The united states should declare war on Iran

"1. Alright, the first thing that I would like to do is clarify if my opponent wants to counter my definitions the answer is simple: Framer's intent. I wrote the resolution and those are the definitions that I used. It may seem a little self absorbed but it's a valid argument." --> I have 3 responses: First, framer's intent is only valid when it is done within the framework of the case. She made it in a rebuttal, and is thus invalid. Second, since she failed to provide definitions in her case, I, as the opponent, has the right to "fill the gap" so to speak. Third, since these two above responses are valid, you must look to all my definitions. "2. As for my opponat saying that to decalre does not mean it will actually happen, what do you think happens when we declare war on a nation. They don't just sit there and stare at us, they fight back. As for his argument that Iran pays terrorists to launch attacks there is no direct evidence of this not to mention that does not mean that they don't have the means to launch an attack. They have air missle defense systems given to them by Russia as well as first strike technology. Iran is a militarial nation as I have stated time and time again. The fact of the matter is that we can use diplomatic solutions to prevent Iran from nuclear proliferation as I have already states. Iran has extended it's hand atleast twice that I have evidence of and we have simply ignored it. Nuclear proliferation is not a reason to go to war,and believe me if we declare war on Iran we will go to war with Iran." --> I have 3 responses: First, she ignores my logic totally when it comes to the definition of declare, thus you can extend it. Second, as I have stated Iran does not have the means to launch an attack against the US. They may have a large army but their air force is horrible. for example, refer to the 6 Days war with Israel vs. almost every Islamic Nation. Israel obliterated all of the Islamic Nations air-defenses and offenses (fighter planes) simultaneously, and in less then 1 hour. Third, she offers no warrants has to why soft means/diplomatic means works. "3. As for my opponant saying that i left his attacks open i cannot find the attacks that I left open. I went streight down his attacks and his case. It's all right there just take a look, even if it was just a few sentences." --> Just look at her round 2, she dropped multiple arguments/responses. "4. In my argument i never said anything about the size of the army not equaling how strong it is militarialy. Not to mention just because a nation is not on the cutting edge of technology does not mean that they cannot launch an attack against us. As for my argument i was saying that war is not all man on man anymore that's just a fact I cannot sit here a say that it is. We no longer meet hand and hand on a battlefeild, however it will eventually come down to gurilla war tactics. We cannot phone in a war it doesn't work that way. That was my point. I do not agree with my oponant that we will not have to go into Iraq, simply striking their air force bases and military bases is not the extent of what will happen. We will send troops into Iran if we go to war with Iran and as stated if we declare war on Iran we will fight in Iran." --> I have 3 responses: First, she indeed does talk about the numbers being strength. "Iran is a militarial nation. They have as of 6 months ago a 350,000 man standing army. They are not a bunch of farmers with pitchforks over there. Iraq had no where near this man power when we invaded." (Round 1/NC) Second, they would not be able to launch a successful attack if they did not have the technology. That is just common sense. That is like saying I can hurt my friend by throwing a cotton ball at him. Third, She misunderstands my case. I am arguing that the only reason to declare war is to disrupt any attempts to create nuclear weapons. Thus it is unnecessary to "invade." "i would like to respond to the rest of his argument regarding Russia. Russia would not stop in with Iraq because they had no grounds to. The united States gets most of it's oil from OPEC and Saudi Arabia not Russia. We buy about 1% of the oil that we use from Russia. We are not their biggest buyer, not to mention their economy really doesn't rely on oil so why would they care. Now i would like to move onto his next argument: Russia joining would make the EU join on our side, that makes no sense the EU does not support the United States anyway not to mention that they would want to say out of it as not to start world war three." -->I have 4 responses: First, Russia had many business ventures in Iraq, thus they had grounds to step in, but they did not. Second, I apologize, I meant we could be the largest potential market. My bad. Third, yes, their economy is based on the oil and natural resource business. E.g. oil and coal. Fourth, the EU has more alliances and treaties with the US, then Russia. Therefore, due to consentual agreements, they would have to step in. and Russia would not want that. i do not ignore his logic, i just do not agree with his logic and as i have already stated there are diplomatic solutions such as the CTBT to stop nuclear proliferation. Troops would not be nessesary, war would not be nessesary to stop Iran from gaining nuclear proliferation. Not to mention that we would need a troop increase and we don't even want the troops fighting that are fighting right now. We want all of our troops safe and sound. Right now we are streched to the max and it is effecting the troops themselves sending then back will all kinds of mental problems and side effects from the war. Troops are huge issue in this debate; they would be needed and we just don't have them. --> I have 2 responses: First, she offers nothing to contradict my logic, and the CTBT example, as I have shown above is ineffective because it has no solvent mechanisms to enforce it's laws. Second, hard force is necessary because it is the only thing that can actually do something. Just telling Iran "Stop making nuclear weapons....plz" does not cut it. It does nothing to stop top nuclear proliferation. [Voting Issues] 1. My opponent said this in her last speech: "The CTBT does not violate national sovereignty so how does this really apply to anything that we are talking about right now." You can affirm right here. She has conceded that the CBTB has no authority to violate sovereignty and thus reduce nuclear proliferation. She has conceded the defeat of her only one solvent mechanism which she says cannot violate sovereignty. 2. Since she has no solvent mechanism you must look to the idea of hard force, as the only effective way to reduce nuclear proliferation. Thus you must look to the reasoning put forth in the AC. 3. She provides no inherent reason to reject the resolution, and all her attempts can be mitigated by my past offense. For these reasons you can affirm. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and to my opponent.