CreateDebate


KeanuC's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of KeanuC's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

Well what is of a greater risk to stability in the Middle East: funded terrorist groups or a nuclear Iran?

1 point

They were two months from being able to make weapons from their stockpile. They could have made several, but now they've reduced their stockpile and reduced the grade of the uranium. They're set back. It'll take them a year to refine enough uranium for one weapon and the UN is watching them closely. At least we're putting off conflict if they still wish to obtain nuclear weapons in fifteen years.

1 point

Obama says that because we aren't blindly trusting the Persians. We are verifying that their end of the bargain is being held. The deal isn't to ensure "peace," just to stop their nuclear program from going any farther.

1 point

Israeli military officials have claimed that this deal makes Iran much less of a threat than before.

5 points

2. Without restrictions, Two months is the nessacary amount of time for the Iranians to stockpile enough material to produce a nuclear weapon. Research and development of nuclear weapons has been taking place Within Iran for more than a decade. With the agreement in place, that process is slowed to a year wherein the intrusive oversight of the UN will Ensure the United States is made aware of any substancial progress towards the development of nuclear weapons. Our goal is to stop the Iranians from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche noted that the most abundant of human stupidity occurs when one forgets what he's trying to accomplish. Whether or not the Iranians fund Hamas or other "terrorists" concerns not the issue of nuclear arsenals directly. Furthermore, on the issue of support for terrorism, revoking the deal would only lead to more disastrous effects because Iran would be able to support such groups with nuclear weapons if it felt so inclined as to do so. Nevertheless, this is not the concern. We want Iran to halt research and Development of nuclear technologies and we have succeeded. The United States stands at an advantage in this deal and while not perfect, it is the best deal imaginable.

0 points

The constitution establishes a plutocracy! They will not, per se, take away our rights, but the Federalists seek to establish a economy based on trade with other nations, not trade within our friendly league. The wealth of the few shall be increased while nothing is gained for the common man. I agree, the Articles in their current state are a mess, but the constitution takes too much power away the states and the people. The Constitution does seek to improve the economy, but the writers of the Constitution, the Federalists, will benefit from this shift in economic focus. The bankers and merchants will sit upon heaps of gold while the farmer struggles, barred out from the government. The majority do not benefit from the adoption of the constitution!

1 point

And what if these rebellions are against tyranny? What stops this standing army from taking away rights and enforcing their most egregious laws? Are you going to strip away firearms too, so that the people cannot defend from this standing army? What are rebellions but the people expressing disdain with the government? We should work to alleviate the causes for concern, not crush those responding - reasonably so - to problems with their treatment. In a government intended for the people by the people, their shouldn't be an army that can be used against the people against their interests.

KeanuC(23) Clarified
2 points

Dictatorship or Oligarchy/Aristocracy? Dictatorship is absolute rule in one person, which the constitution does not advocate for.

1 point

-------------------Hit the wrong option. I meant to click clarify---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[ACT LIKE THIS HAS BEEN DELETED PLEASE. THANK YOU]----------------------------------

8 points

90% of the Country's population works the land as farmers. Our interests are the greatest. The banks want to take the lands of the people, of veterans. The veterans cannot pay for their debts because the national government have not paid them, but it is the States that are responsible for this - not the weak central government. If the Articles are modified in order to make the states pay their dues to the national legislature in full, there would not need to be a central government to collect taxes for themselves. The Federalists paint this feet as impossible because they seek only to strip us of our freedom. They claim it is to make our nation powerful, but did we just not fight a powerful nation that squandered our liberties? What was all that effort, bloodshed, and suffering for? It is certainly not to endure tyranny, even by a different flag! They speak of expansion towards Europe, but it is the West we must expand into! We have all this land to use, borders to dispute and draw, state level quarrels to resolve. This is where all the focus should be, good people: the states. Let the Federalists build the wealth of Europe upon their shores and leave the people outside their states to rule themselves. They wish only to steal the wealth of the lower class in order to fund their ambitions, these bankers and merchants. Is rule by some distant tyrant not what we shed blood for? The state capital is neither abusive of our liberty nor distant. We are not barred from the central government's legislation, but we shall be with the adoption of this new constitution! It is no coincidence that once we are expelled its power is to swell! While our young country is not absolved of all fault, modification of the Articles shall fix our issues while leaving power in the farmer - he who grows, not the banker - he who looks to take from the one who grows - or the speculator - ones in cahoots with the bankers to make profits. With their standing army, the Federalists may enforce this theft as though it is just. While it may be agreed upon as such it shall only be agreed as such by members of their circles! Do you see not the doom which shall set in if the Federalists are allowed their own document? They will start anew I tell you, and in discarding the Articles, they disregard what set this nation apart from any other upon this globe: rule by the people for the people!

KeanuC(23) Clarified
1 point

[I made this comment unaware that I was referring to a clarification, not a stand-alone aurgument. There seems not to be a delete button so this must suffice.]

KeanuC(23) Clarified
1 point

I don't want to take the debate away from North Korea, so I won't get specific, but there are parts of the world under a government that is not democratic. These places are more of theocracies where people are denied simple freedoms. Words won't do anything to better the situation of these people, so should we wage war on these places, dismantle their governments, set up what our culture holds to be the most pure form of government, and kill millions along the way? I completely agree that nondemocratic governments hold some undeniable fault, but I don't think its wise to spend both our time and money slaughtering country after country to shove our culture down their throats. Now I will ask my question again: do you think we should nuke or invade every country that has a government without some sizable democratic components, or just North Korea because they have crossed a line? It's clear what you think, but why is just a bit ambiguous. You didn't at all answer my question. Your position is clear from an ideological standpoint, but the world should not be looked at through such lenses. We live in a complicated web of causalities that seem paradoxical to our very values, but there is no changing that without creating a trail of blood to do what we think makes the world a better place. It is completely atrocious that those Koreans suffer so, but it is not our duty to start World War 3 in the name of Freedom.

2 points

Yeah. The American Empire leaves ashes where ever it waves its influence. Doing so in North Korea would also provoke China, and they have more than just one nuke...

1 point

The nuke is just for show. They would never attack first. It's just a condition - that being leave us alone and this collects dust. What does either side gain from going to war? Pulling troops out of an area is foolish once the regime or government has been dissolved. A dictatorship is leagues better than a power vacuum that creates further violence. And if they dissolve by way of nature, China can just take over the area. It'll be their problem. Why are we doing the work for them? They share a border and they have the resources to support them. China wouldn't allow an Iraq situation unfold on their border. Lets take the target off of our country.

1 point

"so they clearly do not want to actually harm others" --- inaction doesn't negate intention, Ms.Karen.

1 point

What is their goal in war? If we stop being perceived as a threat, maybe they could spend some of that missile money on agricultural technology and actually feed their populous as an independent, collectivized communist regime as opposed to trying to secure sovereignty by way of ascending to the rank of nuclear threat. They shouldn't need those nukes to be sovereign at this point. There's the risk that they will sell off their nuclear secrets, yes, but as a country, they're just trying to survive. If that money is allocated somewhere more adjacent to self sufficiency, they would not need to give away their nuclear technology. There is a method to their madness. They aren't an empire, just a country that wants to be left alone. We should do that. What do the North Koreans gain from war that leaving them won't already give them? If you can answer that well enough, you may just convince me that war is the answer, youngjefe.

1 point

Their economy is already in shambles. The people are starving and there's a huge black market within the country.

Source: Kang Chol-hwan, North Korean Refugee. He wrote about it in Aquariums of Pyongyang

1 point

We built their economies from the ashes. They shouldn't get that upset as to nuke us.

1 point

What are your plans for after attacking, Ms.Meredith? Do you want to occupy it or just leave the country as is? Are we going for a full land invasion, or are we just doing strikes?

1 point

Should we just give every country a few nukes? Is this the brighter world you envision, Mr.Quantumhead? Should we just give every belligerent or unstable country a map with our military bases highlighted for them? I really want to understand where you're coming from because I agree with you a few things you've said, but that point of your augment just isn't making sense to me. I agree that the North Koreans are using the weapon as a strategy to safeguard their sovereignty, but they don't have a "right" to nuclear weapons as you make it out to be. If nothing else, the country should be pressured into developing agricultural technology instead of military technology. If we accept their existence and let them run the foolish course of communism, it should fail on its own. China will support them like a burden, yes, but they will no longer be a thorn in our side. If we attack, if we destroy their country, we give rise to an anti-american sentiment already more solidified than the existing one in Korea. By bombing this country, we create an ideology that is even worse to deal with. You can't even fathom negotiations with a militant ideology. So I clearly understand the disdain you possess with attacking, but we shouldn't hand out the nuclear bomb like its candy.

KeanuC(23) Clarified
1 point

You said yes to an "or" question. Which conditional were you replying to?

3 points

That argument is too polar. What middle ground could be found between the rightful quest of national sovereignty the North Koreans lead and a repressive global empire you make the US out to be? Mr.John Micheal says nothing of other countries - just North Korea. This is a more isolated case and I, believe, sir, that you are overgeneralizing. Mr.John Micheal makes no indications that would should be pressuring, say, Britain because that country has the ability to "defend itself from foreign aggressors." When a country proves a threat to its sovereignty, it has the duty to stand up to this threat. The Koreans see us a threat, so they obtain ICBMs to secure their sovereignty, but in doing so - when contextualized with the last 75 years of smack-talk and painting the United States as some terrible villain to their populous - they have provoked the US. When a child with a dart gun threatens you, its easy to shrug off, but when he has a loaded 44 magnum, there are some problems that have to be addressed. Just because one immature country shouldn't have ICBMs for its own safety and everyone else's doesn't mean an mature country shouldn't...

KeanuC(23) Clarified
0 points

So are standing for democracy and liberal ideas here because they are a threat, or do you think we should be doing this in every corner of the globe?

2 points

You say innocent lives, but if we allow the regime to continue, the massive political prosecution and imprisonment of the innocent will not cease. In North Korea, the entire families of "enemies of the state" go to hard labor Camps like Yoduk. There they are starved, beaten, raped, and made to sleep in dirt Hovels for possibly a few hours before going back to 12 hour work days of hard labor(typically). I completely agree with Option 4 being the best option, but innocent lives are lost no matter the decision. I feel it is intellectually dishonest to note no loss of innocent lives. Those people did nothing except share blood with those deemed "traitors." Countless people will die one way or another. Every action has complex reactions and, truthfully, none of them are purely good. They're all either detrimental to swathes of people in some way or ineffective and therefore destructive to human life in the perpetuation of the status quo.


1 of 2 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]