The Instigator
631300
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
peedeeboi
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
peedeeboi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,197 times Debate No: 37156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

631300

Con

The United States has to many problems on the homefront to spend all of our resources in other countries. Who died and made us God? What are your view on the subject? Thank you for your feedback!
peedeeboi

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 1
631300

Con

Our domestic policy is less than stellar. If we cannot support ourselves in our own home how can we possibly support the other countries of the world? If we continue to spend money, resources, and American lives in countries that hold no immediate threat to the country, we won't have anything to use here. Many years ago America was established as THE superpower of the world, and it is already seeing the decline. We see it all through history, a country is promoted in status and after years of being there, it is torn down and it is only a shadow of it's former self. We saw it, most prominently, with Rome, but you can look at Britain in the 1700s and France before that. Now those countries are either nonexistent, or inferior. The only good that Britain is anymore is an old queen and a royal baby. If we want to continue to be the greatest nation in the world we have to fall back and regroup. Just as we have in the past we have over-extended ourselves and now we are exposed.
peedeeboi

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 2
631300

Con

I wasn't talking about aid either. When the country is threatened or has been attacked, by all means show them whose boss. But, when we stick our nose in everyone's business, it is likely to get bit. The United States was once the most respected country in the world, but now our "Fearless Leader" has ruined that. When he threatens someone with a red line and they cross it that shows that they are not afraid of us anymore. If we were the country we once were than we woudn't have to worry about that. If we ever want to get our respect back we have to rest and recover to fight another day, let someone else take this one. We've done it long enough.
peedeeboi

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by JustAnotherTeenageChild 7 months ago
JustAnotherTeenageChild
Why do you think we should act violently upon other nations? Just because we are a powerful nation, it does not give us the justification to "beat the hell out of the bullies with some nukes". Who is to say they wouldn't retaliate? Or other nations who disagreed? Just curious.
Posted by GMONEYDEBATEGOD 7 months ago
GMONEYDEBATEGOD
THIS DEBATE Be GETTING CRAY
Posted by GMONEYDEBATEGOD 7 months ago
GMONEYDEBATEGOD
THIS DEBATE Be GETTING CRAY
Posted by GMONEYDEBATEGOD 7 months ago
GMONEYDEBATEGOD
THIS DEBATE Be GETTING CRAY
Posted by GMONEYDEBATEGOD 7 months ago
GMONEYDEBATEGOD
THIS DEBATE Be GETTING CRAY
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 7 months ago
bsh1
631300peedeeboiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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.