say? What do you say?

Yes, because

Side Score: 36
VS.

No, because

Side Score: 36

Yes because:

1. We want their oil

2. It'll slow global warming

3. It'll reduce the terrorist threat and rush hour traffic

4. Their men have homosexual tendencies

5. They follow the wrong religion

6. They aren't pro-U.S.

7. It's easier to let God sort them out

8. The media needs something new to write about

9. They are enriching Uranium

10. We don't need a new map of present day Israel

There. Did I offend everyone?

-j

Side: Yes, because
1 point

Do you have facts for some of these claims?

How will invading Iran slow global warming? If we attack there for oil then not only will we increase our oil consumption(military vehicles) but if somehow we managed to win such an invasion we would have plenty of oil(for a few years) and probably use more.

the US government said that attacking Iraq would reduce terrorism in the middle east. Has it?

How do you know their men have homosexual tendencies? this is a gross overstatement of what isn't even a proven fact.

extremists of most religions are bad, but Islam is not wrong, it is just a different belief system that people follow.

yes they arn't pro-us but that gives us no reason to invade them. The US has not been the kindest nation to iran, why should they like us?

the comment "wipe Israel off the map" that i believe you are referencing has been taken out of context to support pro-israeli causes. the US and israel have said very similar things about iran, yet you don't hear anyone in an uproar about that. there is no reason why any nation's peoples should be any more superior than another if you are going to use an out of context reference on one group you should do the same towards all others, or better yet don't do it in the first place.

i don't know if this was a joke or what but it was beliefs like this that got America into Iraq. i fear that if these beliefs continue we will attack Iran, even though we don't have the military power or moral right to do so.

Side: No, because
0 points

twas a joke, my friend

Side: Yes, because
1 point

First.

Side: Yes, because

I'm partial to number seven myself. ;)

Side: Yes, because
1 point

Well, this is your first post.......

At least we didn't attack Iran sometime during the past 1586 days...at least not "officially".

Side: No, because

November hasn't come and gone. And if Romney wins, we'll have another 4 years ;)

Side: No, because
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

And then the legend began.

Side: Yes, because
1 point

Your first post. I feel so proud. ;)

Side: Yes, because
Side: Yes, because
2 points

Yes, we are going to attack Iran. The reason given to the public will probably be something along the lines of how it's a breeding ground for terrorists, but the actual reason will be much more subversive. It's about creating large financial benefits for the world's richest and most powerful.

See, although the war in Iraq has cost the US government around 3 trillion dollars, individual corporations such as BP and Halliburton (and many, many more) have profited from this war by privatizing Iraq's economy, right down to it's water system. The heads of these corporations are getting filthy rich, and the US government is bending and creating laws that are helping them do just that, because the individual politicians stand to personally benefit from it come election day.

Iran's economy is next on the list to be privatized by these corporations. Iran is being positioned in the news as a threat slowly but surely in order to gain support (or at least less criticism) for the imminent war. However, the real reason behind it has nothing to do with the safety of the US or Israel or the world. It's about individual corporations, political leaders, and CEOs enjoying a large financial gain by creating chaos.

Depressing? Yes. But sadly, disaster capitalism is very, very real, and because of that, so is a future war with Iran.

Side: Yes, because
1 point

Here's a nice summary of how disaster capitalism works, for those that are interested.

Supporting Evidence: The Shock Doctrine Short Film (hbpub.vo.llnwd.net)
Side: Yes, because
1 point

And don't forget, that attacking Iran could help to bring victory to McCain. I'm not even sure, whether there are influential people, who are eager to see Armageddon in their lifetime. Think about Rev. Hagee!

Side: Yes, because
1 point

Yes, we are going to attack Iran in the near future. The US has already condemned Hizbollah as a terrorist organization, and after what has been going on in Lebanon and Israel recently I think that war with Iran is closer than you may believe.

Side: Yes, because
0 points

I definitely must agree. How can we be in Iraq freeing them from an already-defeated terrorist regime when an alive and well terrorist regime is only hours away? Especially when the terrorists in Iran are sending weapons and money to the militant rebels in Iraq.

Side: Yes, because
Szechuan(101) Disputed
1 point

"Terrorist regime." That's a nice phrase to throw around carelessly.

Did you forget that the CIA carried out a military coup against the Shah of Iran in the 1950s? Terrorism is a matter of perspective. The reason fundamentalist groups in the Middle East hate America is because they are tired of us occupying their holy land and destabilizing governments.

Do some independent research before you endorse what you hear in the mainstream media. Google is your friend.

Supporting Evidence: the CIA plot (www.nytimes.com)
Side: No, because
1 point

Yes. Everything points in that direction. The media attention drawn to Iran's president when he last visited. The ranking of Iran's military as a terrorist organization.

At least all the excuses are there, there is only need of a economic climate to launch an attack.

Side: Yes, because
1 point

It's very much a possibility if the Republicans loose this election.

Why wouldn't the Bush administation start a conflict with Iran just

before a newly elected Democratic administration takes over?

I wouldn't put it past the neocon think tanks.

Side: Yes, because
2 points

Yes this is something i fear was well. If they did they may have stuff against obama for the next election. They have proven that winning is far more important than what is best for the country, at least for them and i wouldn't deny they have the cruelty to do so again.

Side: Yes, because
1 point

we should for some obvious reasons. one they are a huge and known supporter of terrorist, well most middle east countries are, but they effect us directly because they train insurgents and send them to Iraq to fight us. 2 they are trying to get nukes to hurt Israel the #1 ally of America whether you like it or not. and 3 they are country trying to impose a communism on its people that we fought against for 40 years.

Side: Yes, because
0 points

They have a lot of oil the United States cannot access from without their border. Oil is vital for the growth of any economy therefore, the US needs to invade and secure the oil resource for the future of American citizens.

Side: Yes, because
-3 points
4 points

No, we are not going to attack Iran unless we are provoked. As much backlash as there has been due to the Iraq war I find it highly unlikely that our government would approve another war.

Besides, our troops are stretched thin enough as it is. We simply don't have the manpower to add another "front" to the "War on Terror".

Side: No, because

I think it is unlikely. I am sure the idea is being floated around the White House, it's obvious they want it. However, they have tried a few tests to see if the American public would go for such a thing (such as that stand-off between the U.S. navy and Iranian gunboats a month or so ago), however it didn't go very well. These incidents showed that the American public is extremely reluctant to go for such a ploy.

The Republicans are probably waiting to see how the presidential elections go. You can be sure that if McCain wins the presidency we will be in Iran towards the end of his first term or around the beginning of his second.

Of course, If Obama wins it is extremely unlikely that we'll end up in that country, barring an outright attack by them on us.

Side: No, because
3 points

War is a mechanism of economy. If resources are perceived as low, the the troops go out and acquire said resources. The question of whether or not Iran will be attacked hinges on a number of factors though namely:

- Can Bush justify sending more troops into a foreign country to pick a fight that, from the experiences with Iraq, will probably prove fruitless? My answer - with leaders like Obama inciting the concept of change, based on the American population's increasing irritation with the war, Bush will probably struggle to find enough national acceptance to give his economic backers what they want

- Can America effectively handle a gorilla war that involves nuclear devices? Since Iran won't be on the offense, they have very little to lose in using WMD's. The US on the other hand don't want to use nuclear weapons because they still need a society to serve their economic needs (a.k.a oil gluttony). Once again, the risk is too high.

Moreso because they can effectively use their weapons in Iraq (with so many American soldiers based there, they need not focus on the actual continent to prove their point) and maybe even take over that particular region

The question remains though how the American government will respond to the belief that they are heading for an economic recession that, should food, water, housing, energy and the resulting inflation spike taken into account, could result in a global depression. America under Bush administrations (current and past) responded with war to increase government spending as a means to stimulate the economy.

With Bush so close to the end of his term, and possibly facing impeachment, he will probably fail to pull the literal and proverbial trigger on this one.

Side: No, because
3 points

'We'? Not everyone on this site is American, FYI.

Side: No, because
1 point

Hehe, my profile may state otherwise, but this is true for me as well!

Side: No, because
2 points

I think Barack Obama put it best:

"I'm not opposed to all wars, just dumb wars."

There's no sense in continuing to go down the same wrong path that we have been pursuing for the last 8 years. We don't need the oil in the middle east, we need to become energy-sufficient.

Side: No, because
2 points

no because they have a million plus in their ground army alone. Most people don't know that Tehran is one of the most westernized cities in the entire middle east and Iran(pronounced ee-ron) has more jews than any other country in the mid-east. While i don't agree with their fascist government, i would oppose going to start another costly war with people who mostly don't hate us. My best friend's father is Iranian anfd he is one of the nicest people i have ever met. The young people of Iran are modern and intelligent and typically regard the old guard as outdated. Time will bring them closer to us, not bombs or guns.

Side: No, because
1 point

I thought the idea of these wars was to stop terror? Well, we've learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan that they have the opposite effect. We need to leave Iran alone, unless they attack Israel.

Side: No, because
Insania(13) Disputed
1 point

Israel is far more likely to throw the first punch.

They already have nukes.

Side: Yes, because
-1 points

Wait a minute, the terrorist haven't attacked us at home since the war so far; our troops must be doing something right.

Anyway, in order to stop terror dead on its tracks is to get our population to stop being afraid every time some one blows themselves (and God knows how many other innocent people) up. I mean, life is a sexually transmitted, terminal disease. If you're infected with life, you're going to die. No one has survived it yet, mate.

So if we get the population to stop being afraid then we will be able to think clearly as to what our response should be. And if our response is to ignore the buggers, then they may just go away.

We can also be a little more sensitive to their wants and needs. For example, we all need to be more careful about our choice of words. I mean, Islamic terrorists do not like to be called "Rag Heads" because the item they wear on their heads is not actually a rag, but in fact, a small folded sheet. Therefore, from this point forward, please refer to them as "Little Sheet Heads."

Also we must remember to maintain our composure at all times especially during such stressful terror situations. So, if you must express yourself verbally, please use the following phrase, "Holy Shiite!!!" every time some one blows themselves up.

Anyway, there's tons of stuff we can do but I'm getting sleepy so I'm going to bed. We can solve all of the world's problems tomorrow. It has been a mess for quite a long time and one more day isn't going to make a difference. Viva la difference.

Side: Yes, because
1 point

There needs to be a reason that's justifiable.

Currently, there are none.

Side: No, because
1 point

No, we will not attack Iran. Well, we aren't going to invade Iran. Thanks to the President of the United States the U.S. doesn't have the money to invade Iran. We simply don't have the money or economy to to sustain an attack on Iran.

Side: No, because
1 point

because, not that the USA has all of a sudden grown a conscious (well at least the Republicans have not) but they would find Iran a harder opponent than the bankrupt forces of Iraq were. over the past 5 years Iran has armed it self well and would be a stubborn enemy. if the Allies were to attack they would also need just cause and i do not think Iran will call Americas bluff. to put it simply America Hate Iran, however America loves money

and the fact that it would be political suicide for a president to go to war in this political climate. (the American people are not as blind as they were post Iraq)

Side: No, because
1 point

It really depends who is elected president.

If Obama wins, we probably won't, seeing as he has promised to get us out of the Middle East.

I don't know what would happen if McCain won, though. We might.

I personally think that's it's too far away to be discussing a full-out attack right now.

Side: No, because
1 point

No, because we are worth more than that.

We have the ability to think and reason and find peace through logic and rational thought.

We cannot simply attack people because we disagree with them. It's not ok to hurt people just because you're stronger or feel you are righteous.

We should defend the borders of our country from opposing countries, but we have no need to attack other countries.

This is the 21st century. We have advanced.

Side: No, because