Resolved: The U.S. should not invade Iran

Thank you DeathbeforeDishonor for a nice challenge. IT has been an enjoyable debate. This debate has mainly been revolving around the nuclear capabilities of Iran in the future, which my opponent agreed to in the comments. The readers must know that there are a number of contentions that my opponent dropped and conceded. This alone gives me the win. Also, my opponent has brought in sources to his last round. This grants me the permission to do the same. There is also a confusion of words. The resolution states "The U. S. should not invade Iran", yet my opponent talks of war. I do not advocate for a war with Iran, simply an invasion. This invalidates his points on war, and how we will be engaged in war if we invade Iran. My opponent's cash point has been dropped after I refuted it. This was one third his case. He conceded this in R4 My opponent has also dropped his refutation that we can shoot down Iranian nukes. Saying that it only takes one is not a defense. Whatever point he was trying to make here was not articulated clearly enough, for he doesn't refute the instability of the weapon, which I have proved. Onto defending my case, then finishing attacking my opponents Defense My opponent states that I don't give evidence saying that Iran had involvement in the bombings, yet I clearly did. .. . R1: The articles and links I provided show that Iran backed the terrorist group that actually carried out the attack, which is just as much of an offense, and more of a threat. He then states that since we have troops in these middle eastern countries, it justifies Iran attacking us. Even though right before that he denied Iran attacking us. Still, it shall be refuted. Looking at the wiki source that my opponent provided, we can see that the total amount of troops in the middle east, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, is around 13,000. We can also see that in Germany, we have stationed over 50,000 troops. In South Korea, 28K. In Japan, 40K. Even the United Kingdom has 9000, almost as much as the middle east. There is no reason that the Iranians should take offense to the presence of U. S. troops in the middle east. Other Asian countries don't freak out with the massive amounts of troops in BOTH Japan and South Korea, and Europe likewise is compliant, yet Iran deserves to terrorize our personal? Don't think so. He then says the amount of troops are irrelevant because we shouldn't have been there. This can easily be countered with the fact that taking an American life because they don't think we should be there, whereas nowhere else does this happen in such a wide scale, isn't justifiable. R2: My opponent states "It only takes one shot to shoot down a nuke". He then throws up a wiki source as proof, yet after looking at this source, I couldn't find it. Nor was it particularly relevant, seeing as these defenses have never actually been tested, and that my opponent hasn't refuted the fact that they are not dependable. Moving on to refutations American lives My opponent has the misconception that, by not invading a nuclear armed Iran, we would save more lives. As I have proven our nuclear defense system to be inadequate and unable to do the job, it can be said that if Iran launched a nuclear attack on us, we would lose millions of American lives . This does nothing to help it's contention; it actually harms it The point falls. Foreign opinion My opponent tries arguing that China will get involved if we invade Iran. He backs this with the fact that China and Iran are in a partnership for oil. NOTE: An invasion of Iran with the purpose to destroy their nuclear capabilities will not harm oil trade from Iran to China, therefore there would be no intervention from China My opponent then mistakes an invasion for a war. The reason an invasion is NOT the same as a war is because of the war powers resolution. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 stipulates the president must get congressional approval to send American forces to combat zones beyond a 60-day time frame (1). That means that within that 60 days, the president can basically do what he wants. An invasion of Iran that would take less than two months would not be an act of war. Also, just because China and Russia have dealt missiles and other arms to Iran doesn't mean they would back them at all. It's the "black market", not the "black brotherhood" or something. My opponent then completely concedes the Cash point. |Conclusion| As we can all see, all my points have remained, while my opponents points have fallen. The debate revolves around me proving that the U. S. should invade Iran in the future. In the future, they will obtain nukes, which I have proven. They will then use these weapons, for they have not hesitated in the past. If not on the U. S. , then on one of our allies, which would drag us into a war. Preventing that from happening is only possible through invasion. Even if we could shoot down nukes from Iran, it still would drag us into a war with them. If someone shoots a gun at you and misses, are you cool with it? No, you go kick their a$$. Well, if they had a gun you should probably run, but if you are the U. S. , with plenty of guns and people to shoot them, you go and stomp them down. Through what my opponent advocates, he contradicts all of his points. Than YOu.