Americans Engaging In War With Iran Would Be An Unwarranted Show Of Imperialist Oppression.

This debate focuses on the Con's belief that war with Iran would be unjust and uncalled for because of American intervention in the country in the past makes Iran look like they are the bad guys, and the Con believes that Iran has done nothing wrong. Contrary to what the resolution states the Con's argument focuses on the idea that Americans engaging in war with Iran would be oppressive of America. (what the resolution really is)Yet the con has chosen Con which would imply he believes that a war with Iran would NOT be oppressive, yet he only offers evidence of why it would be oppressive, therefore contrary to his stance, the Con is actually Pro the idea that American war with Iran would be an unwarrented show of imperialist impression. To summarize, the con is actually pro the idea that war with Iran is unwarranted and unjustifiedI will be arguing why this is not the case.1) " America executed a coup d'etat and installed a dictator known as "The Shah" "America did not create the dictatorship, the coup in 1953 was carried out to remove their prime minister from power, the king remained in power, there was no utter change of government the Con claims happened.Also the Shah was installed back in the 1940's on the eve of WWII, America did not create it like the Con claims,http://www.time.com...2) "The government changed from a dictatorship to an Islamic republic in 1979 following the ousting of the American installed Shah. Troops of the puppet government opened fire on anti-government protestors for three straight days. The Shah fled to America, and immediately following this incident, students stormed the American embassy, holding fifty-two hostages."America had nothing to do with the Iranian revolution of 1979. After the Prime minister was removed from power the Shah of Iran grew increasingly authoritarian. such as creating the Iranian secret police, the SAVAK, to kill off political opponents. pulic opposition against him grew over time and when a group of students protested his rule, the Shah ordered his own troops to fire on them. This caused many deaths, inspired many more protests that led to the revolution in 1979. The Iranian revolution was not caused by people protesting the "puppet government set up by America" they were protesting the rule of their king (who ruled both before and after the 1953 coup) and the king opened fire on the students resulting in the revolution.http://www.time.com...The Shah fled to many other countries before coming to America, and even then he was only allowed within US borders because he needed medical treatment http://www.time.com...The Iranian people stormed the embassy on November of 1979, the Shah had fled Iran in January of 1979, so the Con claiming it all happened in three days is off by about 10 MONTHShttp://www.presstv.ir... http://news.bbc.co.uk... 3) As for Contra-gate, Iran was indeed an enemy of the US, but at the time Saddam Hussein from Iraq was threatening to destabalize the entire Middle East with his military campaigns, something Iran was NOT doing. The US sold anti-tank weapons (nothing nuclear) to Iran to fight off Saddam and create peace, but then Reagan used the profits from selling the weapons to Iran to fund anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua. " was having with neighboring Iraq, an American backed Dictatorship"Saddam became dictator on his own, he wasnt installed by America, get your facts straight.4) The reason why Iran is catching hell for its nuclear enrichment programs was because they were previously suspended by the UN, but Iran then restarted its nuclear enrichment program in 2005 a year after it was suspended. http://news.bbc.co.uk...Iran has since disregarded foreign pressure to halt its nuclear enrichment program causing much tension between them and western countries. 5) Pakistan and Iran are very very different cases for the nuclear argument. Pakistan developed their own weapons as a response to India (longtime enemy of Pakistan) developed nuclear weapons first and threatened Pakistan with them. Iran though has no clear neighboring enemy of powerful military capabilities and has pursued their nuclear interests based on will, not as a counter measure like Pakistan did. Pakistan may harbor terrorists, but they do not willingly fund them, unlike Iran who funds terrorists all the time. http://terrorism.about.com...As for the US selling them weapons in the 1980's, they sold weapons to the Afghan fighters not the Pakistanis, also none of the weapons sold to anyone were nuclear like the Con claims. http://en.wikipedia.org...6) " Israel shows aggression towards all Arab countries"The exact opposite of that is true, all Arab countries show aggression towards Israel (and have invaded them several times) and Israel only responds with necessary force, Israel never invades anyone and has ever since they were conceived only wanted peace. " the Palestinian people who are currently being pushed off their land and massacred by the Zionist movement"Zionism is just the idea of a Jewish state of Israel, it in no way condones or even causes the alleged "massacre of Palestinians"7)Would war with Iran be desirable now? NoWould war with Iran be desirable in the close future? probably notWould war with Iran result in thousands of deaths? easilyWould war with Iran be supported by the public? I doubt itHowever, Would war with Iran trigger Armageddon? Of course notWould war with Iran further polarize worldly superpowers? No it wouldntWould war with Iran end your life shortly? Not at allAnd most importantly of all,Has Iran done anything that could warrant a declaration of war in the future? Yes.