all right. heres how my questions work. they do not give my stance or anything, I'm going to provide 3 valid points for each side (con. and liberal) and whichever side you choose to side with refute the opposite points. I. E. if i said 1. i like watermelon because then you would say no, you do not like watermelon because
PLEASE do not say "i agree with these points!" unless you are also refuting the opposite side's points. thank you!
All right...side that supports the change: Pro
1. UN is specifically designed to combat injustice in the world, such as terrorism
2. UN is engineered in such a way that it can communicate with terrorist countries, negotiate.
3. US is not powerful enough to stand alone against terrorism
Con: (us should take this over)
1. UN is corrupted in that it includes these terrorist countries... they're not going to support the combat of terrorism
2. UN has no standing army to "combat" terrorism
3. UN is still trying to decide the definition of terrorism too passive!!
2007-02-16
06:25:57
·
5 answers
·
asked by
Neferiel
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
FOR ****'S SAKE!! Do. Not. Just. Post. Your. Opinions. Please. Listen. To. The. Instructions. Or. I. will. Have. To. kill. You. (Yes, over the net)
Hopefully. Me. talking. this. slow. helps. you. stupid. people.
2007-02-16
06:51:43 ·
update #1