So as you can see from where they stand Obama is a little more for Gun Control while McCain is almost completely Agenst it. My opinion on this issue is that it is our constituional right to have these fire arms and that we should be able to keep them. I had a history teacher tell me once that the one admendment is the only one that keeps the government on edge and doing what the population wants cuz it gives us the power to rebel if the government stopes listening to us. Also I think that if they do band guns like they do in other country’s all they are going to accomplish is taking the guns out of the good guys hands and giving the bad people who will not turn theirs in a free
President Reagan contended that we were trying to get an opening to “moderate” or anti-Khomeini forces in Iran rather than trafficking with hard-line terrorists and extremists. This explanation, too, has been dismissed as a subterfuge on the grounds that “all the moderates in Iran are dead.” Again, the evidence strongly supports the President’s view. As our chronology makes clear, the idea of seeking an opening to Iran, of trying to identify and deal with moderate elements there, predated the events that brought the hostage issue to the forefront. This theme emerged time and again in early statements from the NSC and CIA and were prominent in administration thinking throughout the Iranian initiative. And the President himself consistently stressed that he sought an opening to moderate elements in Tehran.
In the case of Afghanistan, there would be a point of trying to institute a democratic regime if it was right after the won Afghan war from 1980’s. As is apparent from her doctrine, she did not support actions trying to constitute a democratic regime in country, where there were no traditions for such a form of government. That sounds perfectly logic, the only think that I do not understand about that is, why she would support the total war aimed in deposing Saddam twelve years before. Of course, the situation then was much better prepared for such a venture, the overthrowing of Saddam would plausibly be much less expensive, however, the core challenge, the absence of readiness of Iraq (and also of Afghanistan) and their civilians to become rulers for themselves, was always
If the United States is clear that they do not want to make him a criminal but instead a national symbol then maybe the Japanese might agree and surrender. With this option the United States will have moral leadership and will be able to build a war of peace and democracy without stooping to the level of the enemy. If the United States does chose this option they are risking that the japes might take it as a sign of weakness and might encourage them to keep fighting. Another risk with this option is that if not all aggressive militarism is destroyed then we know that new dictators and wars will come up again. Option two is that the United States should drop an atomic bomb on a deserted island so that the whole world can see what power we have.
< http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/nuclear-proliferation%20/> In order for the Pro to win this debate, unilateral military force by the United States must not only be proven to effectively prevent nuclear proliferation, but also be justified. Unilateral action on the part of the United States creates the very problems it claims to prevent, and places people in danger. Contention 1: Military force will create massive backlash United States Military Action Angers the World Foreign Policy analyst Murtaza Hussain best articulates this reality: “While the stories of American brutality in places such as Korea are unknown or ignored by the overwhelming majority of Americans, they are less quickly forgotten by the citizens of the countries which have suffered and continue to suffer horrific atrocities at the hands of US troops. Polls of regions such as Latin America have shown anti-American sentiment to be even more rife; a legacy of
Iran claims the recent uranium stockpile is specifically for the use of their peaceful energy program; however, the United States and other P5 countries share the concern that the stockpile and dramatic production increase needs to be stopped immediately, preventing Iran from creating nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear program is assumed to be capable of creating a nuclear weapon within the next year. In a speech addressed to the UN General Assembly Netanyahu physically drew a red line on a diagram of a cartoon bomb under a divided section marked, “final stage” (Nichols 1). Netanyahu and other experts suggest that if uranium enrichment stockpiles remain at these levels or increase, Iran will be capable of nuclear weapons and sooner than expected. Netanyahu’s illustration for his speech approximates Iran is 90 percent along the way to the creation of nuclear weapons.
Many of the arguments made by the pro-life team take a moral, ethical, or religious standpoint in their persuasion of others. In order for us to gain a more objective look at the debate with real-world pros and cons, the moral, ethical, and/or religious arguments will not be covered. Abortion has been a topic of controversy in America for almost two hundred years. The earliest known instance of conflict occurred in 1821 when Connecticut outlawed the selling of poisons used to induce abortion in women (Abortion ProCon.org). In 1845, New York began the trend of slapping legal consequences for women who have abortions.
I believe that it begins at conception, and that we are illegally killing innocent people. Abortion is an issue that I believe is a crime. Lawmakers in Congress keep abortion legal because they argue that it is a right to privacy which is also in the Constitution. These people neglect the fact that other parts of the law are being broken in this act. Only in special birth complications should an abortion be performed, for example one where the birth of the child could severely harm or kill the birthmother.
Abortion is seen as no different to murder. In the case or Rape or incest, pro-life campaigners argue that the child is the one being punished when it has not committed the crime and that the child is completely innocent and it’s the criminal that instead should be punished. Pro –life campaigners also argue that adoption is an alternative to abortion, and that many people will use abortion as a method of contraception. They argue that there are thousands of people waiting to adopt children, so if a mother decides she doesn’t want her child for any reason she can offer this child through adoption to a suitable
They provide evidence for the idea that life starts at conception with biblical quotes like "the days ordained to me were written in your book before one even came to be" and "your eyes saw my unformed body" suggesting that our personhood in God's view starts at as soon as the egg is fertilised. With that in mind, one of the ten commandments: "thou shalt not kill" would apply strongly to foetuses, and this is why many Catholics believe abortion is wrong under all circumstances. As for the societal implication, Christians could argue that allowing abortion could lead to a lesser respect for human life in general, which is disrespectful to God who gave us the divine gift of life. From the perspective of Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics, abortion can be seen as unacceptable in many cases where the amount of agape love is not maximised. This could mean in cases where the mother could look after the child comfortably with love and care but chooses not to out of selfishness instead (one of the four functioning principles: pragmatism, would need to be applied to decide).