theyoungdem said 08/05, 10:14 PM
Other than the fact that more U.S. soldiers would die, and more innocent civilians would be killed, why else should we try our best to avoid a war with Iran? There are countless reasons.
Can we really afford to garner more anti-Americans around the world just as the Iraqi war brought us? We need to change course and place ourselves back to the position where countries looked up to the U.S. People say that we did good by getting rid of Saddam. That was good, but has anyone realized, that Americans are portrayed as the villians of the war? Can we afford to get even more hated?
We are all ready strained with Iraq and Afghanistan, we must focus on problems that matter. These include problems that actually affected the U.S. such as 9/11. Which is why we must try to thwart out Osama, instead of wasting our time and money in Iraq.
Speaking of money, the war with Iraq left us in huge debt, and might exceed the cost of a trillion dollars, a war with Iran would not alleviate in anyway our debt, nor would it solve our economic crisis.
Invading Iran would be mostly based on emotion, and due to space, I cannot write more, but I have much more fire.
Nikolai said 08/06, 02:13 AM
First off, let me be clear... I am not advocating that we immediately go to war with Iran. I object to your premise b/c we must face the reality that sometimes a war is worth a particular "cost."
1. World Opinion: In Afghanistan, the world believed that the US was legitimately seeking retribution against a nation that harbored Bin Laden. In Iraq, Bush mistakenly believed that world support would seamlessly translate to support for war in Iraq. History has demonstrated that is not the case. As such, many of the US' Euro allies are actively pushing for action against Iran and many Middle Eastern countries support Iran's goals but are still worried about their influence. Therefore, the US can utilize the sanction of world opinion in a way that it could not in Iraq.
2. Iran's Behavior: while there could be a legitimate argument that Iran deserves nuclear energy, its spotty history of compliance/non-compliance with the NPT and its propensity for antagonizing behavior is not something that can be easily overlooked by any country. The world still looks to the US as a leader so it cannot allow certain things to go unnoticed.
So war might have be an unfortunate option to consider.
theyoungdem said 08/09, 09:05 AM
Are you saying that you believe we should go to war with Iran because it might give the world a better opinion of us and because of Iran's "spotty history"?
That's absurd, a war is in no way the answer to what you said. If anything needs to be solved between Iran and the U.S. then we should settle it in a diplomatic manner, and negotiate. John McCain cowardly claims this "negotiating with terrorists" and believes it should not be done. We should always cease an opportunity to negotiate instead of starting a pointless war.
Speaking of which, let me give you more even more negative impacts we would recieve from an invasion of Iraq. In America now we believe gas price to be very high, this ofcourse is relative since our price is much lower than most European countries, but it is still high compared to what we used to have. And I know many Americans are suffering from these high prices.
75% of the world's oil supply is shipped through the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, bordered and partly controlled by Iran. On CNN Ali Velshi showed how if we invade Iran, then we'd have to first block off the gulf, thus causing 16 dollars per gallon for us at the U.S.
Nikolai said 08/11, 03:56 PM
You are asserting things I never said. My argument was in reaction to yours.
1st, how can you assert that more people will hate the US if it invades Iran when the US's own allies in Europe and the Middle East are concerned about Iran enough to consider tough negotiations, sanctions, possible military action, etc. Many of these are the same nations (especially in Europe) that did not support the US invasion of Iraq. It clearly demonstrates a more complex situation than simply a unilateral spectrum of anti-US sentiment.
Second, I did not say that negotiation is off the table. Negotiation should always be the first step and only when that is unsuccessful should the option of war be considered. However, if you are going to argue that military action is not acceptable "at all cost," then you are removing a legitimate "next step" to unsuccessful negotiation and, frankly, the strongest motivation for peaceful diplomacy.
Finally, in a political atmosphere where the focus is on clean/green energy and a reduction on foreign oil dependence, what is a stronger impetus towards these initiatives than high gas prices? Hit the taxpayer's wallet -> more push for green initiatives...
theyoungdem said 09/02, 09:35 PM
I shall tell you how I asserted it. I looked at what Iran had done to the United States in the past and analyzed our true threats, which by the way is what we should have done for the Iraqi war. Why do you think we got so much more support with the Afghan war? It's because it was a war worth fighting for, not a war worth nothing. Invading Iran would simply cause more hatred to spread towards our country. And give Al-Queda yet another reason to try and kill Americans in any way possible.
Also right now negotiations are not even need, but there might come a time where it is needed, and when that time comes we'll simply negotiate, Iran will never attempt to go to war with us, they know that it would leave utter distruction to their country. You must consider who they truly are, a small country versus the United States of America, backed by other NATO countries.
Are you suggesting to all of America to deal with the high gas prices, especially the sky rocketing prices after the hypothetical Iranian war, by simply going green? Is that why many people are struggling to survive with less food due to higher gas prices? I'm sorry I didn't know going green would solve all our problems.
i'm glad to see him back debating. anyway, i think we should think about how war is defined. it can be defined as an internal conflict. We know that the Iranian government doesn't some pretty bad things, so if we instigated an internal conflict to help bring "regime change" without direct U.S. involvement it would help make the 'war' a bit more appealing and do-able.
Mark | 08/06/08
Report Offensive CommentMark, then by that definition, we are already at war, and have been for some time, with more countries than just Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nikolai | 08/08/08
Report Offensive CommentAlso, as history has shown, the installation of a new regime does not guarantee it to be a more democratic regime, which is the rhetoric of American foreign policy: the "spread of democracy."
Nikolai | 08/08/08
Report Offensive CommentAmerica is at a time when we need peace for years to come. Saying that, we cannot just shy away from any necessary conflict, either. I do not however believe that a war with Iran is a productive idea. We would once again be going to war with a country because of its weapons program. Iraq, jR. NUFF SAID
Otrain86 | 08/08/08
Report Offensive CommentOtrain, the question must be asked: If Iraq did have a viable weapons program that posed a threat to US national security, then would the American public and the world feel better that the US invaded Iraq? I believe yes. Granted it has been all but assured that they did not but can we just assume that Iran is the same situation Iraq?
Nikolai | 08/12/08
Report Offensive CommentWhy don't we do both? You know, talk with them, hoping to calm them down while holding the big stick of US retaliation in front of their eyes, very obviously. Sorta like Reagan's way.......
CorruptAbramoff | 08/14/08
Report Offensive CommentPlease keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
youngdem?! You are back!
strongleader | 08/06/08
Report Offensive Comment