Resolved: The U.S. should not invade Iran

I will address my opponent's arguments, then I will go on to defend my own points. I would like to point out to the reader's that more than half of my opponent's sources are from wikipedia... C1: Too many American troops would die. My opponent has not listed ANY source for the amount of American casualties, the arms the terrorist's we are fighting are equipped with, nor anything that strengthens his statement that Iran is ready for an invasion. This whole contention should be discarded, for it is irrelevant. However, it should still be addressed. American deaths are a sad thing, but necessary to prevent a future catastrophe that Iran is certainly capable, and willing, to create. Our army is a volunteer one, so our well prepared soldiers know what they are getting into. Letting something like death hold us back would have changed the history of this world. Think of WWII, and if none of our soldiers gave their lives to defend this world. The loss of life isn't something you can skip if you want to be safe in this world. At the Bombing and landing of Okinawa, 7,272 American marines and navy personal lost their lives [1]. That was one battle. In Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED, we have lost a total of 6,320 [2]. This is against terrorist groups who use unorthodox tactics as well, something Iran would not implement, seeing as they are an actual army with an actual government. C2. World Opinion. Since when was it completely relevant to go off the status quo of other countries? What are we, dogs that act on command? We need to invade Iran to preserve our own safety. Again, my opponent doesn't back up his sources that China and Russia would back Iran. On top of this, it's funny he should say we would seem like Nazi Germany in the eyes of the world. It's actual quite the opposite. Most countries in the UN are pulling for higher levels of sanctions against Iran, specifically nuclear development. Members of the EU also have imposed sanctions, as have Canada, Australia, South Korea, Israel, India, Japan, and others [3]. My opponents second point falls. C3. No cash no troops This contention is a very unsubstantiated one, and is invalid, for my opponent hasn't provided any proof behind his opinions. On top of this, note that I am not arguing for a full blown war with Iran, but simply an invasion, which is what the resolution states. I will now defend my case. R1: Their are multiple things wrong with my opponent' response. He state's that we were "aggressing" the middle east, but this is not the case. An embassy, which is placed through mutual understanding, cannot be considered an aggression on the middle east. Beirut is located in Lebanon, east of Iran. Way east. If Iran were to back the attack on the Lebanese-American peaceful embassy and strategically located barracks, then we can consider them mentally unstable, seeing as these American's were not imposing anything on the Iranians. In fact, the Iranians could have lived every day the same without having attacked that embassy. There are ambassadors and embassys located within the United States....we don't freak out and drive trucks full of explosives into them because the are "aggressive". The thought is asinine. Further more, we have not made war with the people of a certain country. We have declared war on terrorist groups, such as Al-Qada and the Taliban, groups responsible for causing thousands of innocent lives to end. To answer the Kuwait example....I'm not sure how this exactly relates to the resolution....if Pro is trying to give an example of unjustifiable attacks in the U.S. history, he picked a horrible invasion. The Gulf War was very justified; Hussein was attempting to control Kuwait's oil supply, something that would have given him the power and wealth to control all the middle east, which would give him more than 80% of the oil in the world. There, we have another Hitler. What we did was squash him before he bloomed into a wold wide threat. My opponent then goes on to talk about the civilian casualties, a completely irrelevant tirade on how many civilians have been killed. This has nothing to do with an invasion on Iran based on their nuclear capabilities. Notice how my opponent doesn't say how many civilians were killed by "their own people". The majority of civilian deaths are caused by the terrorist groups we are at war with. R2: Let me get this straight. My opponent concedes that Iran has nuclear capabilities, and I have shown that Iran isn't afraid to fire these nukes, yet my opponent advocates for letting this happen?? What would the reader rather have? An air invasion of Iraq that involves their nuclear reactors and missile silos to be destroyed, or an Iranian nuclear launch on American soil, which we hopefully will shoot down. From my opponent's own source, ""It might take more than one shot to hit the missile -- and the United States has a very small number of GBIs." [4] Also from that same source, "In two of those tests, in December 2004 and on Feb. 14, 2005, the GBIs never launched at all." We see my opponent's plan to be shoddy at best. Even if this were to be the plan of action, this is considered an invasion, for striking another countries missiles out of the air "...could be interpreted as an act of war." [4] He then tries to say they would only be able to use their nuclear capabilities for power. As I have already stated, Iran has developed it's nuclear capabilities past civilian power use. Further U.N. reports show Iran to be hiding nuclear capabilities. The report, from this month, found the following: ï¿½ Documents suggesting that Iran "was working on a project to secure a source of uranium suitable for use in an undisclosed enrichment program" to make bomb fuel. ï¿½ Evidence that Iran "had been provided with nuclear explosive design information." ï¿½ Information that it worked on experiments with conventional explosives to compress metal into an incredibly dense mass suitable to start a chain reaction. ï¿½ Documentation of "at least 14 progressive design iterations" for a missile warhead to deliver an atomic warhead to a distant target. This is all cited as my fifth source. |Conclusion| My opponent has dropped my arguments that Iran has attacked us unjustifiably in the past, making it lawful grounds for an invasion. These attacks also show that Iran has set a precedent of unwarranted attacks on the United States. We cannot rule out the possibility that they will fire nukes at us if they obtain them. In fact, we should embrace that as likely. Through my opponent's stance on the resolution, we would have to wait for them to launch the missiles and attempt to shoot them down with rarely tested faulty equipment, which is still considered an invasion. He concedes that Iran has nukes, he concedes that they might use them, yet advocates for NO preemptive strike, but to wait. Basically, Pro wants to get nuked. Vote Con Sources 1. http://www.history.navy.mil... 2. http://www.usatoday.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.spacewar.com... 5. http://www.nytimes.com...