Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    PRO seems to be all over the place for his reasons for sanctions. He says it's in our interest to keep Iran weak (this would suggest indefinite sanctions), but then says it's not about sanctioning them forever and suggests it's about keeping them from nuclear power, but then he also hints at regime change several times. These are 3 distinct reasons, some contradictory...frankly none of them are for "our" interests as Americans, but the interests of the American government who's been trying to remake the middle east since 2001 and has caused immeasurable human suffering in the process, if Iran stands in the way of that then that warrants support, not sanctions.

    Also, PRO saying he doesn't approach this from a moral angle is an admission that his position is immoral, and the admission doesn't fix that problem.

    Also, it's ironic that PRO is on Iran's side in Syria, not the U.S.

    • a year ago

      All of these are valid reasons to sanction them, never did I say that I am not for sanctioning them for the other reasons with the end goal of a non-militaristic regime change. I didn't hint at it, I said it plainly. All 3 are in the US's interests considering the current state of the Middle East and our involvement in it.

      "American government who's been trying to remake the middle east since 2001 and has caused immeasurable human suffering in the process, if Iran stands in the way of that then that warrants support, not sanctions." You are simply anti-American and so it makes sense that you wouldn't support policy that supports America's interests without really considering others as much.

      Saying you don't approach it from a moral angle absolutely does fix that problem. I said I don't approach foreign policy from a moral standpoint, so when you say 'this doesn't necessarily feel right', it doesn't matter because that's totally subjective.

      There is, by the way, no irony there, and I'm not 'pro Iran's side in Syria', as I said in the debate I believe, I am more pro Syria now that they are pushing Iran out increasingly.

    • a year ago

      @rstanton34 Iran supports the regime in Syria. We oppose it. If you support the regime staying in power then you are indeed on Iran's side.

      If you think morality is subjective then why approach anything from a moral standpoint? Why not rape and murder every time it's in our "interests" to do so?

      Don't conflate the U.S. government with America. It's not that I don't support "America's interest", it's that I don't think it's in the American people's interest to make other's suffer.

    • a year ago

      @cotter You're just so far off on all of your points. Far more goes into US stance on Syria than 'we don't like it'.

      1 just flat out wrong.
      A likes B, C likes B,
      A likes C.
      Does not logically follow.

      2 Because political pragmatism is far more important that morality for foreign policy.

      3 Again just wrong at times. Such as here.

    • a year ago

      @rstanton34 If you don't think Assad should be overthrown then you share that same position with Iran. Perhaps you didn't like my wording, but that is a fact.

      Again, why approach anything from a moral standpoint? Why not rape and murder anytime it benefits us? Why not murder a healthy person to save several others needing organ transplants because that's the "pragmatic" solution? What makes foreign policy so different that it is exempt from moral considerations?

      And tell me how it benefits average Americans like you or me or Julian to make Iranians suffer under an artificially crippled economy?

      Perhaps we should do a live debate to hash some of these things out...

    • a year ago

      1: I just addressed this.
      2: This misses the point that we don't deal with things from a moral standpoint in foreign affairs because a government's job is to benefit it's own people.
      3: I did in the debate, not going to rehash it here for you.

      Sure set it up.

    • a year ago

      1. you addressed it with a strawman
      2. So I guess you think Hitler was justified then...because everything he did, he did for his fellow Germans. Government's role is to protect the rights of it's people, not to "benefit" it's own people, especially when it's at the expense of others.
      3. You said how it's good for "American interests" not how it's good for the American *people*

    • a year ago

      @cotter Haven't been on in a bit, I'm more active on the facebook group. Which debate do you want to do, if either? I think the "Foreign Policy, like everything else, is not exempt from Moral Considerations"

    • a year ago

      @cotter Although you word it in a very self serving manner. Allowing for immoral events in order for the US to remain the leading world power is, in and of itself, a moral decision. So the issue is that you are just an unrealistic person who believes we can achieve Utopian ideals. This is the fundamental difference between our viewpoints, not sure if you realize this, but we can discuss it to show you.

    • a year ago

      @rstanton34 "Allowing for immoral events..." "events" are not immoral, actions are immoral. We can just have a generic motion about sanctions if you like.

    • a year ago

      @cotter It is pretty obvious I meant, "Actions which are immoral in a vacuum can be moral when larger context is concerned", as is the case here.

    • a year ago

      @rstanton34 Sure, but that's certainly not the case here. In those cases the good caused has to outweigh the harm caused (and even then it's questionable like murdering 1 person to harvest his organs and save 7 others for example). In this case there is no good to outweigh the harm.

  • a year ago

    Giving another country something as severe as a 2008 (or 4 times as severe depending on who's numbers you're are going by) warrants a really good reason, and I just didn't get that from PRO's case. I gave my vote to CON.