America and the Straights of Hormuz: Interference

I will be arguing the United States does not have the right to interfere militarily with the Iranians threat of closing off the straight. - RyouofFunceJust to remind my audience of the argument at hand. Rebuttals: C1) Diplomacy First Your argument pertaining to the US alleged bugging of UN offices does not fit the circumstances at hand. What the Iranians are proposing is to close off a major international waterway which is far more serious than the bugging of an office within the United State's own territory (New York City). Your argument is akin to this statement: "If the cops don't arrest J-walkers why should they arrest murderers?" Closing a straight where 35% of the worlds oil goes through is a much more serious offence than simple espionage. Once I again I would like to try to reel this argument back on track since you are in a desperate attempt to derail the argument at hand. You said the United States has no justification to react militarily, when I have obviously proven that they do. Once again, other argument about which course is better for the US etc is not on the table. The First Round of the debate did not see me saying "US military intervention is the best course of action in the case of the Straights of Hormuz." No, wrong. I said they have justification for doing so if they decided to act this way. Which I have proven they do. I beg the reader to please remember the original course of this debate. C2) Your statement that says the United States is incapable with war in Iran is ludicrous. The United States Navy's Fifth Fleet is posted in Bahrain for such an incident. The usual force of 20-plus ships, with about 1,000 people ashore and 15,000 afloat, consists of a Carrier Battle Group, Amphibious Ready Group, combat aircraft, and other support units and ships. Fifth Fleet exemplifies the Department of the Navy's strategic concept "Forward... From the sea," by providing the ability to respond immediately to any emerging crisis from peace-keeping and humanitarian missions to asserting necessary force in regional conflicts. [1]The protection and keeping of an internationally used waterway constitutes as a peace-keeping mission in which we would take the necessary action to maintain the peaceful flow of ocean going traffic. No one has proposed a full scale war with Iran but "intervention" militarily to prevent the closing of the straight. This could be anything from firing scare shots across their bows, to merely sitting our fleet within the straight. Nowhere have I offered a full scale war with Iran, I merely said that we have the justification for intervening militarily. Which we do. Especially since you say they have justification for closing the straights, I say we have justification for keeping them open. Conclusion: I am disappointed that my opponent has taken this debate so far off track. Reminders: " the Iranians have their justifications to threaten to close the strait." - if the Iranians have justification for closing the straight you'd better believe that we have the justification to intervene and keep it open.* Iran has sanctions put on it for a reason. * Military intervention does not mean total war with Iran, it could be a police threat, military presence or a few shots fired in warning. * International Law is on the side of the United States. The justification is there for the US to keep those straights open!Look back up to Round 1 and do not be fooled by my opponents ramblings. Once again he managed to avoid refuting any of my points concretely or directly. Thank you. [1] http://www.globalsecurity.org...