• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nukes?

  • yes

    Votes: 9 18.8%

  • no

    Votes: 39 81.3%
  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
zstep18 said:
If we are going to intervene every time there is violence and destruction in the world, there will never be a time when we are not at war.
Click to expand...

Exactly when in the history of the United States has it not been involved in a war of one type or another for even a single generation?

Maybe if it actually does some good for people, it is not always a bad thing.
 
DVSentinel said:
Exactly when in the history of the United States has it not been involved in a war of one type or another for even a single generation?

Maybe if it actually does some good for people, it is not always a bad thing.
Click to expand...

A single generation does not equate "never a time". If we went to war every time there was violence in the world, there would not be a day we were not at war. Not only that, but we would be involved in countless wars all at once.
 
zstep18 said:
A single generation does not equate "never a time". If we went to war every time there was violence in the world, there would not be a day we were not at war. Not only that, but we would be involved in countless wars all at once.
Click to expand...

So you are morally ok with us only doing it on certain occasions and not others? So, when should we help others? What is your discriminator that you use to choose which ones?
 
DVSentinel said:
So you support the existence of Evil and what it does to others, as long as they are not Americans? How very humane of you.
Click to expand...

No, I am opposed to evil, no matter which flag its done under. Some defend it, if its done under our own flag.

When is a war not optional?
Click to expand...

I would go along with the Constitution and say when it is necessary for our defense.
 
DVSentinel said:
So you are morally ok with us only doing it on certain occasions and not others? So, when should we help others? What is your discriminator that you use to choose which ones?
Click to expand...

I'm saying even if we wanted to intervene every time there was violence, WE COULDN'T. We simply to not have the resources available to do that. And whenever we do intervene militarily, there is some other reason behind it. It is almost never strictly humanitarian reasons. If it were, Sudan and much of Africa would be look quite different by now....
 
Catawba said:
No, I am opposed to evil, no matter which flag its done under. Some defend it, if its done under our own flag.



I would go along with the Constitution and say when it is necessary for our defense.
Click to expand...

How are you opposed to evil? You talk against it? Do you really think that is going to stop evil in the world vs blowing them away? We have here a country who's leadership is proven to have committed evil acts, repeatedly, who proclaims they will continue doing evil and are seeking more destructive means for committing their atrocities, and yet, because you claim it may cost innocent lives, you say we should not take action against that evil. Is that how you are opposed to evil?

It does? Interesting, where in the constitution does it say we shall only employ military force when necessary for our defense? If we are a possible target, isn't taking out the weapons to be used against us defending us?
 
zstep18 said:
If we are going to intervene every time there is violence and destruction in the world, there will never be a time when we are not at war.
Click to expand...

That is how Bin Laden predicted the US would be defeated:

"In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said."

Even in Death, Did Osama Bin Laden Win? - Forbes
 
Catawba said:
That is how Bin Laden predicted the US would be defeated:

"In 2004, Bin Laden released a tape to Al-Jazeera where the former head of Al Qaeda laid out the purpose of the 9/11 attacks, and the organization’s goals. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Bin Laden said."

Even in Death, Did Osama Bin Laden Win? - Forbes
Click to expand...

So, not only did he want to blow up the WTC and the Pentagon, but he was a contributer to the DNC? Didn't know that. If he was trying to bankrupt us, then those contributions to the DNC are showing great returns.
 
DVSentinel said:
How are you opposed to evil? You talk against it? Do you really think that is going to stop evil in the world vs blowing them away? We have here a country who's leadership is proven to have committed evil acts, repeatedly, who proclaims they will continue doing evil and are seeking more destructive means for committing their atrocities, and yet, because you claim it may cost innocent lives, you say we should not take action against that evil. Is that how you are opposed to evil?

It does? Interesting, where in the constitution does it say we shall only employ military force when necessary for our defense? If we are a possible target, isn't taking out the weapons to be used against us defending us?
Click to expand...



We have more control of the evil done by us. In order to do that, we must actively participate in the government by not only voting but non-violently protesting when our government does, or proposes to do evil.

In the Preamble, it says provide for the common defense. What were we defending against in Iraq? What would we be defending against in Iran that meets the standard of common defense of the US?
 
DVSentinel said:
So, not only did he want to blow up the WTC and the Pentagon, but he was a contributer to the DNC? Didn't know that. If he was trying to bankrupt us, then those contributions to the DNC are showing great returns.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk party responsibility, our most wasteful spending, the GOP war in Iraq, was voted against by the majority of Democrats, vs almost every single Republican that voted for it.
 
Catawba said:
We have more control of the evil done by us. In order to do that, we must actively participate in the government by not only voting but non-violently protesting when our government does, or proposes to do evil.

In the Preamble, it says provide for the common defense. What were we defending against in Iraq? What would we be defending against in Iran that meets the standard of common defense of the US?
Click to expand...

So what is this great evil we have done? I know you mentioned one thing earlier, but that was not truly evil that we did, but was the result of our response to someone else's evil, in the end, the evil we were fighting against actually bears responsibility for those results. What is your definition of evil? Those non-violent protest do sometimes work here where we value human life, but do they work places where the government is the evil they are protesting and that government kills and tortures those speaking out against them? Because they may not be Americans, we should just turn a blind eye to that evil?

It also says provide for the common welfare. Don't you think fighting wars in other peoples countries is better than doing it in ours? Isn't that better for the general welfare than our civilians being displaced and killed during a war?
 
zstep18 said:
A single generation does not equate "never a time". If we went to war every time there was violence in the world, there would not be a day we were not at war. Not only that, but we would be involved in countless wars all at once.
Click to expand...

We would? If we are choosing when and where do get involved, would we step into a scenario where there are countless simultaneous wars? What would be the result if we set a definitive policy that we always followed and gave priorities to where we go first, then move on? Sure, we cannot do it all at once, but does that mean we should just give up and not try? You cannot eat a whole sandwich at one time, does that mean you don't eat the sandwich, or do you break it down to manageable bites?
 
DVSentinel said:
We would? If we are choosing when and where do get involved, would we step into a scenario where there are countless simultaneous wars? What would be the result if we set a definitive policy that we always followed and gave priorities to where we go first, then move on? Sure, we cannot do it all at once, but does that mean we should just give up and not try? You cannot eat a whole sandwich at one time, does that mean you don't eat the sandwich, or do you break it down to manageable bites?
Click to expand...

Okay, what would be your solution in today's world, at this point in time? Iran, Afghanistan, most of Africa, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China, some places in South America, the list goes on and on. If you think that we can simply just go to one country, fix it up, and move on to the next, that's not reality.
 
Catawba said:
If you want to talk party responsibility, our most wasteful spending, the GOP war in Iraq, was voted against by the majority of Democrats, vs almost every single Republican that voted for it.
Click to expand...

It being wasteful spending is you opinion, not a proven fact. I personally see us wasting far more money uselessly on welfare, medicaid, HUD and other completely useless programs. On the other hand, removing one of the most evil leaders in the world was definitely a good thing for mankind. But then again, that is only my opinion, not a proven fact.
 
If Iran continues on its nuclear path and continues to make anti-Israel threats I think military action is necessary. We cannot allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and military action is essential if they do not change.
 
DVSentinel said:
It being wasteful spending is you opinion, not a proven fact. I personally see us wasting far more money uselessly on welfare, medicaid, HUD and other completely useless programs. On the other hand, removing one of the most evil leaders in the world was definitely a good thing for mankind. But then again, that is only my opinion, not a proven fact.
Click to expand...

How exactly has the world benefited from killing Saddam and a ten year war in Iraq?
 
DVSentinel said:
It being wasteful spending is you opinion, not a proven fact. I personally see us wasting far more money uselessly on welfare, medicaid, HUD and other completely useless programs.
Click to expand...

You see the spending on welfare and medicaid as more useless than spending money on a war overseas, against a country that didn't pose any grave threat to us? I think we should protect our own people first before we try and protect others.
 
zstep18 said:
Okay, what would be your solution in today's world, at this point in time? Iran, Afghanistan, most of Africa, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China, some places in South America, the list goes on and on. If you think that we can simply just go to one country, fix it up, and move on to the next, that's not reality.
Click to expand...

Simple, start with the most egregious offenders, Iran would probably top the current list. NK is of course on the list, but since they are pretty much isolated and don't really affect that much outside of South Korea, which has pretty good defenses of it's own and only needs our aid not us doing it all for them, then countries like Iran, who export and sponsor acts in other countries should have the higher priority. China, we are already addressing, or were non-militarily (we had a good working plan for awhile there, some one has just dropped the ball on it). Russia is not really that hard to address since a lot of it's problems actually stem from not getting their economy up and running properly. We could help them out with that, even have tried a few times, if they would let us. South America isn't really that big a deal either, a lot of their problems stem from our addiction to drugs. That is clearly evil happening because of our actions, but not our military ones. And we should stay out of civil wars unless it is against an allied government and sponsored/supported from outside that country. In Africa, Somalia would probably be first, it's piracy is causing too much trouble.

Many, many places don't really need intervention. Most of Central and South America, a large part of Asia. Their governments are not really evil or oppressive, just not effective economically. Even Venezuela, I don't agree with their current government, but as long as they are not murdering or torturing innocent people over political/religious beliefs, I don't see why we should tell them what government they should have. We should only be stepping in when it involves the government sponsored murder and torture of people or support of terrorist organisations. And then only after addressing it in other fashions. Iran has had sanctions against it for a long time, they are not working. They have been offered technology for nuclear plants that would not allow the creation of nuclear weapons, but they have refused. They continue to sponsor terror in Iraq and have caused violent uprisings in other Muslim countries. They are currently supporting an oppressive regime in Syria.
 
DVSentinel said:
Simple, start with the most egregious offenders, Iran would probably top the current list. NK is of course on the list, but since they are pretty much isolated and don't really affect that much outside of South Korea, which has pretty good defenses of it's own and only needs our aid not us doing it all for them, then countries like Iran, who export and sponsor acts in other countries should have the higher priority. China, we are already addressing, or were non-militarily (we had a good working plan for awhile there, some one has just dropped the ball on it). Russia is not really that hard to address since a lot of it's problems actually stem from not getting their economy up and running properly. We could help them out with that, even have tried a few times, if they would let us. South America isn't really that big a deal either, a lot of their problems stem from our addiction to drugs. That is clearly evil happening because of our actions, but not our military ones. And we should stay out of civil wars unless it is against an allied government and sponsored/supported from outside that country. In Africa, Somalia would probably be first, it's piracy is causing too much trouble.

Many, many places don't really need intervention. Most of Central and South America, a large part of Asia. Their governments are not really evil or oppressive, just not effective economically. Even Venezuela, I don't agree with their current government, but as long as they are not murdering or torturing innocent people over political/religious beliefs, I don't see why we should tell them what government they should have. We should only be stepping in when it involves the government sponsored murder and torture of people or support of terrorist organisations. And then only after addressing it in other fashions.

Iran has had sanctions against it for a long time, they are not working. They have been offered technology for nuclear plants that would not allow the creation of nuclear weapons, but they have refused. They continue to sponsor terror in Iraq and have caused violent uprisings in other Muslim countries. They are currently supporting an oppressive regime in Syria.
Click to expand...

Wow... you have the only answer for the rest of the world. I just get so tickled..
 
DVSentinel said:
Simple, start with the most egregious offenders, Iran would probably top the current list. NK is of course on the list, but since they are pretty much isolated and don't really affect that much outside of South Korea, which has pretty good defenses of it's own and only needs our aid not us doing it all for them, then countries like Iran, who export and sponsor acts in other countries should have the higher priority. China, we are already addressing, or were non-militarily (we had a good working plan for awhile there, some one has just dropped the ball on it). Russia is not really that hard to address since a lot of it's problems actually stem from not getting their economy up and running properly. We could help them out with that, even have tried a few times, if they would let us. South America isn't really that big a deal either, a lot of their problems stem from our addiction to drugs. That is clearly evil happening because of our actions, but not our military ones. And we should stay out of civil wars unless it is against an allied government and sponsored/supported from outside that country. In Africa, Somalia would probably be first, it's piracy is causing too much trouble.

Many, many places don't really need intervention. Most of Central and South America, a large part of Asia. Their governments are not really evil or oppressive, just not effective economically. Even Venezuela, I don't agree with their current government, but as long as they are not murdering or torturing innocent people over political/religious beliefs, I don't see why we should tell them what government they should have. We should only be stepping in when it involves the government sponsored murder and torture of people or support of terrorist organisations. And then only after addressing it in other fashions. Iran has had sanctions against it for a long time, they are not working. They have been offered technology for nuclear plants that would not allow the creation of nuclear weapons, but they have refused. They continue to sponsor terror in Iraq and have caused violent uprisings in other Muslim countries. They are currently supporting an oppressive regime in Syria.
Click to expand...

So we go after Iran, which if you think Iraq caused us trouble, it will be nothing like the trouble that would be caused by Iran. Then we go after North Korea, which has nuclear weapons. Then we move onto other countries. And by that time, we will have more and more enemies.

No, this wouldn't be "simple".
 
DVSentinel said:
So what is this great evil we have done? I know you mentioned one thing earlier, but that was not truly evil that we did, but was the result of our response to someone else's evil, in the end, the evil we were fighting against actually bears responsibility for those results. What is your definition of evil? Those non-violent protest do sometimes work here where we value human life, but do they work places where the government is the evil they are protesting and that government kills and tortures those speaking out against them? Because they may not be Americans, we should just turn a blind eye to that evil?

It also says provide for the common welfare. Don't you think fighting wars in other peoples countries is better than doing it in ours? Isn't that better for the general welfare than our civilians being displaced and killed during a war?
Click to expand...

I've told you I don't condone evil no matter who's flag its done under. I also don't believe in killing people to control oil. Just as was the case with Iraq, Iran does not have the capability to be a military threat to the US, or its neighbors.

We need to get our own house in order before we start worrying about countries that are of no threat to us. Have you heard anything at all about our national debt?
 
Catawba said:
I've told you I don't condone evil no matter who's flag its done under. I also don't believe in killing people to control oil. Just as was the case with Iraq, Iran does not have the capability to be a military threat to the US, or its neighbors.

We need to get our own house in order before we start worrying about countries that are of no threat to us. Have you heard anything at all about our national debt?
Click to expand...

Not that I completely disagree with you, but do you think it would be a good idea to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?
 
DVSentinel said:
It being wasteful spending is you opinion, not a proven fact. I personally see us wasting far more money uselessly on welfare, medicaid, HUD and other completely useless programs. On the other hand, removing one of the most evil leaders in the world was definitely a good thing for mankind. But then again, that is only my opinion, not a proven fact.
Click to expand...

That's one of the main differences between conservatives and liberals, conservatives place a higher priority on spending for US hegemony in the world than they do for the welfare of their fellow citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom