Have as many high-powered firearms as you want. If a compliant military comes for you, you better believe there are going to send more than 1 guy to your front door. How effective is your AR15 against an Apache Helicopter? The key is what will the military do when an authoritarian government takes hold. Because, honestly, your pistols or semi-automatic rifles wouldn’t stop any military force for long. They don’t quit after you shoot one guy.
If every Jew in Germany answered the knock on door with a gun, the SS would have stopped knocking.

exactly, they wouldnt knowck, they would just shoot first. Its not Hitler would say "gosh, those Jews have some guns…ah forget it, lets just have American style freedom instead."

Share This

Me and my friend were debating so much yesterday whether UN 1441 actually imply the use of military action against Iraq. He insisted that UN 1441 did not imply the use of military action against Iraq.

He insist Bush and Blair(UK) administration tried to spin it that way but that lacked credibility. The coalition sought a new resolution and only abandoned the plan to go after one because any vote would demonstrate the explicit objections of the security council. When UN Resolution 1441 was voted no one interpreted or defended it as the pro war people (mainly the Bush and Blair administration) later would. The source has the legal details but again it’s crucial to note the only reason the US didn’t seek a new resolution is because they knew it would be defeated and that would be an explicit no to the way they were planning to spin 1441. That how my friend think.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/lawyers_statement_on_un_resolution_1441_on_iraq

But the I think Iraq war was justified on the basis that Saddam failed to comply with 18 UN resolutions(maybe i’m wrong but it’s my opinion).

Specifically this section of 1441: “Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.”
I’m asking a simple question based on facts that have changed since 1441 came out. We all know that Saddam had WMDs against the Kurds, his own people and Israel.

However Hans Blix & team said that after returning in November of 2002, Iraq was complying with the 1991 terms of Ceasefire(not a lie, a fact, just ask him yourself) but US and it’s allies went in anyways and invaded. That’s why UN(i know US and it’s allies don’t care since they are sovereign nation) refused to support the war.

So my question is that did UN 1441 actually imply the use of military force? if so, quote where it says "military action" from 1441 please. or try to quote the closest thing it says that.

Please answer this because i’m trying to understand UN 1441.

Share This

Me and my friend were debating so much yesterday whether UN 1441 actually imply the use of military action against Iraq. He insisted that UN 1441 did not imply the use of military action against Iraq.

He insist Bush and Blair(UK) administration tried to spin it that way but that lacked credibility. The coalition sought a new resolution and only abandoned the plan to go after one because any vote would demonstrate the explicit objections of the security council. When UN Resolution 1441 was voted no one interpreted or defended it as the pro war people (mainly the Bush and Blair administration) later would. The source has the legal details but again it’s crucial to note the only reason the US didn’t seek a new resolution is because they knew it would be defeated and that would be an explicit no to the way they were planning to spin 1441. That how my friend think. http://www.fpif.org/articles/lawyers_statement_on_un_resolution_1441_on_iraq
was that her opinion or more of a fact?

But the I think Iraq war was justified on the basis that Saddam failed to comply with 18 UN resolutions(maybe i’m wrong but it’s my opinion).

Specifically this section of 1441: “Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.”
I’m asking a simple question based on facts that have changed since 1441 came out. We all know that Saddam had WMDs against the Kurds, his own people and Israel.

However Hans Blix & team said that after returning in November of 2002, Iraq was complying with the 1991 terms of Ceasefire(not a lie, a fact, just ask him yourself) but US and it’s allies went in anyways and invaded. That’s why UN(i know US and it’s allies don’t care since they are sovereign nation) refused to support the war.

So my question is that did UN 1441 actually imply the use of military force? if so, quote where it says "military action" from 1441 please. or try to quote the closest thing it says that.

Please answer this because i’m trying to understand UN 1441.
@reznist and you need to get a life if you don’t have anything to say. did UN 1441 imply the use of military action? if you just another troll looking for 2 points. Go somewhese else.

Share This

Question: Which country in the Middle East has the most nuclear weapons?

Question: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections? ?

Question: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

Share This

This is for debate so if you’d don’t do LD although your insite would be appreciated it won’t be as helpful.
Anyway, I need help with aff…saying yes it is just.
Value- Justice
Criterian- Double Effect docrtine
Burden for Aff is to prove that this use of military force is justified under the double effect doctrine.
Anyone have any ideas what cards I can use, or Contentions?
Also..what do you think of the criterian? Wiki it if you dont know what it means. It’s based on philosophy but I think it’s decently strong..?

Share This

The resolution is: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

In LD, you have to define key terms.
How can I define "Military Force?"

Share This

Is it just for the US to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat?

-This is exact question for a debate I will competing in this weekend.
PLEASE HELP!
-I have a lot of information already, but somehow I still come up short.
-I need comments that can be used and basically sound "smart" ha ha

Share This

I am starting a LD (lincoln douglas) debate with the resolution, "It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat." I need sources of information for anything that helps me with this. Valid information would include anything pertaining the use of military force, the situation in Iran, the situation in Iraq, and what a military threat is.

Thank you!!

Share This

Many analysts have commented on the possibility of a US and/or Israeli led strike against Iran to try to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

They have talked about such an attack requiring as many as 1000 sorties. This would be necessary because the site are so well buried and protected.

Would Israel actually be capable of doing this with conventional military force?

Of course, they’ve always got their own nuclear weapons to fall back on. But could they achieve this goal with conventional means?

Share This

Which army from the ancient world do you think would’ve given the Romans a run for their money? Aside from the Roman army, which ancient military force was the best in regards to weapons, tactics, strategy, and discipline?

This is in your own opinion, by the way.
I have several good answers here and I can’t decide so I’m going to put it to a vote.

Share This

Dwindling military force’s. The same the country of Switzerland has, AND Switzerland has NEVER been invaded !!!!!
The "Universal Health Care Plan" would work exactly as we have it today, with THE VETERENS health care system, ONLY , ALL AMERICANS MUST serve a minimum of 24 months, in active duty service, then after that 24 months, they go to a yearly one (1) month refresher, combat training course, and THEY KEEP THEIR MILITARY RIFLES FOR LIFE, TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES, FAMILY, AND COUNTRY !!!!
I wager the liberals / leftys / Democrats, do not "cotton" to the idea of having to do military service, themselves.
torop gringo

Share This

resolved: it is just for the united states to use military force to to prevent the aquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.
hey, im an LDerr, and this is the new rez for jan/feb. i already did some research on this, but im not sure if what i have is good. i would reaaly appreciate it if some one could post a list of points for AFF or Neg (or both) as an answer. thanks!
this is all great, but is there by any chance a debater out there who could possibly help me choosing standards or the VC (ill be using justice as my premise becasue its inherrent to the resolution)
also, perhaps and reasons as to why we shouldnt take military action?
<3 thanks

Share This

I have been trying to conclude what country has the greatest military might and have found that many consider it to be the U.S. At the beginning I felt that the U.S. was a bit overrated until I really started looking into it. Not only do they spend the most on their military of any nation on earth, but they are in CONSTANT combat. Since WWI they have been fighting different people across the globe, its like a hobby for them. I have heard people say that Great Britain has the best trained army in the world, which I may agree with, but training does not count for much against experience. The United States military is battle hardened through constant warfare in a number of different arenas. Plus they have a base in just about every country across the world.

I dont even bring up the Nuclear arsenal because I feel that there is a balance of power there among other nations.

But another thing to consider in the United States, can you imagine trying to invade that place? They buy over half of the weapons produced in the world each year in that one Nation. Their citizenry and their love for firearms makes them the most heavily armed in the world. Maintaining any type of foreign occupation there would be nearly impossible (and they think Iraq is hard).

According to the U.S. dept of Health and Human services there are 80,000,000 yes 80 MILLION gun owners in the U.S. That is not their population that is GUN OWNERS ONLY. To put that into perspective that is more than the ENTIRE population of the United Kingdom (around 60 million).

I may be starting to agree with the notion of the United States being the most formidable military force to ever exist, can anyone dissuade me?

Share This

It can’t be any type of warrior or soldier that had knowledge of firearms. And it would have to be someone from the Bronze Age or Iron Age. What ancient military force would you want to serve in from these time periods?

Share This

so… is it right for the U.S. to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat?
Go in-depth wit ur answer.

Share This

Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat?
Would you agree or not?
Details, quotes, statistics, logical reasoning, philosophy, values, and resources would be appreciated!
I would love to get more empirical data, and more details, because so far it seems like ranting coming from some people.

Share This

if there’s a suspicion of nuclear weapon, does the us have the right, or even the resources to use military force to invade the country?
if there’s a suspicion of nuclear weapon, does the us have the right, or even the resources to use military force to invade that country?

to make it clear, that foreign country is to believed to have no intention on using the nuclear weapon. there is just an assumption that they have it.
can we still invade?
is so, why?
is not, why not?

Share This

Hi, I’m a LD debater, and I really need help with this new topic. Most of all I need help with the definitions of the following:

-Military Force
-Military Threat
-Acquistion of Nuclear Weapons

Thanks! It’s be helpful if you could cite your info if you got it from somewhere.

I need some ideas for AFF because I only have NEG. NEG would be good too.

Share This

It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

Share This

…Resolved: It is just for teh United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat?
Would you agree or not?
Details, quotes, statistics, logical reasoning, philosophy, values, and resources would be appreciated!
I would love more details in the answers and actual empirical data.

Share This

The complete resolution is:
It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

Please help define terms and state your views supported with evidence. Thank you.

Share This

What weapons manufacturer make the best firearms for use by a modern military force for a variety of different roles.

Only out of Glock and Beretta please and for military not civilian use.

Share This