- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Just because we are making this deal with Iran doesn't prove that they indeed are abiding by our conditions and even if they are it doesn't guarantee they won't build a nuclear weapon 15 years from now only for the next 10 years or so after which we will essentially lift all nuclear restrictions on them.
The Iran deal is to beneficial towards Iran and insulting towards the United States and our allies. We are lifting sanctions on a country who is a sworn enemy to both us and Israel in exchange for 15 years of possible safety. The inspections can be delayed by up to 24 days and even if there is a violation, a committee of 8 powers including Iran, has 50 days to decide if it is serious enough to completely "rip apart" the deal. Even with all of this the deal doesn't even give us long term safety since, after eight years the EU will terminate all proliferation-related sanctions and the US will terminate or modify sanctions preventing Iran’s acquiring nuclear-related commodities and services (translation: ballistic missiles).
In order to keep our country from being thrown into more chaos, we need to adopt the Federalists' constitution. With our current constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the government isn't given enough power to receive taxes and therefore couldn't assist the states of form any type of standing army to protect the US citizens. Without instituting a new constitution we are putting our country at great risk of turning into a state of anarchy.
We've already been trying negotiations with North Korea since the 80's, they've continued to break treaties and continue their nuclear program. They will continue to manipulate us to get resources and if they have weapons that can threat U.S. soil and they verbally make those threats, those weapons need to be dealt with and if that means a mass military strike in North Korea? Then that's what we need to do.
I agree more along the lines of option 1. It isn't very likely that a preemptive military strike will go as smoothly as planned and there is a good chance a lot of lives could be lost but it is the only option that provides a positive outcome for the future. We can't simply ignore them otherwise we will find ourselves in a world where not only do all the stable super powers have nukes but the smaller more rogue nations of the world. On the other hand if we were to go in and simply nuke North Korea we would end countless civilians lives and also risk nuclear war.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!