CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Iran may have made threats when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, but they don't have the military power to do anything but be a minor nuisance in those area waters. Their navy is a joke.
And what exactly constitutes a threat in your mind? I don't believe Iran has any plans to attack the US, it seems rather obvious to me that the US are trying to stop Iran from achieving their legitimate goals and aspirations as a sovereign nation because the existence of a powerful country in the middle east that isn't subservient to US interests threatens US hegemony in the region.
"If Iran threatens to close or obstruct the straight of Hormuz? Yes."
The US hasn't just threatened sanctions, it has implemented them, even though they have very little international backing, and they have caused the Iranian Rial to depreciate by 40% relative to the dollar in the last week alone, most countries would consider that an act of war, but obviously you only care about your own "potential" suffering.
"If Iran gets nuclear weapons? Yes."
So Israel's nuclear arsenal is of no concern to you? It's not as if they have demonstrated a propensity for invading sovereign nations.
Well, Iran doesn't have nukes, they are in the process of developing researching nuclear energy, but have no nuclear weapons. Honestly, I don't have a problem with other countries having nukes, but Iran is a different story, even radical muslims are scared of Iran because there have been rumors that Iran wants to start a war which will bring the 12 emons (not sure if I spelt it right) back, although this sounds crazy, there are many crazy people in all faiths.
You must know something the rest of the world doesn't. But if that is true or if they were to develop them, it would be a violation of the NPT, of which they are signatory.
I've got a lot of Persian friends. I would hate for them to be thrown in internment camps, or be unable to go visit their friends and families in Iran.
I think there have been enough wars in the past, and I see no need for more. It benefits no one, and causes so many deaths. We, as in the world, should be working on creating peace among each other.
Isn't the duty of the just to impose justice on the unjust? Imagine each sovereign as an individual: a powerful man has allies with a less powerful man. A bully begins quarreling with the weaker ally. The bully's threats become more serious and more credible over time. Should the powerful ally wait until after the bully has perhaps irreparably harmed the weaker ally, or is preemptive action justified? It's certainly thought so in our justice system.
"Isn't the duty of the just to impose justice on the unjust?"
Apologies for answering your question with another question, but, what in the world allowed you to come to the ridiculously fantastical conclusion that your nation is somehow just?
You didn't have to. By bringing up the US's moral quality when it isn't at issue ("the just" can refer to those in pursuit of justice; this isn't some "cast the first stone" business), you're derailing the discussion.
"You didn't have to. By bringing up the US's moral quality when it isn't at issue"
You're the one implicitly disputing the notion of moral relativism by separating groups into the "just" and the "unjust." In doing so you implicitly brought up the US's moral quality, as well as that of Iran, and by extension all other nations.
""the just" can refer to those in pursuit of justice; this isn't some "cast the first stone" business"
You seem to have a very clear understanding of exactly what constitutes the "pursuit of justice", therefore you must have a very clear notion of constitutes "justice", I would be very grateful if you'd supply me with your definition of justice.
"you're derailing the discussion."
No I'm not, I'm broadening the discussion to highlight its inadequacy.
In doing so you implicitly brought up the US's moral quality,
How? If I were to contest abstractly that the quality of food is subjective, that shouldn't be taken as an invitation to talk about whether pizza is objectively the best food. You're confusing relation with relevance.
You seem to have a very clear understanding of exactly what constitutes the "pursuit of justice"
I don't, actually; I'm baiting. I'm waiting for someone to object to what I'm calling just and tell me why it isn't, in which I might evaluate their reasoning and decide whether I agree with them. The reason I start discussions isn't out of great conviction that mine is the correct position, but for the purpose of seeing the merits of different viewpoints laid out by their believers. I'm about as unsure of this as I am of anything, which I mentioned elsewhere in the thread.
I'm broadening the discussion to highlight its inadequacy.
Since 1950, the United States has invaded some 30 nations while Iran has invaded zero. Who is the greater threat to world peace? The policing of the most end.
We have reason to believe the same isn't true of Iran.
Who is we? The general public or the government. If the public, I don't believe it, so it isn't we, and if the government, well, it lies for the general benefit of the big government machine, and it is to get power and control.
If Iran has been unwilling to invade any country, it is safe to assume that it doesn't plan on using nuclear weaponry.
There is little evidence that Iran plans to 'annihilate' Israel, or any other nation, with nuclear weaponry. Behind a few misquotes in US news, most credible reports imply that Iran has no intention of this, and even with nukes, would not have the capability - Israel & the US would be able to destroy its nukes before they got to Israel - and Iran would be destroyed if this did happen. Iran may be radical, but it is not irrational, it will not attack Israel.
We should do what we did in WWII. We wait for Iran and Israel to start battling it out, then we wait to see who else is going to join in on the fray and then..., once everyone is exhausted..., we ride in, mop up and come out looking like heroes ;)
There's no reason for the USA to declare war on Iran. Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy as an alternative to petroleum, which is going to eventually run out anyways. Iran currently relies very heavily on others to refine the petroleum that they produce, and, while I don't support nuclear energy myself, Iran was given the go-ahead by the West under the Shah to develop nuclear energy. I personally think that a better solution for Iran's energy problems would better lie with wind, solar or geothermal energy, or other countries could provide Iran with enough nuclear fuel to power as many reactors as they want. In the very recent past, the USA has taken weapons-grade nuclear fuel from counties (like Mexico) that didn't want to have to safeguard it anymore...we could do the same thing with Iran if need be.
If I was Iranian & I saw what happened under the GWB Regime with the "Axis of Evil" countries (Iran, Iraq & North Korea), I'd want a nuclear weapon yesterday, not several years from now. Our potential adversaries unfortunately were shown under GWB that we'll leave you alone if you have even a crude nuclear weapon (North Korea) or we'll invade you & topple your regime (Iraq) if you don't have a nuclear weapon.
The USA doesn't need to strike Iran for Israel, since Israel is very capable of defending themselves (with nuclear weapons if need be). The mullahs that run Iran currently aren't going to attack Israel & risk their own destruction...they are cowards.
This was a question asked in my ethics class today. We arranged into groups (based on our personal opinions, so there was only about a fifth of the class on the "yes" side) and debated the issue, which is a prettybigconcern in international affairs right now. The yeses won--the nos spent a good minute bickering about where Iran was before they could make an actual argument.
