America should go to war with Iran

C-1) A decisive victory in Iran will stabilize the world making America have to deal with less conflicts As pretty much all of my sub-points go un-attacked I'll just summarize my argument/extend it together: War is inevitable. No hope or faith or protest can change the fact that as long as there are humans on the earth we will be violent against one another – this problem is especially problematic as technology increases and war weapons become capable of destroying more and more of the earth. The only way to stabilize the world and allow for a state of almost-peace is to have a strong leader that uses military force and threat of military force to ensure that no country/nation will fight another. America is more capable of filling the role but is doing so incorrectly in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan: they are trying to force freedom on people. If we really want freedom in the world, then countries should be free to be structured in anyway they want – just because America has the best military doesn't give it the right to try to change that. This makes the military leader of the world responsibility to STOP and prevent future conflicts not enforce ethical or cultural principles. Iran has present itself as one of these treats – not only has my opponent agree they are an "enemy" but they have violated international law regarding their uranium facilities and they remain a huge threat to attack Israel. The invasion and thus victory can be achieved quickly – like in Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as the US does not stay to restructure their foreign policy, then America will increase its global image because what we do will make sense. We will also be encouraging countries to work on policies that reflect peace – making the world as stable as possible. AT: Exchange of Parties There is no reason that parties have to change hands for policies to change hands. The countries only have t change their actions so that they will be peaceful. It's like if you hire someone to do a job and they are doing it incorrectly, you could fire them and find a replacement that could have different problems or you could tell them what they need to change, give them an incentive to do so, and they will correct their error. I never claim that the parties will have to change, only that the policies that threaten global security need to be changed. Extend A) [The US has not taken over the legal government in Iraq or Afghanistan – only changed the power to a different form/hands. We don't "conquer" the country to change parties – we're not taking over the government] Extend B) [America needs not to even overthrow the current form of government – only force them to comply with international law, and precautionary measures imposed by the US. (Cross-apply my 6th point – victory can be achieved easily)] AT: If they don't follow international law Bomb them until they do. If we keep blowing up their buildings, boycotting their economic export routes and annihilating their military bases logic would say they would surrender. America must be willing to use military force to send a message that you either mess with us or you will be blown out of the water. Besides – a country that is unwilling to keep peace in this world is a danger to the entire world. Also, if America makes international peace the only mandated priority then it will only matter if a country violates international law in a way that threatens global security. Internal issues will be left up to the government for which ever way they choose. AT: Can't invade a larger country Extend my 6th point: [My opponent supports this point when he states "we took over in Afghanistan in a few weeks"-"same with Iran" With this evidence of how the military works it is logical a victory in Iran will be obtained in a short period of time. This also takes out any reason why America cannot fight in a "third" war (which my opponent doesn't extend because his new arguments contradict his previous claims) because we both agree our military is big, strong, and capable of expressing our opinion very quickly and in many regions of the globe at the same time. Iraq was invaded while we still had(have) troops in Afghanistan.] He basically turns himself with this argument – our military is large enough to successfully invade two countries, there is no reason we can't take a third. Also, with the mindset that we don't need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan we can take troops from those countries to help with the attack. Also, size isn't as important because we will only have to attack strategic points to make them listen to our demands, and our aircrafts can definitely cover that amount of land pretty quickly. Besides – if the US military can't invade Iran then no one can and they will cause wars: we might as well try, especially because there is no reason why our military can't take Iran. Framework: Extend my framework that: Pro only has to provide a case that makes going to war with Iran a reasonable course of action. [My opponent concedes this argument meaning that he must debate within my interpretation of the debate. My framework is based on the concept that debate only deals with the theory of what might/can happen – and there forth we must be open to all ideas present. This means we cannot say an idea is bad simple because it clashes with the current way of doing things: such as an argument saying that people shouldn't live in houses. Each side of the debate must defend their case but also attack their opponents – such as an argument simply saying that everyone likes living in houses wouldn't take out the argument that we shouldn't. This means as long as I have proven in the context of the debate that invading Iran would be a logical/reasonable/correct choice for America to make, then I have won the debate.] I know some of my extensions are repetitive because I just copied and pasted but I got tired and didn't want to rephrase my arguments again. (Which I know is bad because we should practice like we play but… it's summer?) Thanks for reading/listening to the debate though, hope you enjoyed it. And if "I never get to see/talk to you again have a good life."