America and the Straights of Hormuz: Interference

I urge my opponent to have patience, as I have said already it was New Year thus I'm busy and I was out of characters to illustrate my main points. I Hope the voters (and my opponent) have read and appreciated the crisis from Iran's point of view and now see some justifications for Iranian actions. With the battlefield a little more level, I will proceed. My opponent's points are not actually arguments, but instead restating of facts previously established. I agree, (as I have agreed before) with most of his arguments, and plead him not the state them again, as they are merely definitions and UN laws. There is one argument of his I wish to refute, and that leads me to my next point. C)1 Diplomacy first My opponent mentioned "when international law is threatened the United States has justification to intervene militarily" I am compelled to ask him, where in any United Nation doctrine has he found that if an international law is threatened, a country, any country, can react militarily to the conflict? Let me take this and put this on the US. There is an international law, signed by all members of the UN, that there will be no espionage in the United Nations. That means when one country wants privacy to discuss its policies, the rest of the UN allows him to do so. In 2003, the day before the start of the Iraq war, however, a US spyware was found in the private rooms of the secretary general of the United Nation, the respected Kofi Annan. The US had put that device there to spy on Kofi's reactions to the US invasion of Iraq. Now, the US violated an international law did they not? (I take care to remind my opponent that the Iranians have not even violated any international law, merely threatened to do it out of desperation.) If, as my opponent has stated, "when international law is threatened, (countries) has justification to intervene militarily" then the world would have taken up arms against the US and invaded it. Well, why didn't they? First of all, there is no rule that "when international law is threatened, (a country) has justifications to intervene militarily. Second of all there is a phrase called "does the punishment fit the crime." Even if one country threatens something (not even a faction, simply commerce) doesn't mean another country have right react militarily. Military intervention only leads to build up of conflict. Diplomacy is the laws of modern society. I find my opponent to be suggesting the United State to simply attack and invade the Iranians just because of this threat very similar to the tactics of the ancient Spartans, who would bash down all who opposes them at the slightest of insults or threat. A good peaceful talk/debate held in the UN is much superior to seeing the fruit of one's country cut down. Wars ruin the economy, they take up time, they are a step backwards from world unity, they cause lives and they only lead to more conflict. The most logical course to follow for this conflict, is for a team of all the country's who's interest is threatened by the Hormuz Crisis to meet the Iranians in a peaceful talk. We must remember that the Iranians are a country with their own government. They are not some drunken madman/terrorist who strikes at random with no goal or reason in mind. (as the media have often lead us to believe.) The Iranians have their distinct reasons, which I mentioned in round 2. They are not threatening to close the strait simply see the world fall down in ruins, but to relieve the US's destructive sanction against their own country. Thus, I believe diplomacy would not only lead to mutual benefit and resolving of the conflict, but is also a good first step toward the healing of the accidental wound inflicted between the US and the Iranians in1979, a step to world unity and world peace. Where, with war, even if the Tehran Government is brought down, the Iranians will not only have the United State more. The 1979 tragedy will only spiral more and more out of control. I believe I have illustrated my point quite well. In any circumstance, diplomacy is superior to the horrors of war. Now, however, diplomacy comes with its problems. War is direct and ends in a desired result. Diplomacy is less predictable and can often fail and fall apart. What then? C2) a better alternative to the US Let's say that either the US refused to loosen their sanction against Iran (they actually did, in real life. The US, after diplomacy with the Iranians, agreed to gradually withdraw their sanction and as a result the Iranians backed off in their threat. Even in real life my argument is justified.) Or the Iranians just wanted to destroy world commerce. What then? I agree that, when diplomacy fails, a military intervention might be the only alternative left. However by no means should it be executed by the US, for a variety of reasons. Sub C2 The US is incapable of the said intervention. With its economy in shreds, much of its forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and almost NO support from the home front, the US is not in a very good position to wage war on Iran at the moment. DO anyone here think the US is capable of another 8 years war in Iran, when support for the war is already extremely low before it even started? Furthermore, sources have shown that the US military is not very effective. For example, during the 1990 US invasion of Panama, the ratio of civilians killed to ratio of panama soldiers killed is a startling 4 to 1. That means for every panama soldier the United States killed they killed 4 innocent panama people with him. That is outrageous! (I do not have numbers for the Iraq war or Afghanistan war, but they are likely even higher) Now, if we take the 4 to 1 ratio and put it onto Iran, we can estimate just how much civilians will be killed if the US invade Iran. The Iranians have a military with a grand total of 815,000 personals. If we apply the same 4:1 ratios of civilians to soldiers killed, we can see just how destructive a war on Iran would be to civilian life. SO why not the UN? Indeed, why not the UN? The UN is there to resolve international conflicts like there. Why should the US have the right to intervene in Iran? It is but a country, and only commercially threatened by Iran. Meanwhile the recent invasion of Iraq had given the US a bad reputation. Many foreign conflicts believe the US invasion of Iraq was purely for the United States' own gains, (as the UN has specifically condemned any military action against Iraq.) Should the US do the same to Iran, those claims would only be further supported. Should the US desire to participate in a military intervention for world commerce they will have to switch to the banners of the UN and fight for the rest of the world, instead of the US alone. Conclusion. As I have mentioned before, the Iranians have their justifications to threaten to close the strait. (Especially since the US has violated Iranian Waters in the Iraq Iran War) On the other hand, a diplomatic intervention by the US is justifiable, a military intervention by the UN is justifiable, but my opponent's "a military intervention by the US" is neither justifiable nor acceptable (as the progress of the Hormuz conflict has shown.) Thus unless he is able to refute my arguments successfully I urge a vote for con. On a side note I found my opponent comical in his disregard other UN in the forums (quote of him) "And the UN is a joke, they can't get anyone to listen to them because they have no military power. Arms speak which is why we use them." I remind him that the UN does not have military because it is an advocater of world peace. I also find it Ironic my opponent stress the importance of UN laws but not the UN itself. To you with the last round pro. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...