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.
They would love to :D But I don't think so that they can throw rocks so far :D However the may use they fleet of 3 battleships from 1970' and maybe one will not sink on it's way a hits some fishing boat.
They also own 4 F16s and a broken drone which sadly cannot carry bombs but still can fall on someone and that counts :D
I believe they still have some infantry that haven't died by hunger yet and may try to swim to US...
Iran is now the most powerful state in the Middle East since the United States toppled Hussein's Iraq. Iran has been flexing its muscles in the region for years. Iraq is effectively an Iranian satellite, Syria has long since been a close ally of Iran and Lebanon is effectively ruled by Hezbollah. Iran is getting stronger and certainly has the power to challenge the US in the next few years if we do not act.
Iran is not a threat, never was and never will. Everything they have is extremely obsolete and falling apart. They do not have anything that you cannot buy on eBay or shopping center.
Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Lybia they are all dead. Mexico is bigger threat :D
The key phrase there is "since the united states toppled hussein's iraq". Iran might being growing in arms, but america has already become a established military power. Iran can hurt america, but if it came to war america would still win because it has the upper hand.
The only way Iran could pose a significant threat to the US is with nukes.
Iran might be "getting stronger" but the US has one of the largest, most well funded, and most advanced army in the world.
And Iran might have Lebanon and Syria in it's pocket, but if the US was attacked by Iran we would call upon our allies, which include pretty much every other country with a large, well funded, advanced military and several others besides. Iran would get raped, particularly if they we're stupid enough to make the first strike.
So I'm inclined to do nothing, at the moment. If they attack us they'll get what's coming to them. I'm not too worried about it.
The only reason why it is so strong is because it is a puppet state for my country (Russia) and the Chinese. Without the support, it would be like North Korea.
I believe they still have some infantry that haven't died by hunger yet and may try to swim to US...
I'm fairly certain they'd actually try to do it if someone mentioned virgins in heaven. Their heaven would definitely be dark and wet and... mermaids? Anyone seen any? Anyway, I wouldn't settle just for boobs and a fishtail... like, what am I supposed to do with that? So just wet and dark, and rather sharky. Thinking of all the stupid suicide bombers... should've asked for payment up front... what credulous morons. Well, that's Islam for you... (It was Islam, right? Actually, don't answer, I don't really care... at all.)
At the moment, Iran poses as much of a threat to the US as North Korea: it can threaten us, but it can't do much more. This will change if Iran can build a bomb, though. Right now, the DPRK isn't going to do anything that threatens it, because Kim Jong-Un wants to stay in power. Iranian officials, on the other hand, are confident that they will go to heaven if they are killed, so they will be more willing to bomb Israel.
Iran will be the most dangerous in the fist few years after it gets a bomb. It won't have second strike capability, so if it believes that Israel or the US will bomb it, it will attack first. Once it manages to spread out its nuclear arsenal and is able to counterattack, it will become much more stable.
Another danger is Syria. When the Syrian government collapses, the revolution will spill over into neighboring countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. If this spreads from Iraq to a nuclear Iran, it could put nuclear weapons on the black market, to be bought by terrorists.
Don't forget that Iran also straddles the most important oil pipelines and trade routes in the region, through which flows about 1/4 of the world's oil and natural gas
Iran has no friends, Syria and Lebanon are dead. Russia will not help them, they are against them both are selling oil, no Iran = more money for Russia.
It's a big difference between making primitive and inefficient nuke and actual weapon or missile...
Iran is bankrupting, banned EU sells cost's them 30% of whole country's income, they are trying to sell oil for gold bars deeply bellow market price.
Iran is fucked already and the war didn't began yet.
They never were and never will be a threat. All stuff they have is old style Russian stuff. They will never sell them anything modern because those psychos could turn it against them.
Iran has been a close ally of Russia for decades. Also much of that "old Russian stuff" is some the most effective weapons in history like the AK-47, the Mig 22, and the T-34.
One cannot simply ignore a country because their weapons are old fashioned. WW2: over 60 000 000 deaths, all done with weapons designed more than 70 years ago...
The AK-47 is a superior weapon, but the MIGs and T-34's are admittedly old.
Still, from a battlefield view, Iran has more difficult terrain than Afghanistan. Keep in mind our brave soldiers have struggled while using our most advanced weapons opposition which are effectively using sticks and stones when compared to Iran's weapons.
My support was, at one point, the polar opposite and I believed the Iran threat to be a fabrication by war mongering politicians. I have since learned, after talking to several friends who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, that Iran forces are indeed well trained and certainly a threat. It turns out what they lose in out dated weaponry, is more than made up by their training and geography. Addition to my online research, my sources have been several Marines and Army soldiers who are enlisted and Officers. I have gathered very similar feedback from both.
Bring in the Russians! Now, things get very ugly. Russians and other Iranian friends have a steady supply of new, modern weapons that are made in Israel and France. Similar to the weapons used against our soldiers in Iraq, these weapons are no problem for Iran's rich friends who share similar interests.
The AK-47 is an extremely unreliable and inaccurate weapon. It jams often has heavy recoil. Now on top of all that, most of these are old, wooden stock guns that have been lying in the sand for 60 years.
They don't stand a chance against any well armed fighting force.
True. The only weapons they have are old Russian gear from the USSR and UK occupation of Iran during WWII. The UK will obviously not sell them anything due to their alliance with the United States and Russian won't because most Iranians still hold a grudge from when the USSR refused to leave and occupied their country for years.
Why would they? What do they have to gain? The U.S.A are the ones who need oil, gas etc... Perhaps a more interesting question would be to turn this one around...
Iran is a sovereign nation with it's own belief systems and customs. The United States tries to bully nations into doing what they want and one way they do it is with propaganda. The news paints Iran to be bad so that a shoving contest with them will be endorsed by the people of the United States. The United States has the most nuclear weapons in the world and why should they be able to have them? Because we wouldnt use them? Who says? We still have them don't we? Nations deserve to rule themselves and have the ability to defend itself, so why does the US have the right to say who can and cannot have nuclear weapons? The US is a bully and just because you support your country doesnt mean that whatever it does is right. It is wrong to boss people around because you have a big stick. China and Russia pose major threats to the US, but the news doesnt paint them as being our enemy. Why? Because they are our "ally". If Iran put its tail between its legs and submitted to the US's will then they wouldnt be our "enemy" as you all see them, but another ally. Every country with a military is a major threat, people just hate Iran because the government wants you to.
I'm not sure I would count Iran amongst them, but there are certainly countries in the world I would not want to have nuclear weapons. Countries like Chad, Burma, Somalia and N. Korea. Either because they are fanatical or homicidal enough that attaining nuclear weapons would probably mean using them, or because they are so corrupt I'm not convinced the government could safely keep nuclear weapons and keep them out of the hands of the criminals who actually run the country.
But you haven't argued why your information of these countries isn't just government manipulated so you believe what they want you to yet. You haven't made my premise invalid yet to be able to give that conclusion. Arguments are premises coupled with a conclusion. A conclusion with no premiss is an assertion. My argument that a lot of the governments information on the "enemy" countries is skewed is still up there. You gotta get it boy.
Sub-Saharan African countries do not have strong central governments. That's not just government propaganda, its made obvious by the consistent changes of regime and government. A government that cannot even keep its capitol secure from rebels, has no business trying to secure a nuclear arsenal.
I do how ever agree with you that a lot of government information on the so-called 'enemy' is greatly skewed. A lot of what we hear is just plain false. Chavez is not and never was a dictator. The South Vietnamese did not need our protection from the North Vietnamese. The CIA was involved in and covered-up coups in South America.
Some of what is said is factual though. I will stand by the fact that Kim Jong-il was a crazy motherfucker. I say that mostly though because he lets/encourages his citizens to treat him as a diety. I don't trust anyone who thinks that they are god.
Um... because I'm not a conspiracy theorist? Because I trust in my ability to research current events from several different sources to glean a pretty decent understanding of what's going on in the world? Because i don't believe everything I believe is a result of government programming namely because if I believed that it would also include the belief that everything I believe is the result of government programming and therefore I wouldn't trust by belief that everything I believe is the result of government programming because it came from the government that programmed me, which, of course, is the thing that caused me to be paranoid about it in the first place.
I mean, you haven't argued why your information on these countries isn't just skewed by what those countries what you to think of them... so what? It's what you think of them based on information you've gathered, presumably.
You'll also notice I originally supported your comment, not disputed it; I agree with the premise that the government skews information. I only disagreed with the implication that it would be safe and generally a good idea for every country to have nukes because some countries clearly aren't stable enough to posses nukes.
Hell, the government influenced propaganda that reaches me about these countries is often watered down. They filter the information to make it less horrific sometimes. If I took the government at it's word I might have a better opinion of these countries than I actually do. So if I judged they were unready to handle nuclear weapons based on what the US government told me, I might think they were unready to handle every firearms based on the truth.
Oh, so since YOU are not a conspiracy theorist MY points dont even need to be argued?Let's apply this "logic" to an evolutionist debating a creationist.
"I don't need to argue against your claim that there is a God, because I'm not a creationist!" This is a debate site which means that one person will put up arguments in support of a conclusion and for you to actually win you have to attempt to disprove the arguments so that your conclusion is more logically sound.
I never said that I was a conspiracy theorist, I was just arguing. I never claimed that my information on countries wasn't skewed by the government. but for some reason you brought it up without even trying to debate my arguments. I never said that countries should all be allowed to ahve nukes, what I said was it isn't fair for some to have that much power while others just have to be the bitches of the stronger countries (USA). Personally I dont think any country should have nukes, but it isn't fair for the US to tell other countries that they cannot have the same power that the they do. You take my arguments and make assumptions from them and you think that they are counter arguments for some reason. I never said that it would be safe or generally a good idea that all countries have nukes. Also, saying that some countries "clearly" arent stable is from what POV? From a random person with a computer who accepts what the government tells them as truth? Also, I wouldnt be able to argue with the point that what you hear may not be the truth if you actually argued against it.
Also, since all of your understanding of the outside world comes from the news or internet, and you admit that the government does use propoganda how could you know that any of it is watered down at all since you have had no first hand experiences with the truth of the matters? You cant. You can never know the truth of those things unless you are there. Havent you played the telephone game? Where one person hears a long story and paraphrases it to other people and by the last person the entire story is changed. You have NO idea what is true and what is not, you just choose to believe what youre told.
I never claimed that my information on countries wasn't skewed by the government. but for some reason you brought it up without even trying to debate my arguments.
Yes, there's three different buttons you can hit yo reply to someones post. "Support," "dispute," and "clarify." The names are pretty self explanatory; generally you look for people to agree with you in the supports, argue with you in the disputes, and clear things up in the... clarifications. This should all be pretty obvious. You'll notice I originally hit "support," so you wouldn't expect to see me "trying to debate [your] arguments."
As for information, you made a boatload of assertions and I made a few (supporting) in response. You replied to my few assertions by questioning the credibility of everything I know and understand. I replied to that by asking, essentially, why you're sources are presumably valid while mine aren't.
It just seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to make statement like "Iran is a sovereign nation with it's own belief systems and customs," "The United States tries to bully nations into doing what they want and one way they do it is with propaganda," "China and Russia pose major threats to the US, but the news doesnt paint them as being our enemy. Why? Because they are our "ally," and "people just hate Iran because the government wants you to," and have those statements actually mean something and be considered valid opinions, but as soon as I make any kind of similar statement you jump down my throat and question how I can possibly know those things and go on implying that they aren't true.
Which is think is stupid because you shoot yourself in the foot. Like this:
You have NO idea what is true and what is not, you just choose to believe what youre told.*
We're you told to believe that you have no idea what is true or not and you just believe what you are told? That follows with you're statement. But if that's true we don't know that the belief (that we have no idea whats true and we believe what we're told) itself is true because it's just what we're told. So we can dismiss that as illogical, but, of course, the thing that allowed us to determine the notion was false was applying the notion itself, so... we shoot ourselves in the foot.
I guess I didn't care if you supported me because I just want to debate you. I wont try to get myself out of my contradictions because I dont care about this argument and only wrote what I did in support of whatever view because the people in the debate were just basing their opinions on recycled information from sources that recycled what really happened with whatever they said about it. I wrote what I did so people would see that the issue is deeper than what the news says. I made a point with information that I didnt back up because I wasnt trying to make the best argument, I was just trying to make people think a little deeper. I may have shot myself in the foot and contradicted myself but honestly it doesnt reflect how I actually debate. For instance, I wrote an entire rebuttle but decided to just write what I am now because you supported my argument and obviously dont actually claim to have a better argument than me. When I dont care it shows. I will just say you beat me with what you said here because I truly dont care about defending this. Had I taken the time to write an argument that I actually thought about you wouldnt even be arguing or saying what you are now because it would have probably been different. I didnt even write what I did with care. This same thing happened the first time with us. You though I just didnt have more to say and that I was being a pussy, but it is honestly because the argument I wrote was not even a good one and trying to defend it would be useless to me. That is why I wanted you to challenge me with a worthy topic because I wanted to prove that I don't suck as much as my argument would make you think.
Why is it that you think talking about all the amazing points you can supposedly make is somehow a substitute for actually making those points.
And why is this a dispute if "I beat you?" We've been over this, man. Support button when you agree, dispute button when you disagree, and clarify when you need to... clear things up.
they haven't shown any known acts of aggression towards other peoples or nations that i know of, and certainly not the United States, so without having any bias or prejudice against them as a people i will for now say no.
Nations can have the potential to pose a threat or they actually do pose a threat based on their actions. Because there are a few political instabilities in Iran, and the fact that they are reaching nuclear capability, means that they have potential, but will they act on that potential? Who knows. They could be using nuclear to simply power their homes and cities, if they decide to build bombs then that's another thing, because with that they could pose a threat to other nations. even if they do build bombs, there is always the possibility they want to build them for other reasons than for reasons of simply being an aggressive attacker. But the debate isn't about other nations, it ask specifically if it poses a threat to the United States, and so far that would be an extreme stretch to say that they pose a threat directly to the United States, they certainly haven't threatened the United States as far as i know. besides, if they really did pose a threat, and they had the will power to act on it, it is pretty likely that they would have secretly acted on it in a way that everyone would notice.
the only kind of threat they could possibly pose at this moment in time is a threat to the United States economic interest in the middle east, but certainly not its security.
Iran only poses a treat to the State of Israel. If worse come to worse, the US would cut through Iran like a hot knife through butter in a matter of weeks. That is no threat.
Iran was part of the coalitions of countries that repeatedly attacked Israel in a campaign of several wars shortly after the country was founded. These wars were, generally speaking, 95% of the Middle East vs just Israel. Did Israel lose these wars? No, they actually gained territory; they advanced, conquered, and won. I don't see any reason to think another Iran + some allies vs Israel war will end in victory for Iran, particularly seeing as how the Israelis have spent the last 70 years honing their armed forced with constant conflict against Middle Easterners.
Oh, and Iran is maybe kinda trying to work on getting one nuke. Israel has a ready to go nuclear arsenal. So even if they build a bomb and launch it at Israel, their whole country will be vaporized into a radioactive cloud before they can even spit.
Iran was not an official member of the nations that partook during the Six Day War, or the October war.
Looking at the conventional military muscle of Israel and Iran, it becomes apparent that the Israelis are slightly stronger; however the Iranians have many, many, missiles, potentially armed with WMD's These missiles aren't your average BM-21 launched paint scratcher, but FROG-7 and SCUD missiles. The latter is capable of being launched from Iran, but the former are largely stationed in areas of Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah. During a war, hundreds, or thousands of these missiles would be launched against Israel. Yes the ''Iron Dome'' would take out a few but most would get through and cause significant damage.
You're completely right. My mistake. Been a while since my last history class, I guess.
But in regards to strength, you admit Israel is apparently stronger. So what if Iran has many missiles potentially armed with WMDs? We know Israel has many missiles that are armed with WMDs. Some missiles might get through Israels advanced defense system; Iran has no advanced defense system, so all the missiles Israel fires will hit their targets and do more damage.
And the US has missiles we can fire here and guide across the Atlantic with enough accuracy to fly them through the window of a specific building and detonate it in the middle. So when it comes to allied support, fuck FROGs fired by some radical militia, you want the US on your side, which Israel does.
It's like two guys are getting into a street brawl and one has a gun and the other has a knife. One guy has a bunch of burly friends lined up, ready to help; one guy has scrawny friends lined up, ready to help.
Yeah. That is a good analogy. But the guy with a knife has a throwing knife and may be able to inflict a bit of damage with the guy to the gun before he gets ripped to pieces. ;)
This is a hard one to answer. I'd say the Iranian central government does pose a threat to the U.S.; but that neither the people nor the military (made up of the people) are a threat the to the U.S. They're, for the most part, too happy just trying to get on with their wretched lives living under a dictatorship to worry about the U.S.
A threat to our economic interests in the middle east? yes.
A threat to our security? hell no.
That's like saying Canada needs to watch the fuck out for oh, random small country on the opposite side of the world, let's say Bangladesh. Not to mention the U.S. Military is to the Canadian military what the hulk is to my little pony (sorry canada). About 70% of all military spending in the world is used to make the U.S. war machine stronger. Because lord knows, the extremists might just topple us at any goddamned moment.
Watch out for the bogeyman. Funny, how he's always hiding at the bottom of an oil reserve somewhere.
