America and the Straights of Hormuz: Interference

I start off the last round of this debate on the sad note that my opponent had accused me of going off topic and of "rambling" as a last argument in an attempt to win. However, as I have reminded him, there is no difference between "justification of the United States to intervene militarily" and "whether intervening militarily is the best course of action" I remind voters that in serious subjects like warfare and international politics not following the best course of action is not justifiable. And since my opponent had agreed with my point that diplomacy is justifiable as opposed to military intervention (by not rebutting it) he failed to justify a military intervention is acceptable. I remind voters that when chances of peacefully resolving a conflict stand, war is not justifiable. Now, to refute my opponent's argument. My opponent argued different form of breaking UN laws deserves different punishment. I agree with this, as I have mentioned the punishment must fit the crime. However this only illustrates my point more in that the crisis should not be resolved militarily but by diplomacy. A simple threat to shut off commercial export should at least be given a chance of being peacefully resolved before another war, and thousand more innocent lives, are lost. The Iran breach of UN law is simply not serious enough to demand immediate military retribution. Even direct wars and invasions have been given a chance of diplomacy before military intervention. An Iranian threat to close a trade route should deserve much much more. Thus again I have proven a military intervention is not justifiable. My opponent has simplified my argument that US is incapable of war too much. First he assumes a full scale war is not necessary, but that instead the Hormuz Strait should be cleared of Iranian forces. I ask him how will Iranian forces be cleared out of the area without declaring war. And once war has been declared they always spiral out of control. Look at the Russians in modern Warfare three. They were pushed out of the US but instead of peace talks they attacked Europe! :D! Anyways back on topic, my opponent assumed (incorrectly) that I meant the US does not have the necessary military forces. Wrong. I have illustrated repeatedly in round 3 that US have the brute force but not the logistics. They do not have the money nor the support on the home front nor the international community to wage a war. Instead should diplomacy fail and a military intervention be necessary, the UN should be allowed to handle the situation. Conclusion My main points still stand without being rebutted. The Iranians have lost many innocent lives to US sanctions off an accident. Driven by a crisis on their own hands they grew desperate and made the threat of blocking the strait to save Iranian lives. (see round 2.) The US has justifications for a diplomatic intervention, the UN have justifications for a military intervention, but the US does not have justifications for a military intervention. My opponent, meanwhile, have agreed with my argument that diplomacy is more justifiable to a military intervention. In matters as serious as a world crisis following the less superior course of action is not justifiable, my opponent's primary mission of justifying a military intervention fails. Thus I urge a vote for con. Happy new year all and to the Iranians, who's conflict was indeed resolved diplomatically on December 30, proving my point that military intervention is not justifiable when chances of diplomacy still stands. http://www.worldatlas.com... http://www.taiwannews.com.tw... http://www.turkishweekly.net... http://expertscolumn.com... http://www.zerohedge.com... http://www.blogrunner.com... http://af.reuters.com...