The deal has been in place for a very short period of time, and Iran has a rich history of pulling out of deals and continuing research. The current deal allows them to research with advanced centrifuges. They could research how to most effectively use these IR-2M centrifuges while getting their frozen assets back. They could pull out of the deal with more money and more knowledge on how to enrich uranium. This is very dangerous.

There is not time like the present, especially when it comes to Nuclear Deals. This deal should not be waited out, the problems should be addressed and fixed now instead of waiting 15 years. While it is unlikely that a deal of this caliber would be agreed on by a majority of the Senate, I believe it is the best course of action as well.

Please Clarify your viewpoint. After reading this, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You say that the deal is not all that great, then you claim that Iran should be able to have nukes because the US does.

Against Deal: This deal limits the number of centrifuges that Iran can own from 20,000 to 5,000. While this may seem like a victory, centrifuges are very dangerous by nature. Centrifuges give the user the ability to enrich uranium, and Iran stated that it possessed centrifuges that were capable of enriching uranium. Iran said that it would only use the centrifuges for energy purposes, but Iran has a rich history of breaking deals and not being true to its word. While Iran is being supervised in its use of centrifuges, leaders of Iran have stated that they have secret nuclear facilities.

The way the new nation is set up allows for the rabble to overthrow/rebel against the government if they feel that there are problems at hand. The idea that farmers and craftsmen would allow the wealthy class to take over the government under there noses is undermining to the working class. The working class is afraid of losing their land because they can't pay taxes that the beloved state governments placed on their land. If the Constitution is put in place, the land will not be taxed and a way for the farmers to successfully pay off their debts will be laid out.

Keeping the articles would only further separate our nation. Monarchy and separating power into 3 different branches is two entirely different things. States are currently not handling their debt and putting that into the nations hand would stop all the confusion and stop the states from further pulling apart.

The government needs to be centralized in an area with the ability to tax and the ability to have a single, strong currency. In the current situation, with the Articles of Confederation(AoC), states are over taxing land owners and passing laws that contradict each other. If the government is centralized, we can have one set of strong laws that lay the general guidelines and laws for each state to follow. From there, the local and state governments can decide the things not covered by the Constitution. The constitution will be better for the people, from wealthy and uneducated to poor and physically hard working, because it will be agreed upon by the people of each state. If the AoC stay in place, the states will fall apart and Europe will come in and slowly take land from each state until the US is no more.

I find your dedication of time to this admirable, and I would like you to clarify your article by siting sources for the things you cite. For instance, I am really interested in your claim at the end stating that PRC would side with North Korea over the US in spite of the US owing PRC trillions. I am really interested in reading the article and its point of view.

I'm gonna side with option 1. North Korea has flexed on the US for 15 years, but lately, what they are saying could have enormous implications. I think the best idea would be full out invade without infringing on sovereignty; I know that rarely ever to never works, but this issue is large enough for us promise it and actually follow through. Hit what we think are there nuclear bomb development sites and send in recon teams to find out where the rest of the development is being done. Missiles alone won't be sufficient to handle this issue. Trump is willing to rain down fire on North Korea, so why wouldn't he be willing to do a small scale invasion.