Login/Sign Up




Iran: Playing with the UN?
Politics

shoomesh
Mar 06, 2007
13 votes
5 debaters
2
1


+ Add Argument

3
Iran: Does want to peacefully resolve enriching uranium question


chasbas
Mar 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
"Iran" is not a monolith. Iran is a country, just like the United States is a country. "It" does not have a single goal, just as the United States does not have a single goal.

There are powers in Iran that would like to have nuclear weapons and/or kill all the Jews. There are also factions which do not support those ends.

Rather than judging the country and using that judgement as an excuse to attack it (for why else would this question be posted except to make the case for an attack against Iran?), we should use the knowledge that Iran is full of people with different agendas and help the ones pushing peaceful ones. The majority of Iranians favor Americans (not America, as represented by GWB, but Americans), and are not at all inclined to go to war.

Even if Iran *had* nuclear weapons right now, it is extremely unclear that they would immediately launch them against anyone, knowing that the response from the West would be devastating. For Iran to attack Israel or anyone else militarily there would have to be a clear signal that the consequences of *not* attacking are worse than the consequences of *attacking*.

Here's where Bush's policy is failing. Concerning Iran, Bush's posturing and threatening and declarations of complicity in Iraq are likely to push the most violent and radical elements of Iran into more and more powerful positions. Then, if they have reason to think that they will be attacked, they may well attack first, with or without nuclear weapons. And let's not fool ourselves: Iran has a million man army, the Straits of Hormuz, and a lot of powerful friends and trading partners. With or without nuclear weapons they are a formidable force.

In the end, of course they would *like* to have nuclear weapons, if only to defend themselves from their perceived enemies - who *wouldn't* want such power if they felt threatened?. If they can sneak their way into being a nuclear power, they will. So would you if you were them.

Let's not use that obvious fact to justify an unprovoked attack.

 
chasbas
Mar 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shoomesh Show

"Personally, I feel Iran is intentionally prolonging this game until they have a trump card of their own [...I am saying] that they are aware of the game"

Isn't this a given? The facts as you've stated them make your thesis a tautology - if they're carrying on developing nuclear technology while claiming they're not, then they're developing nuclear technology. There's no other side to take (presumably you've noticed that no one besides me has put forth any opposing argument).

And they would have to be pretty damn stupid *not* to be aware of the game.

No, the only thing one can take away from your argument is: Iran is a threat to the world. That is the drumbeat of the Bush administration, and that is trouble. You may not think you're part of a propoganda campaign, but when you make statements like this, Fox News-like statements of obvious facts that let the reader draw only one possible conclusion, you help lay the groundwork for the eventual declaration that "we have to stop them."

If someone doesn't point out the path we Americans are on, just what do you think will happen next?

Call me crazy, but I'm trying to inject some perspective into what is quickly becoming insanity, a case for war.


"But a man can only take so many debates entitled Bush: Blood drinker or Satan? And you all know what I mean."

For the record, I started exactly 1 debate with this sub-topic, and I only started that one because no one would answer my question about "evil" in the other person's debate. That other debate was going on before I entered it, and I have made some points which nobody has seen fit to respond to. Instead they all just call me crazy and loony, say I drank too much kool-aid and that I have no historical perspective. Nothing about the facts; nothing about the morality; nothing about the meaning of my words - just attempts to discredit me.

I hate to be the one to have to constantly point out that Bush is planning to attack Iran and that this will be very bad for the world. I hate being the loony one. But I wish I had been the loony one before the Iraq war instead of buying everything I was told. I won't make that mistake again.

 
chasbas
Mar 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nbcrusader Show

The focus of the debate is a no-brainer. Of course Iran is playing with the U.N. Who could come up with a single argument disputing that?

The undercurrent of this debate is the issue I am trying to address. By pointing out what Iran is doing we are subtlely making the case for war. If you want to go to war, say so. Don't leave it as subtext.



 
shoomesh
Mar 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

"For the record, I started exactly 1 debate with this sub-topic,
and I only started that one because no one would answer my
question about "evil" in the other person's debate. That other
debate was going on before I entered it, and I have made some
points which nobody has seen fit to respond to. Instead they all
just call me crazy and loony, say I drank too much kool-aid and
that I have no historical perspective. Nothing about the facts;
nothing about the morality; nothing about the meaning of my words
- just attempts to discredit me.

I hate to be the one to have to constantly point out that Bush is
planning to attack Iran and that this will be very bad for the
world. I hate being the loony one. But I wish I had been the
loony one before the Iraq war instead of buying everything I was
told. I won't make that mistake again. "

When I read this I laughed out loud, but not in a spiteful way. I had no idea you yourself had originated one of the infinite debates on Bush. So.... wow. I'm more than aware of Bush's intentions to attack Iran, as he has been building military positions with direct strategic relevance in Iraq with regards to Iran since the whole thing began. I don't want him to, and believe my debate topic has little bearing on the outcome of that decision. And while your efforts to alert the populace to the intentions of the Bush administration are certainly laudable, I do not believe you are the "only one." As I said, it has been semi-common knowledge for some time, and The Moscow Times has actually stated it, baldly, and in no uncertain terms, on more than one occasion. So again, I'm not attacking you, I only intended on clarifying my position. From here, I plan on abandoning this debate, as you are of course right, in that the debate has turned remarkably one sided, and noone seems to believe that uranium enrichment could be accomplished without ulterior motives.

 
shoomesh
Mar 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

"Once I decide Iran is fooling around with the U.N. in order to gain time to create a nuclear weapon, how much farther do I have to go to support a war against it?"

I do see your point in this case. I have the habit of assuming everyone will apply a sort of universal consideration to all countries' necessary acts of duplicity, and didn't fully consider certain prejudices regarding many cultures.

As an interesting side note, the sanctions have become official last time I checked, so that might be a whole new topic....

 
+ Add Argument

10
Iran: Playing the UN and IAEA long enough to create weapons


nbcrusader
Mar 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Well, duh. In a few years, the UN will establish a committee that, after months of investigation, Iran was not being forthright with the UN.

 
nbcrusader
Mar 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

Your arguments may make sense if the debate focused on whether Bush will attack Iran. The debate here focuses on Iran's behavior vis-a-vis the UN.

Playing the "Bush is bad" card is great sound-bite politics, but lousy for debating.

 

Mar 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Let's see....considering that Iran just broke the UN deadline to stop its nuclear program and it's generally flouted UN policies for decades now....

There's no way the Islamofascist government is going to have a sudden change of heart and decide that they want to listen to the UN. Instead, they'll stick to the credo that's defined their foreign policy for some time now: death to the Jews!

 
shoomesh
Mar 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

The point of the debate was not to incite hatred, or attacks against Iran. It was meant to form a debate about one single point within Iran's policy, which if I am not mistaken, is in fact allowed here. I, and many others on this website, do not actually have a vested interest in American forays. We are not all American. Effectively, I only wanted to debate the stance Iran has been taking against the sanctions they are being threatened with. Given the events in the timeline of Iranian uranium research, I feel it is a valid question as even people within (nonAmerican) watchdog associats, like the IAEA have expressed frustration with Iran's constantly vacillating stance on nuclear weapons. Several times they have agreed to bargain in order to recieve an extension on their sanction deadlines, and each and every time they continued studies in secret, eventually being found out and starting the boisterous chest thumping that is geopolitics. Personally, I feel Iran is intentionally prolonging this game until they have a trump card of their own. As you stated who WOULDN'T want one? I am not saying they are wrong, only that they are aware of the game. At least those in power, not the common peoples or any other group you seem to believe I was attacking. Apologies all around for all of those who misinterpreted the stance on this one.

But a man can only take so many debates entitled Bush: Blood drinker or Satan? And you all know what I mean.

 
shoomesh
Mar 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shoomesh Show

And I do also acknowledge the limitations of my two positions for the debate. I've made this mistake many times before, and constantly struggle with the headers on debates. I suppose I should have asked "Should Iran be left to pursue uranium enrichment without international observation?" or some such, but.... well, I didn't.

 
chasbas
Mar 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shoomesh Show

Just for the record, I didn't say I was the "only one" - I said "I hate to be the one," meaning that no one else was mentioning it in the debates I was participating in.

Then I said I was the "loony one," because many people seem to think it is insane to believe what you have just said.

If I thought a lot of people agreed with you I would never have bothered to join the discussion.

Finally, I believe that debate topics like this one lay the groundwork for supporting an Iran war. Once I decide Iran is fooling around with the U.N. in order to gain time to create a nuclear weapon, how much farther do I have to go to support a war against it?

 
rolanderikson
Mar 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a madman, who has refused to stop the nuclear program of Iran against the demands of the UN Security Council. Iran is toying with the U.N. like no other.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong