- 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.
The deal's goal is to restrict the production of nuclear weapons, and Iran has done just that. They are following the limitations imposed upon their government to cut down on centrifuges, kilos of uranium, and extend the amount of time for Iran to produce enough fuel for a bomb. International inspectors within the country are almost 100% confident that they could detect it if Iran was cheating the deal. Further sanctions posed by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act could push Iran to ultimately back out and reach no future agreement. It could also paint Americans as a people who do not keep their word.
It is crucial that we remember our roots: the original document from the founding of our country. Natural rights for the people by the people. Why implement a government in which your chosen elites confer within themselves about what is best for the majority of this nation? Excuse me, I meant 3/4 of a government. How could you ever expect us to ratify a general document with such vague limits on YOUR power? We have gone years without this document. We have birthed a nation and won a war against tyranny under the Articles of Confederation. It is extremely disrespectful that you attempt to pass these ridiculous Old World ways under our noses when we fought so valiantly to banish them from this land. You "intellectuals" pass your knowledge off to mean that you should govern our country. What makes your document better than any revision we could make to the Articles to fix the problems we are currently going through?
I'm not sure if the capability of North Korea to hit the United States makes a preemptive strike okay, but should we wait for them to possibly use it for us begin taking action? They have been working at this for years, officially withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, whether to prove their strength and capability as a strong and armed nation not to be messed with or to attack a country and start a world war.
Just recently, they did declare to pull back from their intentions to attack Guam. Sources state that "The statement sure looks like a [North Korean] attempt at deescalation," (https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/15/
A preemptive attack should be used as a last resort. Not being able to predict Kim's true intentions makes it more difficult to make the right decision to move forward. He's been a cruel man with ego issues and hardly enough sense of right and wrong. Ever since his public declaration of lost intentions to attack Guam, it's possible that he will be open to negotiations. Maybe not too much too fast; we still have a long way to go. But bilateral negotiations seem like the best option to me due to the drawbacks of a preemptive attack on North Korea.
In 2006, North Korea's first underground nuclear test was carried out. We could miss some of their missiles and they would likely target the nearby countries that contain our troops, plus we would risk making the land radioactive and unfit for humans to safely set foot upon.
Prioritizing stability over denuclearization seems like the best option to me. I personally don't want to advocate starting a war, but I definitely agree that having defenses set up in case they attempt to attack is important. The blame game can sway opinions and would likely damage our reputation if it all ends badly.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!