America should go to war with Iran

C-1) A decisive military strategy in Iran will bring our troops home, prevent future conflicts, ensure global stability, and keep a sole military power in the world which is necessary to prevent future conflicts. 1. Extend my argument that war is a natural part of human nature. There will always be war and fighting and oppression in the world no matter what happens. Iran is bound to be involved in a war sooner or latter – it would be best to have America fight Iran to ensure it will think very, very hard before confronting another country. 2. Extend the US is a stabilizing force that demands peace. As long as the US continues to show its military presence around the world, the global community will respect/fear America's ability to express it's will on other nations. Iran – and other countries that do not want to conform to international law or that are a threat to global stability – will be taught a lesson to not mess with someone bigger then it. This fear is good way to even keep enemies at peace. Lets take Iraq for example. Before the US invaded, Saddam Hussein keep the three different religious sects at bay by the fear of force. Once this force was removed, however, the sects starting fighting and uncontrollable violence increased. 3. Extend countries should have the freedom to do as they choose as long as they do not present a threat to global peace. Invading Iran will redefine the responsibility of the global military leader (America). America will no longer be concerned with the laws and social structures of the nations/countries it attacks because we are only focusing on their ability to cause chaos in the world. This is the way a global military leader must think or America will end up invading the entire world in an attempt to "save them from themselves." There is nothing wrong with living in a different way – and if America wants to try to "free" the world the only way to do that is to allow people to live the way they want. Invading Iran is the way to take this stance because proving a new approach to the world will keep in check exactly what the world needs to control: the spread of war. 4. Extend Iran has not cooperated with international law on its nuclear programs. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is very dangerous because a nation with that much fire power doesn't have to listen to the international community. They will have the ability to threaten the world into doing whatever they want. 5. Extend an Iranian threat and the inevitability of war makes an Israel-Iran inevitable. This conflict will be nearly impossible to control and could be the starting grounds for WW3. 6. Extend victory can be achieved quickly with the size and strength of our military. My opponent supports this point when he states "we took over in Afghanistan in a few weeks"-"same with Iran" With this evidence of how the military works it is logical a victory in Iran will be obtained in a short period of time. This also takes out any reason why America cannot fight in a "third" war (which my opponent doesn't extend because his new arguments contradict his previous claims) because we both agree our military is big, strong, and capable of taking expressing our opinion very quickly and in many regions of the globe at the same time. Iraq was invaded while we still had(have) troops in Afghanistan. 7. Extend invading Iran will bring the troops home because American military policy will be focused on only preventing future (mainly international) conflicts from occurring. America will become the keeper of the peace and the fear of messing with that keeper will be strong enough to keep any conflict small enough to not force US involvement. This will make US involvement only necessary to reconfirm its position to those that might forget – the current engagements are to protect the people and will not meet this requirement. My opponent's main argument is against this point – so I will include my attacks on his points with it. AT: Take over quickly but remain a long time for stability A) Agree that US military can invade countries quickly and efficiently B) Maintaining follow up troops in a regions is a problem – destroys freedom (cross apply my 3rd point) C) The people of Iraq don't want America "stabilizing" it's internal politics – the forced presence of the US military creates anti-Americanism which will only lead to more terrorism (cross-apply my 7th point) D) The US will be seen as weak for being unable to "succeed" in Afghanistan or Iraq. Iran will offer the victory need to change global discourse. E) My framework states my opponent must prove my case wrong in context to the case and the theory behind it. My argument is founded in the concept of decisive victories and minimal interference – he only offers a policy barrier that stops my argument from being conceded which my framework claims is illegit. AT: We might take over the legal government A) The US has not taken over the legal government in Iraq or Afghanistan – only changed the power to a different form/hands. B) America needs not to even overthrow the current form of government – only force them to comply with international law, and precautionary measures imposed by the US. (Cross-apply my 6th point) AT: Have to keep troops to maintain the peace A) My opponent presents no reason why Iran will become unstable B) Iraq is becoming more unstable because of US military presence. People want to solve their own problems in their own countries their own way – which is fine as long as it does not interfere with national peace/stability. C) Cross-apply my 7th point D) No reason why rebellions will occur if the US only forces Iran to comply with less military focused policies. E) If Iran can turn back into an enemy – of global stability I will assume – then they must be an enemy to stability now. F) Internal strife does not threaten global stability if kept on a small level – if there is no proof it will escalate then there is no reason the US will get involved G) At the point where my opponent concedes that invading Iran will make America the global military leader, it doesn't matter if troops must stay to stabilize (Cross-apply my 2nd and 7th points) H) At the point where my opponent concedes a decisive strategy will eliminate all current threats in Iran, there is no reason to predict more problems will occur ( Cross-apply my 6th point) I) I have present a reasonable course of action America can take to invade Iran. The current policies of trying to maintain the peace cannot conflict with my case because we are only debating in theoretical terms – what we should do and how the world should be. Framework: Extend my framework that: Pro only has to provide a case that makes going to war with Iran a reasonable course of action. My opponent concedes this argument meaning that he must debate within my interpretation of the debate – which is cool since obviously we both agree it's the best. My framework is based on the concept the debate only deals with the theory of what might/can happen – and there forth we must be open to all ideas present. This means we cannot say an idea is bad simple because it clashes with the current way of doing things: such as an argument saying that people shouldn't live in houses. Each side of the debate must defend their case but also attack their opponents – such as an argument simply saying that everyone likes living in houses wouldn't take out the argument that we shouldn't. This means as long as I have proven in the context of the debate that invading Iran would be a logical/reasonable/correct choice for America to make, then I have won the debate.