Help me prepare for debate - We shouldn't bomb Iran

[deathbow2134]

Hello! I am going to be debating that we shouldn?t bomb Iran tommorow. I don't know a whole alot about this subject, can you think of some points for and agaisnt bombing Iran?

Some points I have thought of are:
1. Retaliation - Bombing Iran would start a war. They could attack us/cut off oil supply.

2. Lack of Proof - The nuclear program is for electrical power. There is no proof that they are actaully producing nuculear weapons.

3. Alternatives to bombing - Economic Sanctions and diplomacy could also solve the problem.

Please, if you can think of any other good points supporting us not bombing Iran (and also points supporting bombing Iran) please post them Thanks!

[GalacticVenus]

Bombing them would be fun. >:- D

[deathbow2134]

GalacticVenus @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:45 pm wrote:

Bombing them would be fun. >:- D

[Tony]

When you say "we", are you referring to U.S.A. or Canada?

deathbow2134 @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:39 pm wrote:

There is no proof that they are actaully[sic] producing nuculear[sic] weapons

That has not stopped the invasion of Iraq.

[DemonWasp]

Public relations - bombing Iran would only further ruin the image that the West has in the eyes of the Middle East (already terrible due to previous interactions with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and more than a few other countries) and would only spur the creation of hundreds, if not thousands, more willing terrorists and other enemies to the west. It would be wiser to treat the situation with respect and dignity.

Strain on the military: both the United States and Canada have already pushed their armed forces hard; pushing further and engaging in further wars seems likely to result in a far worse quagmire than has already been created. Afghanistan is called "The Graveyard of Empires" for a reason.

[Tony]

DemonWasp @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:38 pm wrote:

already terrible due to previous interactions with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and more than a few other countries)

One of those things is not like the other.

You mean the kind of interactions where U.S. is giving billions in military aid to Israel (it's not like there's a recession or anything)(who then buy the weapons from the U.S.; Who said that war isn't profitable?) to bomb the shit out of everyone around them?

[Homer_simpson]

lol. i'm surprised no one has even mentioned the most important reason...
how about not bombing because it will be killing so many people..? how about all the women and children that would die as a consequence.
plus iran is already not giving us oil directly, they are part of OPEC.
Secondly attacking iran would be economical suicide as they have a military that is much more organized than iraq and afghanistan and US is already in so much debts from previous conflicts.
Personally i think if it was profitable to bomb Iran, they would have already done it.
Also pakistan, china, russia,korea,india,britts,france and many others have nuclear weapons. US has the most nuclear arms out of anyone. they are also the only country to actually have used a nuke on civilians.
i think this should give u something to think about for your debate.

[DemonWasp]

Tony @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:58 pm wrote:

DemonWasp @ Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:38 pm wrote:

already terrible due to previous interactions with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and more than a few other countries)

One of those things is not like the other.

I am keenly aware, as is anyone who's paying even remote attention to the Middle East. That was my point.

Also, to add to Homer_simpson's point, the US is the only nation to have ever detonated a nuclear weapon in aggression. All other detonations fall under the category of "test".

[Homer_simpson]

what kind of a justification is that?
they're not "testing" on living people like me and you. they are "testing" in remote locations...

love daily show
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip185089
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYKfcXB5zZw

[DemonWasp]

Huh? That's not a justification of anything, just a clarification. You pointed out that the US is the only country to have ever nuked civilians, while I made it clear that the US is the only country to have ever nuked anyone at all, military or not. By no means am I trying to justify use of weapons, nuclear or not, nor am I saying that the testing of nuclear weapons has ever been particularly safe or ethical (there are more than a few casualties from radiation and so forth, plus they weren't really sure that when they set off the first one it wouldn't set the atmosphere on fire, so...).

[Vermette]

When you say 'bombing', do you mean targeted covert airstrikes (babyfood factories in Sudan), a general air campaign against any military assets (US Serbian campaign in '98), or full engagement including the mobilization of land forces? As DemonWasp has been demonstrating, clarity is very important in formal debate.

[deathbow2134]

I did the debate today people. Thanks for the help! It was useful.

[qmanjr5]

it might just start up a huge war that may just well turn into WW3, and we def don't want that, even here in Canada