I need to give this speech in four minutes, would u say it is halfway decent?
It is for a debate, and i am assigned to be against the resolution that states The UN should impose economic sanctions, and if necessary use military force to halt Iran's nuclear program.
Hello, my name is John Greenwood and I am the Second Negative Constructive Speaker.
Since the United States dropped the infamous atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the closing months of World War II, nuclear weapons have been a worrisome topic. In recent years, Iran has started its controversial nuclear program. Many believe that the purpose of Irans nuclear program is to obtain nuclear weapons, capable of mass destruction, while Iran claims the sole purpose of its program is for civilian power.
Affirmative arguments include Iran’s alleged financial ties with terrorist organizations. The idea of Iran selling a nuclear bomb to a terror group is illogical because of the extreme costs of the many years of building and research. A terrorist group most likely could never afford a weapon that cost over a billion USD to research and build. Another affirmative argument is that Iran has test fired long range missiles in recent years. While Iran has these missiles, Israel has nuclear weapons and missiles of far more advanced technology than Iran, and the negative side believes it would only seem right to build up a defense, since Israel has a history of attacking countries. (00:45) (s1 minute)
For a resolution including economic sanctions to be passed in the United Nations Security Council, not one of the five permanent members can vote against it. The five permanent countries include the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and France. Both Russia and China are regular traders with Iran, and China has built a strong economic alliance with Iran, with many Chinese companies having facilities in Iran. China has also helped Iran with building dams, shipyards, ports, airports, mine-development, and oil and gas infrastructure. Iran exports an average of 408,000 barrels a day, valued at $15.8 billion USD. If economic sanctions were passed, it would not only do the intended job of damaging Iran’s economy, but would indirectly damage China and Russia’s economies. Eventually economic sanctions would affect many other countries, including the UK, France, and United States, because they would not be able to import fuel from Iran, subsequently causing gas prices to rise. In the past few weeks Iran has also stated that if the UN imposed any more economic sanctions, Iran would not follow through with its agreement with Brazil and Turkey. Under this agreement, Iran is to send enriched Uranium to Brazil and Turkey in return for fuel rods which will be used for a reactor which makes medical isotopes for cancer treatment.
Since the Islamic revolution Iran has had a fairly stable government that could protect and handle nuclear weapons. They have established a theocratic republic government, and have been able to vote for their leaders. Iran’s government operates somewhat similarly to the United States government’s idea of checks and balances. The negative side also believes that if the United Nations used military force to halt Iran’s nuclear program, most likely it would be ineffective and expensive, which the United States might not be able to afford as it has already put about $1.05 trillion towards the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since 2001. As previously discussed, economic sanctions would affect Russia and China, as well as cause a worldwide rise in gas prices.
The negative side concludes that the resolution would not be effective, as it would not be passed if it included economic sanctions that could damage Russia and China’s economies, and that military action is ineffective and expensive. The negative side believes that a different resolution be thought of, or that Iran should be allowed to follow through with its nuclear program if it is strictly for power and is closely watched by the United Nations.
i am supposed to be on the side for allowing them to follow through with their nuclear program, or at least not use economic sanctions/military
Asked By: John - 5/25/2010