We should to war with Iran

First off, thanks for not posting last round and keeping the debate on even footing, now then: It seems to me that your arguments are based mainly on the principle that "It's better to be safe than sorry". I'd agree with you in a lot of cases. I'd rather have an umbrella in my car then be caught in the rain. I'd rather take my phone charger with me overnight then run out of batteries. However when it comes to a war with Iran, the "better safe than sorry" principle doesn't hold weight. And here's why: The principle is based on the fact that the action's possible benefit outweighs the inconvenience, or the possibility that the event will never occur. In the umbrella example, there's very little inconvenience to throwing an umbrella in the car, especially considering that it could avert getting your clothes wet. However in the case of war with Iran that doesn't hold true. The action wouldn't necessarily avert the use of a nuclear threat, the action's drawbacks (thousands of American lives lost, economic recession, massive job loss), and you've admitted that there's absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Iran has nuclear weapons. But even if we assume that the principle holds true, (which I most certainly don't, but for arguments sake) then we'd have to apply that principle to the rest of the world. It's just as likely that we face threats from all over the globe. Based on "the better safe than sorry" principle when it comes to war and safety, we would have to go to war with world. China has nuclear capabilities, how can we trust them? Maybe we should launch a few nukes at 'em because we can't be sure they won't do the same to us. What about Russia? Maybe we should hit them before they can hit us. The point is, once the theory is applied to one country, it has to be applied to the whole world. As for your link between Iran and terrorism: You don't seem to distinguish the Iranian government, or it's people from terrorists. I noticed in one of the articles you'd posted, the story was about how Iran was holding terrorist leaders as prisoners. I fail to see the problem there. The rest of your evidence: Well, I'm not going to bother debating whether or not Iran contains terrorists, because it's true, so does every other country in the world. Yes, some people in the Iranian government have turned a blind eye to terrorism in their country, but I fail to see why that should cause an entire nations worth of people to suffer the horrors of war on their own soil. Look at what's happened to Iraq, life there isn't better for the Iraqi people, they don't want us in their country. (1) The boat incident: It seems that you rejected my evidence, because you liked you liked your own version of events better. However, you asked for a more reputable source and I provide it. According to the BBC, the incident is more complicated then the US is making it out to be. Apparently, the recordings could have been very easily doctored, as well as the story the US is telling. (2) Troop levels: Where's my evidence? Did you not read the evidence I provided? I definitely linked to an article that said something to that effect. The surge: Effective? Possibly, if you hand pick your facts. Read this article (3) You proclaim that: "We are waging 2 wars right now. We're doing fine. I think Afghanistan could end within months, if we find Bin Laden. Then, all the pieces will fall into place, and we can send soldiers home, but Iraq is different." Unfortunately your opinion is hardly evidence that can be used in a debate. If you'd like to back that assertion up with facts, I'll be glad to take a look at it. The draft?: I don't see where this comes into play at all. I'm can't say I'm afraid of fighting, as you imply, if America was waging a just war, then I'd be first in line to sign up. If this were 1941, I wouldn't need my draft number called. If there were a war being fought on American soil, I'd join up. But right now, we aren't fighting a just war in my eyes, and if the draft was instated, I don't know what I'd do. If "young men were itching to fight" in previous wars we wouldn't need a draft. And how did we win the Vietnam war? Was it with the draft? Because I know the draft was in effect during that war, I just can't seem to recall whether or not we won it... You get my point. And you fail to address my economic argument, so I'll assume you concede the point. I think that's everything, I'm tired, and I'm not sure if that was entirely coherent, but I'll cross my fingers. Looking forward to hearing from you. -Matt 1. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 3. http://www.chicagotribune.com...