Once a distant, mysterious land, the U.S. has become intensely embroiled in Middle Eastern politics. While simultaneously waging campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America has turned a wary eye to Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons. With the lives of potentially thousands of soldiers and citizens at stake in both countries, should the U.S. take direct military action against Iran?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Yes, If...
Hypocritical standards
By those standards, how many countries are justified in declaring war upon the US?
- Hey Its Todd August 14, 2008 11:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They can if they want...
Plotting nuclear destruction of an ally? Japan, Germany, and Italy(wait, we already won that war). We did apologize, though.
Sponsoring terrorism? Do you have an example?
Held their citizens hostage? Well, half the Middle East, but I think it would solve a lot of problems for us if they did declare war on us. I almost hope they do.
Violated sovereign territory? Iraq and Afghanistan... (wait, we won those wars, too)
- Hank
August 15, 2008 7:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No problem
>>Sponsoring terrorism? Do you have an example?
Blackwater. Iran-Contra. Central American Death Squads.
>>Held their citizens hostage?
Abu-Gharib
>>Violated sovereign territory? Iraq and Afghanistan(wait, we won those wars, too)
Why do you use the past-tense for the Afghanistan War (more properly the Al-Qaeda War) and the Iraq Invasion & Occupation? I must have missed the withdrawal of the majority of our troops. Please point me to the stories of such an action. Despite the "end of major combat operations" in Iraq, we're still there more than five years later. I bet the families of the dead are relieved that their loved ones died in insignificant combat.
- Hey Its Todd August 15, 2008 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Blackwater Terrorists
This is from Mirriam-Webster:
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
I don't think Blackwater fulfills this definition. Granted, some of them get drunk on duty, and some of them shoot first too quickly (and are wrong), but what armed force in history hasn't struggled with that problem? A mercenary is intrinsically no less moral than a soldier.
- Hank
August 16, 2008 8:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
False premise
>>A mercenary is intrinsically no less moral than a soldier.
Perhaps they don't start that way, but given that the mercenary contract killers have not beenn bound by either the US Military Code nor the laws of the occupied country, do you think there is any 'moral' force guiding these invaders?
As for whether they are terrorists, from the Iraqi population's perspective, they sure as hell are - they are armed invaders roaming the country with no governing force to moderate their behaviors.
- Hey Its Todd August 18, 2008 3:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nationalist sentiment
>>As for whether they are terrorists, from the Iraqi population's perspective, they sure as hell are
Actually, the insurgency is being carried out by soldiers from Iran, Syria and other countries.
Many Germans in WWII welcomed the American invasion. The same applies to Iraq: just because it is "their" country doesn't necessarily mean they support it and oppose invaders.
To suggest that Iraqis automatically oppose America is to suggest they are incapable of thinking.
- Mr Cropper August 20, 2008 10:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You're wrong and have no proof
You have absolutely no proof that Iranians and Syrians are in Iraq, fighting the Coalition. You have no proof because no proof exists. If they were doing that, we'd already be at war. Our trigger happy Vice-President would have made the case for war eons ago, if he could have.The fact is, when you illegally invade a country and kill over a hundred thousand civilians, people get angry. And people fight back.
If China invaded America, destroyed our cities and killed millions of people, would you fight the Chinese? Would you do whatever it took, guerrilla warfare and home made bombs, to fight against the foreign aggressors? Of course you would. And the Chinese would label you as terrorists, as insurgents. They would say, we won this war, but insurgents are still killing our troops. They're cowardly and hide behind their Christianity to rationalize their actions.
How is this any different?
- betterth
August 22, 2008 8:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Iran-Contra
I'm not convinced the Contras were any worse than the Sandinistas (though they were certainly no better), and they at least had a better cause. As far as selling arms directly to Iran (do you now accept that they are a terrorist state?), that was done without authorization, and Oliver North was tried and convicted for his crimes. In any case, does the fact that we created a problem mean we shouldn't try to solve it?
- Hank
August 16, 2008 8:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Central American Death Squads
Are you talking about El Salvador? I couldn't find any conclusive evidence that our government was aware of the extent of their atrocities (though there would have to have been some willful blindness at some level). Can you point me to a good source of information?
- Hank
August 16, 2008 9:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Iraq and Afghanistan
Neither government will be in a position to threaten us for a long time, which should have been our only aim in invading them. Whether they freely and democratically choose a repressive government should be none of our concern. I was (and still am) a little confused about why we chose Iraq to invade, though.
- Hank
August 16, 2008 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.