Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation
Debate Rounds (3)
Like it or not, and despite the proliferation of new age liberals who seek to villify the United States, we ARE the world's most powerful super power. There are some that say foolishly that we've had the position long enough and it's time to give someone else a turn at it. This is not Romper Room or Sesame street!
There is a world of bad guys out there that are badder than anyone you've ever dreamed of. Yes, we have to protect the world. We ARE the police. And rightly so. If left to their own device, most nations that have or seek to have nuclear (pronounced NEW CLEAR, not nuke-you-ler) weapons would be loose canons if allowed to go unchecked.
The idea that the US should step down and pacify is utterly ridiculous. It's like sending a man covered in meat juice into the cage of a hungry tiger. He's sure to be devoured.
We must protect ourselves and our allies, despite the recent practice of engagine in 'policing actions' rather than declaring war and being in it to win it. Any flowery ideas that we should just lay back and watch is pure folly. Dangerous folly. But, thank God that there are those out there willing to fight and die for the sovereignety of the country; thus allowing such fanciful thinking.
I'm not talking about aid. I'm talking about exercising our strength to patrol and control any and all threats within and outside of our nation. I believe that we should stop all expenditures aiding other nations. And then give an immediate show of strength. In other words, declare war on the biggest guy on the block and beat them to a pulp. Without regard for collateral damage.
But the pc powers that be, not wanting to offend anyone at any cost won't do that. The misallocation of funds and real resources will continue; political correctness will continue to rule the day and someone else will pick up the dropped ball and run with it. So, while I'm absolutely for the unilateral use of force by our nation, I don't expect it to happen any time soon. Especially with such a pandering George Soros-installed puppet in the white house.
It would seem that we are in agreement on several points. What we disagree on is 'putting our nose in everybody's business'.
We aren't just taking it upon ourselves to tell everyone what to do. There is intelligence of which we, the general public know nothing and yet, it exists. Our government, corrupt and underhanded as it may be, knows the intent of other nations way before anything happens and so, moves pre-emptively to head off mayhem before it occurs. Conspiracy theories be damned.
It is for that reason that we must respond. Lines drawn and crossed? The president of Egypt said openly and correctly that the US hasn't won a war since WWII. We have a long and shameful history dating back to the korean conflict (it cannot be called a war) and proceeding to the embarrassment that is Afghanistan. Afghanistan? They mean absolutely no harm to anyone that doesn't attack them! Chased Al Queda into that country? Why? Let them stay there!
We've logged one embarrassment after another since then and why? Because some politically correct douchebags thought it would be a great idea to enter wars and not fight them; indeed not to even declare them. If any president were to act as decisively as did Harry Truman, who ended a 4 year war in but a few days, we would have our respect again and be well on the way to gaining our rightful place as a nation to be reckoned with, not a nation of sissies ruled by buffoons.
Prevent nuclear proliferation? Of course. Do that by beating hell out of the bullies with a couple of nukes! They thumb their noses? Break those noses! But our president is like the kid in the school yard that when punched in the nose, whines 'awww, whadja do that for?'. Of course they laugh at us. Look at the way we behave in the face of aggression!
So, returning to the subject at hand: Again I say yes. Prevent it by bombing the hell out of anyone that rattles their sabre at us, quickly and decisively. It's the only way.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's final rebuttal did it for met; pre-emption isn't desirable, but occasionally it is necessary/justified. We aren't privy to all the info the government is, and sometime action is imperative.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.