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
Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?
Yes, If...
I would support a war against Iran if they've committed overt acts of war against us.
For instance, if they've violated our sovereign territory (such as a US embassy), held Americans hostage, given state sponsorship to terrorists trying to kill Americans, and openly plotted the nuclear destruction of one of our most valuable allies in the Middle East such as Israel.
Wait, you mean they've already done all that?
Then why is it even a question?
- FIRM
August 14, 2008 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (8)
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.
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.
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.
who is real terrorist?
Iranians are dangerous.Iranians killed 40 millions in WW2.Iranians killed 3 millions in Vietnam.they killed 2 millions in Iraq for OIL.Iranians killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan.they supported the terrorist state of Israel.they supported the civil war in Sudan.Iranians created and supported Bin laden in 1979 to fight the USSR. Iranians supported Saddam Hussain against Iran. they bombed Heroshema and Nakazake in Japan.Iranians burned 6 millions Jews in Germany (If Holocaust be true!)
Iran has many atom bombs, but Iran doesn't allow other countries like America or Israel to have nuclear reactor just for creating electricity power.
Iran is the only country in the Middle East which has Nuclear weapon, but Israel doesn't have any!
So they are terrorist.
- Usrael September 20, 2008 4:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
I know who the real terrorist are.
We didn't kill forty million in WWII. That was a global conflagration. We had nothing to do with the Holocaust - that was Germany and yes it was real.
Vietnam was a civil war that started under French occupation that we allowed to get ourselves sucked into. It can be argued that we shouldn't have been there.
We provided support to the people of Afghanistan after their government was removed by the USSR and supported Sadam against Iran because of the invasion of Embassy and the holding of our citizens as hostage.
We entered Afghanistan because of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the threat posed by Alqeda.
The Iraq situation was started in 1987 when Iraq launched a missile at the USS Stark. When we did not react forcefully it was assumed that we lacked the will and the groundwork was set for the first Gulf War. After the war Sadam proceeded to slaughter lage numbers of Shia and Kurds, attempted the assasination of George H. W. Bush when he was speaking in Qatar and stared paying families a reward if their loved ones turned themselves into human bombs. The current administration handeled it poorly but the invasion of Iraq served a purpose and to date we have received no oil profits from Iraq. They need the money to rebuild.
The current Iranian administration openly supports Hezbollah and Hamas and stated that Israel should not exist. Yes we worry about them getting nuclear weapons. They support terrorist and we don't know what lengths they will go to.
- Aegiltheugly
September 23, 2008 2:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Selective facts
"We had nothing to do with the Holocaust - that was Germany and yes it was real."
We sent back Jewish families on the same boats they used when they tried to escape the Nazis. We didn't do much to help, that for sure.
"We provided support to the people of Afghanistan after their government was removed by the USSR and supported Sadam against Iran because of the invasion of Embassy and the holding of our citizens as hostage."
This was that beautiful time period when our government, Saddam and Osama were all friends. You forgot the first cause of the Iranian take over of the embassy: we took out their democratically elected leader when they took out the US puppet dictator.
"After the war Sadam proceeded to slaughter lage numbers of Shia and Kurds,"
It's disrespectful to rewrite the history of the Kurds this way. Saddam didn't start killing Kurds after the first Gulf invasion. As a matter of fact the Kurds are an oppressed nationality in almost every country they live in, even by our allies in the region.
Hamas has already said they would accept Israel if Israel would just go back to the 1967 borders. Why has Israel made no move to take them up on this? Does the Israeli government really want peace for their citizens or not?
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 10:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
How kind of you.
You titled your comment quite fittingly, giving everyone a head's up that your facts were selective. Thank you.
We may have made some mistakes in our handling of the Holocaust, but we had no way of knowing what the extent of this was. If we had gone into Germany on suspicion that there may have been death camps, and it had turned out that they were much less than we had suspected, it would have been the same situation as Iraq, except that we had attacked a major world power instead of Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20. The United States did the best it could with the information it had during WWII. Who could have imagined that people were capable of such evil without seeing it with their own eyes. Even today people deny that it happened, even though they can see the pictures and see the facts, because it is too horrible for them to contemplate. The fact is, if not for the United States, the Nazis probably would have won the war, and the Holocaust would have gotten a whole lot worse than it did.
Saddam did massacre the Kurds with a vengeance after we pulled out of the Gulf. They were mistreated and often massacred before, but after the U.S. withdrawal it started again with fresh malice. Though Al-Anfal occured before the Gulf War, the massacre continued after U.S. departure.
Hamas has proven itself liars over and over again. Israel does not move to take them up on anything because that would be negotiating with terrorists, rewarding them for terrorism, giving up some of its current advantage, and encouraging them to continue. The Israeli government wants peace for its citizens, but listening to Hamas is not the way to do it. They will not be happy until Israel is wiped from the face of the Earth. On second thought, probably not even then. They'll find someone else that doesn't agree with them and start killing them. Radical Islam will not be happy until the world is bound by strict Sharia law and their particular brand of Islam.
- richardsonkr
March 12, 2009 9:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
GOOOOOOOOLLLLLL!!!!!
"You titled your comment quite fittingly, giving everyone a head's up that your facts were selective. Thank you."
Snarkiness will only get you a pat on the back from your friends. And even that doesn't mean they actually agree with you, it just means they thought you provided more humor than the other person.
"We may have made some mistakes in our handling of the Holocaust, but we had no way of knowing what the extent of this was. ... The fact is, if not for the United States, the Nazis probably would have won the war , and the Holocaust would have gotten a whole lot worse than it did."
I was joking when I talked about selecting facts. You on the other hand seem to be mistaking propaganda for facts. "we made some mistakes", really? is that the best you can come up with. "the Nazis probably would have won the war" really (i know, it's terrible to repeat)?
Seriously though, The US played a significant role but then so did the Russian and the British. It is no accident that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt planned their operations together. Besides, there is always a weakness to any argument in history that tries to use "would have (verb)..." as a defense for anything other than what actually did happen. We will never "know" what "would have happened" if something else actually happened.
"Saddam did massacre the Kurds with a vengeance after we pulled out of the Gulf. They were mistreated and often massacred before, but after the U.S. withdrawal it started again with fresh malice. Though Al-Anfal occured before the Gulf War, the massacre continued after U.S. departure."
Is being massacred with "a vengeance " worse than just being massacred? You basically restate what I said: The Kurds were killed and discriminated against before and after the Gulf War. That was never the reason we went to war. It has always been a side bar of support for our actions. You also don't take up the fact that every country with a significant Kurd population treats them like sub humans, including all of our Arab allies.
I can only go by what each side says. Honestly, I generally think both sides are always lying in the case of Isreal and whoever. Hamas (or the armed part) still through bombs randomly into Israel. Israel continues to occupy land they know they have no right to occupy.
The easiest way through this argument is the polarized view. But I hardly think that the Palestinians and Jewish families suffering the losses and instability of the region find much value in the polarized view.
I guess that was the reason I presented the facts I presented about Iran. Sometimes we need to step back from the polarized political arguments of each side and see what is really being done. Are we really helping ourselves by trying to play the innocent victim? Is it possible to rectify past grievances in a productive way for both sides without resorting to war?
If that possibility exists, I think we should pursue it. We shouldn't blind ourselves with a false sense of innocence in a complicated world.
- mangueken
March 21, 2009 1:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
I thought we agreed humor was acceptable?
My "snarkiness" has nothing to do with my friends since none of them use this website. I'm not in this for pats on the back, I'm in it for my own amusement.
The fact of WWII is that the U.S. did everything it could. You can hardly criticize her for not entering into all-out war with a superpower over the rumor of a Holocaust. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to criticize someone else for not being perfect when you haven't had the opportunity to make the same mistake with the information that they had at the time. That the U.S. changed the course of the war is not propaganda, it's fact. The Nazis were winning, and then the U.S. came in. We may not know for certain what would have happened, but we can make a damn good guess about what probably would have happened. Notice that's the wording I used "probably," not "know." I've had enough of your constant appeals to ridicule.
The Kurds were discriminated against both before and after the Gulf War, but during? Coalition forces severely cut down on this, and pretty much stopped the killing. After they left, it started up again with increased fervor, which is what "with a vengeance" means.
When I called Hamas liars, I didn't mean they were lying to you. I frankly don't give a shit if they lie to you, that's part of war. You don't just give out information. What I meant was, Hamas has demonstrated in the past it's willingness to make treaties if only Israel will do this one little thing, jump through this one little hoop, or cede this one little territory. The treaty is signed, and a few weeks later, more rockets are landing in Israel, usually from the area ceded. Hamas doesn't want peace, they want Israel to be wiped from the Earth. Israel is reluctant to make treaties with Hamas because Hamas doesn't honor them. They are liars.
- richardsonkr
March 23, 2009 5:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.