The U.S. should leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.

First off, just to ask YOU a question: You several times reference "secret nuclear facilities"... however, if they are secret, how does a citizen know about them, and how can you suggest that our military isn't well-aware of them? In your first paragraph you basically just say that using hard power against Iran will lead to war, and then state some other points that are very, very random. In fact, I disagree with these points, and I would love to see some evidence on it. Now, because debate is about either providing logically sound arguments (in which your first argument is, I beleive, not) or providing credible literature to support your stance (which you have not), your point is moot, until you bring up evidence or the logic. You jumped from Iran only having one site to saying that Iran will never give up its power. What? It has one nuclear power plant, thats great. What about that statistic makes you think it would never give up its nuclear power? Are there not other sustainable methods of deriving energy? Also, do you have evidence that leveraging Hard Power is an act of agression? Because I completely disagree with that. Also... just leveraging Hard Power against Iran doesn't guarentee war. This plan was proposed by me, and so I act as the policy-maker. Now, as the policy-maker I explicity said that the U.S. shoudl NOT enter war, as it would foolish. You misunderstand what I want done. "Also, your point that Iran will have down-looks upon Americanism is also irrelevant. The only non-American situations are from extremists." Never made a point that Iran will look down upon us, just that they do already, and thats going to be bad. I obviously am not getting your argument here, maybe you could word it a bit differently.. Second point - "If you do not know either of those, then it is obvious you are uneducated on the fact that Iran will never have a non-biased negotiation or diplomatic cross fire with the United States." Well I'm glad you think that. However, just this year, a U.S.-Iranian relationship was opened up over Iraq. Obviously we can talk to Iran. I find it actually kind of abusive that you claim I am uneducated on this matter when you were unaware of this fact yourself. Third Point - "Diplomacy will never change the views from the public, instead it often times creates aggression. Changing the diplomacy of Iran or attempting to strengthen the failed U.S. stand point with Iran is failure." Once again, you make statements with no literature or even an explanation of logic. Please refrain from making statements, only make points. Anywho, my response: Basically you are talking about how Soft-Power won't work. Thats the only empirically proven diplomatic talk to not work. The fact remains that Hard Power talks haven't been tried yet, and therefore you can't say that without a doubt, they will fail. Fourth Point - "Unless you can specifically tell me when in the George W. Bush' s presidency that the U.S. has successfully with all guarantees that Iran will stop its nuclear testing programs, you must forfeit this point." What?? No, again completely wrong. This point is all over the place! You jump from Annapolis, to saying that I must forfeit a point if I don't provide evidence on George Bush guarenteeing the stoppage of Iran Nuclear Capability. In fact, George Bush hasn't issued a guarentee, and no smart president would. It is impossible to guarentee, only see which things are more liekly and support the most likely. The plan that is most likely to work is leveraging Hard Power, because attacking would fail, sanctions have already been used, and leveraging Soft Power has empirically failed. If you are trying to say that U.S.-Iranian relations have not happened, and will never happen, than it is out of ignorance of the fact that they already have happened. Google the string "Zalmay Khalilzad Iran Iraq" and you will see a multitude of credible sources saying otherwsie. Lack of relations on Nukes isn't because they can't happen, but more thru lack of trying on the two sides. Fifth Point - This is the point on "secret facilities", and again I pose the question up above. Added to that, the report is quite obviously not saying that Iran is going to be benign. http://www.cnn.com... Sixth Point - "Now with the option to keep nuclear weapons and a government that, under its constitution, supports any extremist groups such as Hezbollah, there is no choice but to attack Iran." Contradictions galore! You say my plan leads to war, and then say that war is our only option. So why does my plan not solve? Based on all of this information and points, the public must know that the United States SHOULD leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.