Debate Info

9
1
Sure, why not? No Way!
Debate Score:10
Arguments:6
Total Votes:12
Show More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Sure, why not? (8)
 
 No way! (0)

Debate Creator

Ryaboug(9) pic



Bookmark this debate on your favorite social network by clicking the appropriate icon below:
social bookmarks Digg reddit facebook twitter delicious google yahoo stumbleupon newsvine mixx furl technorati slashdot spurl diigo blinklist simpy
Want to add a CreateDebate link or button to your website or blog? Click Here

Will Israel atack Iran's nuclear facilities without the U.S.'s consent and aid?

Do you beleive that Israel will atack Iran becasue of the aparent nuclear threat it poses wihtout the aid of the U.S.?


Sure, why not?

Side Score: 9
VS.

No Way!

Side Score: 1
vote vote
1 point  

Ever since the United States voted in favor of forming a Jewish state in Israel in the partition vote of 1947, the United States has been committed to supporting Israel. Even if the US did not give consent or aid to help Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities Israel would most likely still do it.

In 1976, terrorists hijacked a plane from Israel and took it to Entebbe Airport in Uganda. Israel launched a rescue mission and flew from Israel to Uganda. The nation of Kenya allowed the Israelis to land and refuel. They were able to rescue the hostages with only losing one man.

So my point is Israel can hold its own and it has proved it.

1096 days ago | Side: Sure, why not?
Cerin(198) Supported
vote vote
1 point  

I agree with your sentiment. You could also point to Israel's attack of a half-completed nuclear plant in France that was destined to be shipped to Saddam-ruled Iraq.

However, Iran has learned from Saddam's mistakes and has taken steps to distribute and harden its nuclear infrastructure against a single-attack. Israel would have to declare all-out war and destroy the entire country to really stop them.

However, all this assumes that Iran's program comprises a serious threat. I don't think Israel will do anything until they're sure Iran is determined to use nuclear weapons against them. Iran knows that any attack on Israel would get a M.A.D. response from both Israel and the U.S., so that alone is likely to stop them.

1096 days ago | Side: Sure, why not?

I should think if any threat were imminent, Israel would attack without first waiting if the USA would permission and help or if the United Nations would be in favor of such an attack. They would be fools if they didn't. I cannot imagine that the topic has not been raised between the two nations and the U.N. at this point.

1096 days ago | Side: Sure, why not?
vote vote
1 point  

hi ar you knows Ahamadi najad or not if you knows you know that hes carzy but can israel trust to carzy man that we know any way cant attack to israel???

1095 days ago | Side: Sure, why not?
vote vote
0 points

I think if they could they would have done it before the end of George Bush's term. The Obama administration, IMO, is much less lenient than Bush on Middle East engagements. Also, the opportunity America is giving Iran to boost their image and position in the eyes of the rest of the world is unparalleled to anything Bush or his damned father have ever done. The military shows they keep broadcasting with their airplanes mean nothing if they aren't going to back it up. Last point, if Israel couldn't beat Hezboulah in 2006 (lol) how he hell do they expect to succeed in Iran which is much more powerful than a militia with AK-47's.

Also, i bleive Iran is to get the anti-air S-300 missiles from Russia in the near future. How do you guys think this will effect Israel's motives or abilities?

1096 days ago | Side: No way!
frenchieak(1120) Disputed
vote vote
4 points

The argument can be made that militias are, in some cases, harder to fight than conventional armies. When the enemy is comprised of un-uniformed individuals who operate out of homes and flow from the crowds of innocent bystanders, instead of a unified, uniformed army operating out of defined bases with attack plans and everything else that comes with the organization of a national army, I would say that the militia would be a tougher enemy for a country not involved in total war or a country concerned over its civilian casualties.

History has shown time and time again that organized armies have a very hard time beating militias and stateless factions, just remember Russia in Afghanistan, the United States in Vietnam, the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even think back to Great Britain in the American colonies. These are/were the world's most powerful militaries.

1096 days ago | Side: Sure, why not?
Popular Debates in Politics: Immigration - Zonin Romney actively bullied a gay boy in Prep school: is this relevant now? Ron Paul (political positions)



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



©2012 hardwarehelpers.com, 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.