There are several issues with this argument. The first is that Ahmajinedad is no longer President of the Iranian people. Clearly the Iranian people did not want him as their president as there was the Green Movement which were riots and protests against Ahmajinedad because of the rigged election. The Iranian people are not stupid. We can't just bully them around. Rouhani knows how important the Nuclear Deal is for his people. Strong arming is a constant tactic in politics to get someone to agree to a deal. He knew what was necessary to get the U.S. to agree to the deal and when we joined it, it provided trust to the Iranians. As they now have the U.S., France, the UK, Russia, China, and Germany backing them in the Iran Nuclear Deal, there is now stability in the economy for investors to trust their money in the economy.

I have three main reasons as to why the Iran Nuclear Deal must be upheld by both the U.S. and Iran.

The first reason is that the Iran Nuclear Deal provides the stability needed to support the Iranian economy. Iran has one of the lowest Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rates in the world due to the instability of the population and the control the government has over the economy. The reformist President Hassan Rouhani was one of the vital forces behind the Nuclear Deal which lead to the lifting of international sanctions against the country. This boosted FDI until the creation of a new series of sanctions by the Trump administration. When Trump announced his decision to leave the Nuclear Deal, Iran's economy took a serious blow. For once, the deal had given foreign investors enough stability to invest and not have to worry about losing all of their investments. Being backed by China, Russia, France, the UK, Germany, and the U.S. gave them this security to invest in an underdeveloped Iran that has great economic potential. Once the U.S. left the deal, this security was now missing and caused investors to pull out. Iran cannot have a successful economy in a world with such globalization unless it is able to attract foreign investments.

The second reason is that Iran must be an independent country. Many of the people against the Iran Nuclear Deal seem to want the U.S. to invade and stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I have one question for these people. Do you not remember the costly and deadly War on Terror fought against Iraq? We tried to invade Iran's neighbor Iraq after 9/11 and it went horribly. Even whenever we did occupy a part of Iraq, constant fighting broke out between terrorists and our soldiers. We cannot go to Iran and forcibly occupy them. They will constantly fight back and kill our soldiers until we are forced to retreat. This will also worsen tensions between Iran and the U.S. further. Think of one of our greatest allies in Japan. After WWII, their economy was in shambles. While we did occupy them, we only did it to reinstate their economy. Once their economy was going, we stopped the Japan occupation and they are now an economic powerhouse and one of our greatest allies. We must do the same for Iran and help them become more economically stable. Invasion is a last ditch effort that should never happen.

The third reason I have is that Iranians clearly want change. Iran has a large educated younger population that have elected very reformist and idealist presidents such as President Rouhani. They are not as conservative or religious as the other older Iranians who are in control of the most powerful positions in the government like the Supreme Leader. They clearly want and favor democratic and more liberal ideas and want a true country. Aggravating tensions with Iran will only give more propaganda to the government to convince this younger population that America is evil. It will only create another cycle of evil and it cannot be allowed to happen. Iran is clearly at a point where they want reform and they want to become a serious country. If we deny them this opportunity, it will just create more hatred and anti-American sentiment and could even lead to something worse than 9/11, especially if they have nukes. The deal is needed to ensure the world's safety and to help Iranians transform their country.

There it is again. The elites telling us that our god given rights are not necessary. What is worse, a dictatorship or a tyranny? I know which one of those will form under your ridiculous idea of a large republic. You want to stop us from enacting our freedoms because you fear the elitist's losing control of the government to the common people.

The second that we let a standing army replace our civilian formed militias is when we hand over the power to execute unfair laws to a tyrannical government. The people need to make up militias to ensure that what the government is needing to enforce is approved by its own citizens. Once the government has that independent standing army that can execute its will with no questions asked is when we are suppressed and beat down by unfair legislation. Every standing army in the history of the world has been used to enforce unfair laws on their own brothers and sisters who are civilians just trying to get by. Britain did this to us, shooting and murdering its own subjects just to enact laws that were tyrannical in nature. No matter what, we cannot allow this to repeat.

The constitution is a democracy killing document that will strip the people of their power that they fought so hard for. It calls itself the "supreme law of the land" and those fat elites want us to believe that we'll still have freedom under their national government. All that would be different from when we were subjects under King George would be that the King is right here in America. The vagueness of the elastic cause and the supremacy clause leave the states to the will of the federal government. If the state passes a law, the federal government can have their court overrule it and any law the federal government deems to be "necessary and proper" to the welfare or safety of the people it claims to represent will be passed without proper jurisdiction or approval from the states. If this Constitution is ratified, the states will become subjects under yet another King.

This was really well written and I agree with everything you said. Our education system has a lot of issues and the discussion on race is one of the largest.

That was the one good point someone else who was mentioned above somewhere made, we go over the "I have a dream" speech so much rather than other parts of the CRM.

I'm just saying in my experience I feel like I have. I will say that it is not covered as much as other subjects like industrialization which is very unjust.

Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Yes there is a difference between massacre and genocide. I think we don't have memorials and museums like Germany for example mainly because of how far back the genocide took place. It wasn't the major focal point of a World event like the Holocaust in WWII and because of that people don't feel the need to bring it up which I think is inherently wrong. The Native Americans had a lot of culture and played an important part of American history especially with the early settlements and should be justly recognized.

"Not only do we not talk too much about race in education..." I agree with most of what you say but I disagree on the part about the Native Americans. There have been many history classes that discuss the massacres that were committed by colonial Americans against Indians and how the diseases brought spread like wildfire. The Trail of Tears is one of the most atrocious acts committed in American history and it has been discussed in every history class that I've ever been in. It may not have been as in depth as it should but I know that we have at least covered the basics of the atrocities committed against Native Americans.