the US should not attack Iran

Note: My opponent has not defended any of her original claims that I refuted.~~Rebuttals~~R1: An Attack will not stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.I would beg to difer. Even tho it would push it underground, it would also also it down considerably, which would allow us and our allies to track them down till we neutralize the threat. We did the same thing with Osama Binladen. He went under ground but we eventually found him and neutralized him.R2: The Disadvantages of an AttackActually acording to the polls in Israel and America that I submitted in my other rounds state that the majority of citizens favor an invasion of Iran. If we invade we would easily quell any resistence and would allow us to slow their nuclear program down and buy us time to find and destroy them.R3: Breach of International Law Actually, it is self-defense since Iran has already intitiated hostilities by providing weapons and supplies to known terrorist groups that we are fighting. These groups include: Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. They have been named the biggest supporter of terrorism around the world [1] [2]. By providing arms to people that use them to aggress us, they them selves are also responsible for our casualties (this includes Israeli casualties). Thus it is in fact in accordance with international law.R4: Consequences of an Attack.Though my opponent may be right this does not change the fact that Iran has broken international law, Threatened us and our allies, supported our enemies ( causing the death of innocent civilians and troops alike), and are trying to get nukes as fast as they can. Even if the people don't like it they wouldn't win against us and our allies. It does not change the fact that the war would be a just war and a reasonable response to a country that has never once wanted to negotiate.R5: RegionIt would not undermind the war on terrorism rather it would be a contintuation of the war on terrorism since Iran is a terrorist state [3]. It does no change anything. It is not rash at all. Iran has supplied our enemies, imprisoned our citizens, violated internation sanctions, and is trying to get the means to strike us with nukes [4]. It does not matter how many terrorist groups get involved we are in a perfect position to defend against them. We have bases in almost every region of the Middle-East, and we have a stronger military with better supplies and weapons. We would ultimately win.Also, my opponent states: 'putting our troops' lives at risk' All U.S. troops accept the risk when they sign their contract of service. They swear to support and defend the U.S. therefore, this holds no water [5].R6: The Non-Proliferation TreatyNo it wouldn't. It is justified under international law to defend oneself against aggression of any kind (including giving bombs to our enemies). It is also a premptive strike that would save more lives then if we just waited for them to attack with nukes. Also, In 2009 Iran violated rules set by the IAEA when they established a second uranium site in secret. Since Iran has violated international laws and have opened hostilities against us, then this makes my opponent's sixth claim refuted.R7: An Attack would be Premature.The IAEA has determined that Iran has been working on aquiring nuclear weapons since 2003. This is in their latest report [6]. Also, the Obama Administration has worked hard to reason with Iran, but Iran will not stop. They have even arrested U.S. Hikers and a American journalist [7]. With this and the fact that Iran has done other stuff to provoke us that I have stated earlier in this round, my opponent's seventh claim has been refuted.R8: The Threat of ForceI would like to ask my opponent a question: What is a credible scenerio? Is the fact that they have violated international laws, given arms to our enemies, and have aggressively trying to come up with nuclear weapons to attack us not enough? Is the fact that we have for the last four years been seeking diplomatic solutions to this probem only to get no where not enough? The National Security of us and our allies are being threatened by Iran and the Terror cells that they fund everyday. We only have one option and that is war.R9: It's not just a preimptive strike if Iran has threatened our nation security by giving weapons to the very people that perpitrated 9/11 and the people that launch rockets at civilians in Israel every single day. It would be a defensive war, and it would be a just war!~~Final Conclusion~~I have refuted all of my opponent's cases, and I have defended all of my contentions. I have given reasonable evidence that says that Iran is developing nukes. I have proven that by invading Iran our economy would be boosted, and that we have the support of most of our and Israel's citizens. I have proven that since Iran has opened hostilities against us by giving weapons to our enemies, it would be protected under international law as a defensive war. I encourage all of the voters to vote Con.[1] http://www.theisraelproject.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.haaretz.co.il...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...