Under the deal Iran has agreed to some of the strictest inspections. If there is any suspicion that Iran is attempting to make nuclear weapons the U.N. is allowed to inspect that area. If anything violating the deal is found, sanctions will be reinforced, thus hurting Iran's economy

Jared

For the Deal

The Iran is not the best deal in U.S. history, but it is the best deal we are going to get with Iran. With the deal, Iran has agreed to reduce the number of operating centrifuges from 20,000 to about 5,000, enrich uranium to 3.67% (enough to supply power, but not enough to create a nuclear weapon), and allow very strict inspections. Diane Randall states, "Iran has agreed to the most robust inspections regime ever negotiated." If Iran holds up their end of the deal, the U.S. will return the money Iran once had and allow them to sell their oil.

With the Articles everyone has equal power. Elites and the rabble. But if we allow the central government to be run by elites and the "educated," decisions will not be made in favor of the rabble because the elites do not know what we need. With the constitution the decision that is "best for the people" will really be best for the elites.

We should keep the articles because it provides the most protection over the majority in the states which is farmers and artisans. Citizens in each state have direct access to information about their government, whereas with the Constitution it is not specified whether people will have access to information about their government. With the Articles, state affairs stay within the state while with the Constitution the federal government can get involved with its vague sections such as the necessary and proper clause. The articles is here to protect the rabble and keep the elite from taking advantage of the rabble.

Option two is the way to go with the recent news about Kim Jong-un willing to negotiate. Recently, Kim stated that he will hold off on the attack for a little bit unless the U.S. did something irrational and "stupid."

Another reason option two is the best option right now is because the U.S. has agreed to a mutual defense treaty with South Korea that states the U.S. is to not take action without the consent and agreement of South Korea. If the U.S. were to break this treaty we could lose South Korea and many other countries could turn on the U.S. or not help in the crisis. U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis stated that any attack on North Korea could easily turn into war.

With option two we can turn to option one if things do not work out, whereas with option one, there is no turning back and like Mattis states it can turn into war. With option two we have a chance with reasoning with Kim and if he releases the missile without warning we have THAAD, an anti-missile defense system, located in South Korea.

South Korea would not be happy because Article II in the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kor001.asp) states that the U.S must consult with South Korea before making any attack on North Korea. Yes, with option 1 we could take out North Korea's nuclear weapons, but it does not make it safe for either the U.S. or South Korea. The U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis stated that any strike or attack could easily turn to war. We need as many countries on our side before making any attack other wise we could lose allies or worse have other countries turn on us.

Jared Brock (1)

I think that we should try to avoid starting war with North Korea at all costs but because of Kim Jong-un's little known reputation I don't think it is possible to avoid war. The weapons Kim has now cannot reach the U.S., but it can reach the allies. Therefore, I think that if we were to go with option 1 we would have an advantage.