argument argue about share argue how
 
argue for



pros and cons   against

 
Creds and Cruds for
allonzo1 on 12-4-2009



The LHC could be used to make anti-matter which could be stolen and used to destroy the Vatican, unless of course someone would grab the anti-matter at the last moment and take it high in the air in a helicopter and allow it to explode harmlessly.
0 Cred2 Crud


When I make a decision that affects the safety and well being of my family I use a different thought process than when I am interacting with a set of my peers. For example, if I were planning a golf outing with some friends, I would compromise on where and what time we would have our outing. If, on the other hand, i was at a public park and a stranger beganhovering over my grandchild in a threatening manner, i would act quickly to make him leave. I would not consider the fact that we are in a public place and he has as much right to occupy the grounds as my child and I do. He has sovereignty, but I am charged to protect my family. That is my first priority.
With regard to Iran, Many people, including our President, believe that Iran poses a clear and present danger to the world. I do not fathom how someone would endorse Iran's nuclear program. I am interested to know what would be their response to the scenario put forth above, and whether or not they see parallelism between it and the Iran nuclear weapons scenario.
2 Cred0 Crud


While deferring action in anticipation of Israel standing up to Iran is a convenient, albeit cowardly strategy, this is a tragic approach. Iran, whose boarders stretch the Persion Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, could easily close the 2 mile shipping lane in the Strait of Hormuz. In fact Iran has already theatened this action if they are attacked by anyone. Through the Straits flow 20 percent of oil traded worldwide. This would spell economic panic the world has yet to see other than during the world wars. A united world approach is needed.
4 Cred0 Crud


I assume you mean "By whom." Be that as it may, sovereignty has been the key arguing point against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty both before and since its signing in 1968. If this is the basis of your dialectic then. we must take it to its limit. If all states and peoples are sovereign, then when it comes to nuclear weaponry, those in favor of sovereignty must also stand behind the premise that anyone with enough money should be able to buy nuclear weapons. Does that make any sense at all. The world community of 189 nations has spoken, and wisely so. Nuclear weaponry and its technology must be controlled. Hear, hear.
3 Cred0 Crud

 
         
argue   for
© 2009 13 Guys Named Ed, LLC   •   About   •   Feedback   •   Sitemap
against   argues