Resolve: Failled nations are a greater threat to the united states than stable nations

__________ Observations __________ You stated: "I would like to begin by attack(ing) my opponent's case and then rebuilding mine. In the first two rounds my opponent has said many things that prove that stable nations are greater threat to the United States than failed nations. " You never rebuilt your own argument; you just attacked my first and second argument. You also mistook my Resolve, I debated: Nations at risk of becoming failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations. It also seems as if my opponent, Con, has ignored the rename of the Debate as she has not replied. _____________ Reinforcements _____________ I don't know how other people debate, but attacking an argument with a sentence and quote for each point is not what I call a decisive attack. I'll leave a single Question, not Argument to summaries my reinforcements: Do you see France, United Kingdom or the Russian Federation taking on the US and winning? -Or- The Top most Stable Nations, Norway, Finland and Sweden, TOGETHER taking on the US and Winning? The answer to that question alone, gives win to this debate. For additional information and those still cynical, please follow on to Rebuttals and Contentions. __________________ Rebuttals/Contentions __________________ -First Round- 1. Yes, these Nations are linked with Iran however, Iran as a Stable Nation can never take on the United States directly so this must at least have a mutual relationship with risk Nations. I believe that it is more than a simple mutual relationship and in fact a relationship in favor to the Rebel or Unstable Nations. Without the Unstable Nations, Iran has no realistic military force at all. However, if there was no Iran, Hezbollah on the other hand can just go on to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Think of this like a person seeking a bank in a Capitalist market, should one bank not be to his/her liking they can just go to the next bank and so on and so forth. 2. Only under the support of losses in revenue. Part A: Just having a competitor in international market doesn't pose much of a treat to a nation at all. If a Country was to lose economic dominion in the Market, (again the Capitalist way) you don't fail as a Nation, you just become a secondary to the world. With yours and my definition of Threat this act doesn't check all the boxes to become a threat. Yours: A communicated intent to cause harm (black law) Mine: An act of coercion wherein a negative consequence is proposed to elicit response. Part B: You will only fail as an economy if, because of this drop in Market ownership you choose to increase government revenue and not accept it as a process. An alternate reason would be if you many other thing eating at your expenditure like, Military Funding, Welfare and Infrastructure. Developments much like those of the Cold War in relation to Russia; these are just some of the reasons that pose a threat to a country. -Second Round- 1. Well, McCain also said he would Bomb Iran but in that situation, who is the common aggressor? US(McCain) to North Korea Iran(Ahmadinejad) to Israel Technical arguments for this where stated in My Second Post. 2. This Fact is utterly and undebatably wrong. The Fund for Peace Failed State index is not for failed states, as the name unfortunately suggests. These are counties Most Likely of Failing. If your geography was good enough would know the top 10 Failed States aren't failed states. 1. Somalia – Somali Pirates, extremely Poor but not a Failed State, many labor trade institutions with Holland. The US must feed this Country Economically. 2. Zimbabwe – Robert Mugabe? Last time I checked it was in depression rate hyperinflation. The country is very, very economically unstable but not at all a failed state. America, as a last resort may invade Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe. 3. Sudan – One of my Favorite Countries, recovering from two Civil Wars. Has recently opened trade with China, now its leading Oil Funder. It's also the second fastest recovering Country in Africa. If war breaks out in Israel, it will become a likely ally of Iran, if it doesn't fall to civil war first. 4. Chad – The most corrupt government in the world. 5. DRC – On going civil war and humanitarian crisis… ect (blah blah the works) 6. Iraq – Need I say? USSR effect. 7. Afghanistan – Need I say? USSR effect. 8. Central African Republic – Former third poorest country in the world it's now losing debt sustainably. 9. Guinea – Failed Government, stable under Toure and Contï¿½ governments, but now a militarian government run by Military fascists. 10. Pakistan – A better form of its Neighbor Afghanistan, quite Stable but with increasing Taliban activities there is an increasing treat. The Index only lists "how likely a country is of failing. " Even Countries like the US (159-Moderate risk) and Iran (38-Warning Risk) are on the list. Though suppose, you're right about the list, does that mean I win? [Citation: . http://www.fundforpeace.org...] 3. Uranium enrichment and plutonium separation- I'm not sure if you know what this means. Uranium enrichment and plutonium separation are just a means of Isotope separation, which is the main form of modern Chemistry. An Isotope is just a variation of an Atom. When the Atomic mass of an Atom is different, then it is an Isotope. Uranium and Plutonium are Actinides advanced variations of the Atom Actinium. Actinides are unstable atoms with a half life, they radiate until they "die". All Uranium enrichment means is to change Uranium-235 to Uranium-238 by "enriching" it. Plutonium separation is just a means to recycle vast amounts of energy by speeding up it death and changing the atom without releasing much energy. They are both forms of nuclear reprocessing, used for: •Producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. •Producing plutonium for nuclear energy. •Recycling all actinides for fast breeder reactors, closing the nuclear fuel cycle. •Recycling plutonium once as MOX fuel for thermal reactors, extending energy extracted. •Allowing separate management (destruction or storage) of nuclear waste components. 4. No, I didn't and if you're talking about Iran then please see my second, first round post. What I meant was "normal stable nations" like the G8, 1st world and 2nd World Countries. See- Reinforcements for full argument. As for Israel and Iran, it's simple. Who has signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty? Iran. Who hasn't? Israel. Who has a larger military expenditure in GDP? Israel has. Who hasn't? Isreal. [Citation: . https://www.cia.gov...] It's really not that hard.