We should not attack Iran

As con, i will proceed to refute all arguments. Con's argumentation structure will be attacking each and every Argument seperately, while addressing the main point argument at the top of Pro's Case.1. It has been proven that Iran has nuclear capabilities, this was proven through an investigation by the European Union and attempts by the EU to blockade technological advancements by Iran which ended in failure due to advanced technology already posessed by Iran. A nuclear bomb is one thing, however access to it is another, just as equal danger. The fact that Iran has nuclear capabilities immediately makes it a threat to the United States. [1]2. My opponent states nuclear war is not reasonable. This in itself is true, but why allow a nation to attain nuclear weapons that can be used to counter another? This debate argues for the United States, and Iran's nuclear capabilities make it an impending threat none the less, one that can challenge the United States. Why allow this to happen? A Pre-Emptive Strike will immediately eradicate Iran's nuclear capabilities BEFORE it achieves nuclear weapons. [2] 3. This argument is the exact same as argument two judges. Just cross apply my refutation of argument 2 to his argument 3 as well, because he is stating in both points nuclear war is unreasonable because it reaches an immedate standoff. [2]4. I completely agree about one thing, no war is good, for both sides at least. The purpose of war itself was to protect one nation from another threat. This is entirely justified by the United States, as we do not want to reach a Standoff with Iran, where we begin another Cold War. The United States has been down that path before, the fact of the matter is, eliminate the threat before it grows. All argumentation in this debate was centered around my opponent saying Iran has no nuclear weapons, and then my opponent states even if they did we shouldn't attack. This makes no sense judge, it's either one or the other. Clearly my opponent is doubting himself by stating this. The Imminent threat is still there, a threat should be eradicated for the good of the United States. [2] [3]5. A Pre-Emptive strike eradicates the possibility of Iran completing a Nuclear Weapon. The war is a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Also judges, notice a major contradiction in this argument. My opponents argument is stating they will create a bomb from this, however, wouldn't this affect my opponents own arguments 2 and 3? If Iran does create a nuclear weapon, nothing will occur from the standstill, or the Cold War replica, stated in my opponent Arguments 2 and 3. This is contradictory as well, as now my opponent has switched focus to saying to not allow Iran to create weapons at all, and that war will make them create weapons. My opponent is constantly switching sides in this debate, giving no clear reason because each of my opponents arguments clash with another of my opponents arguments. Does Iran have nuclear weapons or does it not? Do we want Iran to reach a standstill with the U. S (Arguments 2 and 3) or not (Argument 5)? [1] [2] [3] [4]UNDERVIEWFirst let's address the whole of Pros contradictory arguments. Pro goes left and right to determine whether Iran has nuclear capabilities, and even justifies allowing it, the unjustifies Iran possessing Nuclear weapons once again. This constant motion accross this debate is clear ground for Con, who is sticking to one side of Iran- Possessing nuclear capabilties that make an immediate threat to the United States. Clearly we do NOT WANT ANOTHER COLD WAR. This would then give Iran more power than many of the other countries that do not contain nuclear weapons, allowing Iran to take advantage while both Americans and many other states live in constant fear of a nuclear assault, which may very well be the case. Secondly, This entire debate is based around nuclear weapons. The problem is, my opponent's arguments are circling around the truth, not that Iran has nuclear weapons or does not, but rather, they have the capabilities, which are an immediate threat, developed through intelligence all over the world. Nuclear capabilities are not found in every state, few states even openly admit to Nuclear research. Iran is one of the Nations that has openly admitted it has nuclear capabilities through it's constant nuclear research, as well as the vast capability of nuclear weapons available to it. Thirdly, According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the only way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is through war, which is exactly why Obama, with careful consideration stated that he will indeed go to war with Iran, because there is no evidence showing it will halt it's nuclear expeditions. [6]Fourth, Immenency threas have already occured between the United States and Iran through Israel. Israel has had many hostilities with Iran, and because the United States and Israel are allianced together, the Iranian government has stated any lash out or attack by Israel will result in an attack on the United States by Iran. America has tried to stop Israel from launching attacks on Iran, but they refuse to cooperate, and we cannot simply terminate our alliance as Israel is a valuable asset in the Middle East. Therefore if we do not strike first, there is an extremely high possibility Iran will. [7] Fifth, Iran is a very volatile nation. Just as Israel has threatened it, it to has threatened many middle eastern nations, not just Israel. The militiary leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in 2005 saying "We should wipe Israel off the map. " There goes a simple reason for why Iran would want nuclear weapons,and Israel is in an alliance with us, any threat against Israel would force us to attack Iran, making this Nuclear Standstill worthless. [8] [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] . http://www.windsofchange.net...[3] . http://www.brookings.edu...[4] . http://www.cbsnews.com...[5] . http://www.brookings.edu...[6] . http://blogs.the-american-interest.com...[7] . http://www.politicususa.com...[8] . http://news.yahoo.com...This debate is very biased, judges please vote off what is in the debate, and not arguments not said in the debate.