The debate "While our veterans and our seniors are being under served we should not be giving Iran $1.7 B" was started by
January 18, 2016, 5:52 pm.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
MrShine posted 3 arguments, State57 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
duelist1, MrShine, State57, jayhard, thatdebatingchick and 2 visitors agree.
Firplius and 2 visitors disagree.
Iran is the number one state sponsor of terror. Until that changes and until it stops threatening genocide it should be sanctioned and never funded.
Misread on multiple accounts, which does translate to ignorance on my behalf. On the other hand, the next door neighbor point is true. I'm just saying that peace deals like this one are only a trade for little periods of peace, followed up with being taken advantage of. If there is no need for war, or if the deal isn't leaning towards the advantage they desire, then there will be war? The US owes them nothing, even if it would be in our favor to do the deal.
are we talking about Iraq or Iran now? I was describing the situation in Iraq and how the Americans made it much worse. Iran does control their land. trying to make peace with them makes sense. especially when you can see an excellent example of how trying to bomb them can blow up in your face right next door in Iraq.
>Can't control half the land
There's the problem right there. The US on this deal only provides a temporary peace that will bite us on the back when the future controllers are still angry. Not saying the money should go to the war effort, but this deal does us no favors, and the people on the receiving end are a fragmented people that can't take responsibility for the terrorists that thrive in the area. Don't say its not true when you said yourself they don't have control.
How has spending all that money "knocked out the threat" in Iraq? the country doesn't control half its land and the majority of the country despises you.
the US could defeat Iran very quickly. but that only makes the problem worse. look at Iraq. the US smashed the Iraqi army very fast. it turned the whole country into a hell hole and helped feed ISIS. It made the situation much worse. whatever came after the current Iranian regime would hate America even more than the current one does. you cannot fight hatred with bombs. unless you are willing to exterminate all the Iranian people you are only making them hate you more. if spending 1.7 billion dollars helps end the cycle of violence then it is a bargain because you will spend 100 times that amount trying to fight a long drawn out war in the middle East, which inevitably makes the situation worse.
hears what a war between ISIS, or Iran, or any middle east country vs. the us would be.
1. the us does a full military strike, with the best military in the world.
2. the us wins big.
I'm not for a war, but isn't putting 1.6 billion dollors to knock out these threats a better use of the money.
I'd like to hear any argument about why the us could not knock out iran, or ISIS in a very short time.
But it is a deal that does not negotiate from a position of power. Iran may not be our enemy, but it is bad policy to do so when the deal provides a better position as though they were our enemy. We would have gone to war? This appeasement would not prevent war, more excuses for that will follow
you're also suggesting that while we aren't serving our veterans, we should go to war. the nuclear deal is clearly the only way to avoid war. more war means more injured veterans