M573 – Diplomatic Relations with Iran motion Watch

This discussion is closed.
Joleee
Badges: 18
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Part of foreign policy is putting up with the bad to avoid the worse, so there's no way I can support this motion. This new conflict isn't Europe's conflict, and I associate myself with the remarks made by the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany, and the RL UK Prime Minister calling for de-escalation and multilateral dialogue.
PRSOM
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
Easy aye from me.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
Also with Fez on this.
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
I'd probs say No on this one - as I said on the government's statement, trump makes unwise decisions and escalated the Iran war out of literal nowhere. Also, with regards to the pulling out the agreement - Iran already did that, so it's probably useless to stay in it.
I still advocate for mediation and not a war that'll end up killing innocent people.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
Aye, de-escalation does not solve problems, it pushes them under the long grass until tomorrow when they come back bigger and scarier than ever before. Today we're facing Iran with conventional weapons, tomorrow we will be facing Iran with nukes. Fragile peace cannot continue forever and will eventually lead to warfare. The deal with Iran was only ever temporary and was a way for world leaders to look good whilst delaying the big decisions for their successors. We saw the same with DPRK where we no longer have the ability to remove its offensive capability without loss of life. Today, we have the ability to remove Iran's and should do so before the country becomes more sophisticated and forms stronger allies.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Aye, de-escalation does not solve problems, it pushes them under the long grass until tomorrow when they come back bigger and scarier than ever before. Today we're facing Iran with conventional weapons, tomorrow we will be facing Iran with nukes. Fragile peace cannot continue forever and will eventually lead to warfare. The deal with Iran was only ever temporary and was a way for world leaders to look good whilst delaying the big decisions for their successors. We saw the same with DPRK where we no longer have the ability to remove its offensive capability without loss of life. Today, we have the ability to remove Iran's and should do so before the country becomes more sophisticated and forms stronger allies.
Loads of countries have nukes, does that mean we should be increasing attacks on all countries we have a feud with so they don't amp up their nuke arsenal?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by Glaz)
Loads of countries have nukes, does that mean we should be increasing attacks on all countries we have a feud with so they don't amp up their nuke arsenal?
We have relatively good relations with all the countries that have nukes. They aren't attacking our embassies, our people and our interests. Should we allow people who are already attacking us, and on the cusp of developing nukes, to make nukes? Obviously not! That's why we strike to prevent them obtaining nukes. Admittedly, it might be bloody however it's less bloody to strike now than potentially be playing around with nukes later
1
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
We have relatively good relations with all the countries that have nukes. They aren't attacking our embassies, our people and our interests. Should we allow people who are already attacking us, and on the cusp of developing nukes, to make nukes? Obviously not! That's why we strike to prevent them obtaining nukes. Admittedly it might be bloody however it's less bloody to strike now than potentially be playing around with nukes later
I thought that the only countries "allowed" to have nukes were the UK, USA, Russia, France and China. Does that mean we should also be attacking North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan and any other country that potentially has nukes. That's a lot of attacks...
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by Glaz)
I thought that the only countries "allowed" to have nukes were the UK, USA, Russia, France and China. Does that mean we should also be attacking North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan and any other country that potentially has nukes. That's a lot of attacks...
Israel, India, Pakistan are not attacking us. They are relatively friendly. They are safe. The only countries you attack are the ones attacking you.

It's quite straight forward. Think of it in the context of a playground bully at break time. A bully much smaller and less powerful than you punches you. The teachers are doing nothing. You ask the bully to stop and he keeps punching you. He is threatening to run away and get a machine gun to spray at you regardless of any potential collateral of stray bullets hitting your classmates. Do you punch the bully back or wait for him to get the gun and start an all out shooting war when he has a gun? It's an obvious answer. You punch the bully back and end the situation before it gets worse. There is another solution, you could try talking to him and waiting for the bell to go, for break time to end and for you to be in a different class under the protection of a teacher. However, come lunch time his anger has built up even more and he comes out with a weapon to throw everything he has at you.

Iran is the bully, the US is the victim, innocent civilians are the classmates and waiting until the end of break is talking to and pointless peace conferences.
Last edited by Miss Maddie; 1 month ago
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Israel, India, Pakistan are not attacking us. They are relatively friendly. They are safe. The only countries you attack are the ones attacking you.

It's quite straight forward. Think of it in the context of a playground bully at break time. A bully much smaller and less powerful than you punches you. The teachers are doing nothing. You ask the bully to stop and he keeps punching you. He is threatening to run away and get a machine gun to spray at you regardless of any potential collateral of stray bullets hitting your classmates. Do you punch the bully back or wait for him to get the gun and start an all out shooting war when he has a gun? It's an obvious answer. You punch the bully back and end the situation before it gets worse. There is another solution, you could try talking to him and waiting for the bell to go, for break time to end and for you to be in a different class under the protection of a teacher. However, come lunch time his anger has built up even more and he comes out with a weapon to through everything he has at you.

Iran is the bully, the US is the victim, innocent civilians are the classmates and waiting until the end of break is talking to and pointless peace conferences.
You punch the bully, and the bully pulls a handgun out of their pocket. They didn't have to go home and get the machine gun, they had a handgun in their pocket they didn't want to advertise about.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by Glaz)
You punch the bully, and the bully pulls a handgun out of their pocket. They didn't have to go home and get the machine gun, they had a handgun in their pocket they didn't want to advertise about.
That doesn't work because we know Iran doesn't have a gun (a gun being a nuke). Machine gun, hand gun, knife or nunchucks, the point is you fight the bully before the bully becomes more powerful. It's better to fight a weak opponent than a stronger one.

Do not delude yourself, a war with Iran will happen in your lifetime. It is unavoidable. Do you want it to be conventional (now) or risk a nuclear one (the future)?
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
That doesn't work because we know Iran doesn't have a gun (a gun being a nuke). Machine gun, hand gun, knife or nunchucks, the point is you fight the bully before the bully becomes more powerful. It's better to fight a weak opponent than a stronger one.

Do not delude yourself, a war with Iran will happen in your lifetime. It is unavoidable. Do you want it to be conventional (now) or risk a nuclear one (the future)?
(Not trying to be purposefully difficult or anything but I'm just playing this out)

Just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I said the bully had a handgun in their pocket they didn't want to advertise about. Maybe Iran has something that nobody else knows about.


I'm not taking sides in this anyway. I'm not a fan of the Iranian regime and I'm not a fan of the Trump administration either. I'm not siding with either.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by Glaz)
(Not trying to be purposefully difficult or anything but I'm just playing this out)

Just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I said the bully had a handgun in their pocket they didn't want to advertise about. Maybe Iran has something that nobody else knows about.


I'm not taking sides in this anyway. I'm not a fan of the Iranian regime and I'm not a fan of the Trump administration either. I'm not siding with either.
There's always a possibility of anything. Who knows, maybe the US has a plasma cannon in its arsenal that can shoot down everything from nukes to alien spacecraft 32 million light years away? We spend a lot of money to know these things. It's rare when we're wrong.

Still, let's follow your line of reasoning. We both accept Iran wants nuclear weapons. There's a chance Iran has nuclear weapons we don't know about. The outcome is a potential nuclear conflict today. As time progresses the chances of Iran obtaining nukes increases. The outcome is a potential nuclear conflict tomorrow. Given the chance of Iran having nukes is less today, it follows that the chance of nuclear conflict is less today. Why would you not attack today when attacking in the future is more dangerous?

If you're going to say 'never attack' then you need to get Iran to agree. Iran hates the USA. It wants to see the USA destroyed. It's going to funnel WMDs and money into terror groups as quickly as it can.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
There's always a possibility of anything. Who knows, maybe the US has a plasma cannon in its arsenal that can shoot down everything from nukes to alien spacecraft 32 million light years away? We spend a lot of money to know these things. It's rare when we're wrong.

Still, let's follow your line of reasoning. We both accept Iran wants nuclear weapons. There's a chance Iran has nuclear weapons we don't know about. The outcome is a potential nuclear conflict today. As time progresses the chances of Iran obtaining nukes increases. The outcome is a potential nuclear conflict tomorrow. Given the chance of Iran having nukes is less today, it follows that the chance of nuclear conflict is less today. Why would you not attack today when attacking in the future is more dangerous?

If you're going to say 'never attack' then you need to get Iran to agree. Iran hates the USA. It wants to see the USA destroyed. It's going to funnel WMDs and money into terror groups as quickly as it can.
What you're saying makes sense and I do agree. Maybe it sounds too idealistic but hopefully there'd be a way of defusing the situation without resorting to war.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by Glaz)
What you're saying makes sense and I do agree. Maybe it sounds too idealistic but hopefully there'd be a way of defusing the situation without resorting to war.
What do you support then? Doing nothing is increasing the chance of Iran having nukes and nuclear warfare. Surely the government doesn't want to increase the risk of nuclear warfare? The people deserve a proper solution from the government you represent.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
What do you support then? Doing nothing is increasing the chance of Iran having nukes and nuclear warfare. Surely the government doesn't want to increase the risk of nuclear warfare? The people deserve a proper solution from the government you represent.
I'll withhold my opinion for now and see how the situation plays out in the short term.


However, let's continue playing this situation out.

Let's say that we wait, and let's say Iran develops nukes, nuclear warfare is a real possibility. However, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) means that neither side is going to wage war on the other, and if that won't happen, then what's going to happen. Whatever kind of war there may be, there will always be a threat of nuclear weapons, which invokes MAD.

TL;DR: not gonna happen
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
What do you support then? Doing nothing is increasing the chance of Iran having nukes and nuclear warfare. Surely the government doesn't want to increase the risk of nuclear warfare? The people deserve a proper solution from the government you represent.
So what would be your intended end point of action taken? Regime change (is that realistic)? Just knocking them down a peg or two (is that likely to intimidate the current regime)?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
We must beat them in Eurovision, that'll show them!
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
So what would be your intended end point of action taken? Regime change (is that realistic)? Just knocking them down a peg or two (is that likely to intimidate the current regime)?
Knocking them down a peg or two is the closest. Don't bother with regime change, destroy all their military bases, factories suspected of developing nukes, naval ports, naval ships and anything that brings in wealth. Remove as much of their offensive capability as you can without putting boots on the ground. If it rebuilds, destroy it again. Prevent the military from becoming a real threat.
(Original post by Glaz)
I'll withhold my opinion for now and see how the situation plays out in the short term.


However, let's continue playing this situation out.

Let's say that we wait, and let's say Iran develops nukes, nuclear warfare is a real possibility. However, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) means that neither side is going to wage war on the other, and if that won't happen, then what's going to happen. Whatever kind of war there may be, there will always be a threat of nuclear weapons, which invokes MAD.

TL;DR: not gonna happen
MAD works against states. States won't nuke states. It might work with Iran, it might not. The scary thing is Iran's links with terror groups. Iran could funnel nukes to terror groups and the terror groups could use them. A suitcase nuke on a packed subway train in New York or in a crowded shopping mall at Christmas would be devastating. If that happens, who do you nuke back? Iran would claim it didn't come from them or was stolen. You can't nuke back a cross border, mafia-like terror group without any known headquarters.
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
(Original post by 04MR17)
We must beat them in Eurovision, that'll show them!
I would like to support this 100% buuut I don't think we've won in years and imo we need better contestants
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All