We should to war with Iran

Hello I'm sorry about the link, it worked for the other debate, here it is again http://www.youtube.com... it should work. Here is my point about Israel, Israel has nuclear warheads, and with President Ahmadinejad saying "death to Israel", how do you know he won't invade. It sounds like he is another Hitler who wants to start another Holocaust. "Who's to say that the British PM won't start another holocaust, or Germany's chancellor, or even our own leaders. A hypothetical situation is hardly a reason to go to war." Yes, it would be a good reason to go to war, if something like that ever happened (there is always a chance with Iran). The difference between President Ahmadinejad and Prime Minester Brown or Chancellor Merkel is that they have never said "death to Israel" in a speech or what not. I think he is a serious threat to Israel and the Jewish religion. "First off, I don't think that you've proven that Iran has tested us really. You bring up the boat incident, but have you looked in on it recently? The incident was not only a standard occurrence, but much of the story was over hyped, indeed, some of it was flat out made up. (1) And once again, this is not a reason to go to war. Potentially unarmed Iranian speed boats taunting US ships? Not sure where war comes into play." Do you know what happen? When there are boats from a Middle Eastern country coming at you, while they were out of their waters, and saying we will explode, that isn't a threat!?!? If that isn't, then explain a threat that could happen. With the articles you gave for (1), one of them is just letters, that you don't know are true and you could have said something to make my argument look bad. Number 1b I'm not even going to waste my time reading that, because that is the same people who say Fox News won President Bush the election, President Bush was in charge of 9/11. It is just depressed liberals with too much time trying to make our president look bad. Until that makes it to CNN or MSNBC (Fox news knows that's fake) I'll take it into consideration. War comes into play, when they are threatening an explosion/attack, I couldn't see that being much clearer. How do you know they were unarmed, we don't know if they were or weren't, so we have to take them by their word and say they do. ""Although there is no proof, Iran says they don't have nuclear bombs." You admit yourself that there's no evidence to support that claim." Yes I do admit that there is no evidence to support this claim. I see how you can make the mistake, but I'm saying that we can't prove that Iran has no nuclear warheads, so we should be safe rather than sorry. Here the wiki link, I don't know how that happened again leave a comment if it doesn't work, so i can try to give it to you before your next argument- http://en.wikipedia.org... "you claim that it's possible that Iran may have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, and you admit that there's no evidence to support that" We know nothing about their nuclear program. There is no evidence for either side. "not a reason to go to war" Just one response, if we get a hold of a tiny bit of info and it doesn't have to be about nuclear bombs, I'd rather be safe than sorry. "then you go on to say that they could give it to terrorists? You don't provide any logical link from Iran to terrorists" Iran has been linked to terrorist many of times. Here are some articles- 1)http://www.time.com... 2)http://www.csmonitor.com... 3)http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 4)http://www.msnbc.msn.com... If that isn't good enough, i don't know what is. "Not enough troops. We don't have enough troops to fight the war we're in right now. (2) If we tried to wage two wars at once, our military would be stretched passed the breaking point." Alright -1)Where's your proof we don't have enough troops? Lets just say we do, would you go and fight in the war? You're 17, you have to go and sign up for the draft next year. It is the people who are afraid of war. The selfish liberals (don't get me wrong, there are Conservatives that will go under this category, but most are dems.) who only think of them selves that won't fight. That is how we won the Revolutionary War, Civil, and WWII wars. Then, the young men were just itching to fight, and knew they had to to protect their country. Everyone should think of their country first, not what's best for you. Also, the draft would work too. 2)We are waging 2 wars right now. We're doing fine. I think Afghanistan could end within months, if we find Bin Laden. Then, all the pieces will fall into place, and we can send soldiers home, but Iraq is different. "Lack of US soft power. The world doesn't support us in the Iraq war, in a poll conducted in January 2007 around the world 73% of the people polled, thought the US was handling the Iraq war badly" So? Is Iraq the same as Iran. That poll was conducted before the surge. Now, even the people who said it would never work *cough cough* democrats (Harry Reid) are even saying it works. General Petraeus has done an excellent job since then, and he should have won Time Magazine's Person of the year. I want to see a poll that was conducted within 3 months. Also, we can consider FRance an ally, because of the new Pro-American president and mumbles of France starting a war with Iran. Also, we would get help from our biggest allies like, POland Israel, UK, Australia, Georgia, and so on and so forth.