The united states should declare war on Iran

1. Alright, the first thing that I would like to do is clarify if my opponant wants to counter my definitions the answer is simple: Framer's intent. I wrote the resolution and those are the definfitions that I used. It may seem a little self absorbed but it's a valid argument. 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. 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. 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 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. 5. 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. on balance means to take everything into consideration as defined by Merriam Webster's online dictionary and several other accedeted sources. i am a public forum debater... last month these two words and their meaning were debated to death. i know what it means and it means to take everything into consideration. i have proven this resolution 100% false, i have given so many reasons not to go to war with Iran as opposed to his one, about nuclear proliferation, which i have discreditied by the way. 6. the fact of the matter is that is has already been laid down on the table that if the united states signs and follows the CTBT that Iran will as well that is my point and it still stands valid. The CTBT does not violate national sovereignty so how does this really apply to anything that we are talking about right now. The united nations has the authority to make sure that all parties abide by this but most of all this would mainly be an agreement between Iran and the United States safeguards can be built in. 7. the united states should not take charge it is when we take charge and go in guns blazing that the rest of the world diagrees with us and we loose soft power with other nations and therefore damaging our international standard this had proven true time and time again. We are no longer the leading superpower in the world because of the loss of this soft power due to wanting things our way and ignoring the rest of the world. Therefore his premis does not stand because i have facts and examples to back my argument and he has none. HARD METHODS ARE NOT THE WAY TO GO WHEN TRYING TO PREVENT NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION! This only makes things worse and there are many past examples to look to. i have proven without a doubt that the united states should not declare war on Iran so i ask you please to ignore my opponants petty attacks on the wording of the resolution and look at framers intent and my argumentation and vote this resolution down. Please vote in negation of the resolution before you. Thank you!