The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

As of April 2013 is the US foreign policy which remains unchanged since the cold war,still justified

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 791 times Debate No: 32292
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




As of April 2013 is the US foreign policy mostly concerning its military, which is still unchanged since the cold war, Justifiable.

Yes, The United States of America maintains the single largest global presence which makes the old British Empire look a tad weak in all aspects.
The US maintains multiple alliance systems that have been in place since early 60's and from then on. It has been involved in the preservation of freedom and its nations interests, which happen to be shared by much of the worlds prosperous nations.
But is its military strength currently necessary in its current situation, should it scale back in order to cut spending and recover from its disastrous debt. In essence, no. Its Global presence are most time the only things that prevent large scale conflict between many nations.


I believe that the US's current foriegn policy suceeme is not justified and I'll show you several examples to show you that I'm right.
I'll now define Justified as Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

But we can also see that the end result must also be good, because those who ignore the end result consequenses are ignoring the world.


In Chile, the United States wanted a more American supportive government and they interveened in the 1970's, but it only turns out that after the assasination the nation's new leader is anti-american and commits great attrocities of which weren't happening before the US interveened and caused a coup to get rid of the old government in Chile.


The US interveened here to inorder to eliminate an Islamist regieme inorder to install a western friendly government and it came out even worse. The current government restricts water rights which are key to these people and the reason that we don't hear about it in America is becuase the United States doesn't want to admit their own failure!

Middle East

Many people argue that we've gone into Iraq and done great for their government, but the truth is that we went in their for oil and in Pakistan and Afghanistan the United States discovered a REM (rare earth metal) depossit and decided to exploit it!

I now await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1


The only part ill consider because this debate is specifically the point after the cold war, The previous two were part of the wold war where both nations foreign relations were on the same level of intervention.

Ill admit the faults of the middle eastern conflict, but it also helped us realize how ineffective we were in fighting terrorists/ guerrillas. It did cost lives and quite a bit of money, but it hasnt drastically crushed us, the Economy has had worse debt mostly concerning the post war WW2 economy which people thought it was going to fail because of the new influx of soldiers being unable to get jobs, this ended up causing a huge economic boom.

Now back to the policies, as much as i disagree in wasting american lives in very futile efforts i do agree that it is still necessary, America has to maintain its global supremacy, in its huge quest for power against the Soviets it has gathered a huge slew of direct and in-direct enemies.

Big example would be China, It is a nations that for the longest time has dreamt of paying back its oppressors of the past 200 years. Mostly Russia and the west. While it wasnt directly the US the US is still the greatest success the western world has developed. America then in its own self interest and the interest of the less powerful european nations even some of the economically successful nations in asia, must maintain its supremacy until Japan fully rearms, Korea and Reunited under the Southern government, and Australia develops a decent navy that can help bottleneck an aggressive chinese expansionist government that wishes to alleviate its population and environmental issues. China is an up and comming Superpower and that is something the United States does not want to happen referencing its asia centric military plan, which could easily cut costs but easily gaurding the atlantic which is less prone to an assualt. This policy is hence more merited than globally retracting and becomming more vulnerable while also compromising global security



My opponent concedes this argument here so you can extend across my point here.

Middle East

My opponent agrees here to you also you can extend across my agreements here.


In 1995, the CIA and the US Marines launched a campaign to put in power President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti just because he was pro-American, or so they thought. Nearly 10 years latter the he began doing many more atrocities and the US removes him from power after they had put him in place 10 years ago.


For those of you who don't know Chechnya is a province in Russia near the nation of Georgia. The US here has been arming both the Chechnyan rebles and the Russian furthering bloodshed inured to prevent Russia to focus on non-domestic issues. and


The only point that the Pro has successfully brought up. First off China would never declare war on China, because of the current trading partnership between the two nations. Not only that but China won't surpass the US as a superpower, because their military is too far behind the US's, as a matter of fact China is 20 years behind the United States. (note the PLA is the People Liberation Army, China's military nickname.)

So with that I now await my opponent to respond.
Debate Round No. 2


Just fyi im not conceding but its not the important point im trying to make, The United States is currently shifting pacific wise and will revive the adage that it needs all its global positions to deal with it. As much as a trade agreement is beneficial between the two countries, when it comes to Taiwan China acts very irrationally, and even in the case of North Korea they also act very irrationally, The emergence of a chinese navy regardless of their technological lag is made up by their missiles which can accurately hit targets and displace US influence. If you cant admit that US Global supremacy regardless of the nations it keeps pacified (mostly to prevent it comming back with avengance) isnt beneficial than you really dont understand the role its foreign policy plays, The high seas have been free of pirates for the most part as well as rougue navy's purely off the fact that piracy is not viable with the US navy taking out everyone who threatens trading routes etc.

Its also a sense of national pride, America for the most part won the cold war and has maintained the fact that it won, its dominates globally, and it actually allows many nations to develop without issues regarding having to worry about protecting shipping, building up an overly large military, and keepings an enemy at bay. As it comes to terms with Russia, the Russian Federation albeit currently lacking in internal development is mostly because of the fact of their corruption, they are quite like the US was early in the 20th century. They have corrupt buisiness practices and it will end up with reform and a resurgent russia developing its internal system.

Besides US foreign policy saves more lives than it costs, If Iran were to get a nuclear weapon it would without doubt nuke israel without warning. the nation is small and would probably be completely wiped out by the nuclear explosion, this would kill millions. Regardless of the fact the US forces its agenda on some more belligerent nations that wish to hamper global security. Even China admits to the need for US ability to provide much global security especially with the DPRK situation, If the US didnt get involved with korea if another war broke out then it lies with China to make a move with would severely hamper them as they have no choice but to costfully rebuild a most likely devastated North Korea.

All in all for its faults, as every nation has, the US foreign policy saves more lives, looks very bad at times, but does ensure global security, ensures a unhampered global economy that gives us the ability to communicate and debate this effectively as we are. American interests are the only thing that prevent the world from falling back into huge amounts of conflict or war



This seems to be his point he keeps trying to get at. Currently the United States has a One China Policy, which recognizes Taiwan part of the China. Though this argument actually goes to my favor because the US has been contradicting itself by shipping weapons and such to Taiwan! This has heavily angered China and has lead China to begin it's currency manipulation, which devalues the US dollar.

Secondly for North Korea, the reason that North Korea acts up is because they can't grow their own food and they have to import it from elsewhere. They are like that kid that is whining in the store for the candy bar. They just act up so the US will give them food so they can eat. But for some reason the US hasn't given North Korea food this time, leading to a possible war based on their current foreign policy.


Weather you want to believe it or not, but Iran is at war with the US. It is written into the Iranian Constitution that it must destroy the Big Satan, the US, and the Little Satan, Israel. The reason that there has yet to be bloodshed is because the US has yet to recognize this. So you can see here that Iran is just tuning up for the war and yet again it is a failure for American Foreign Policy.

My Points

My opponent has yet to fully address or even refute these points so you can go ahead and extend these points across the board.


So we can see either all the points that Pro brought up either works in my favor or he drops them so I can see nothing but a Con vote, thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro: Next time cite something to not automatically give that point to the other side. But yeah, conceding so many points does not help.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempted to sidestep con's refutations, and overall presented little in the way of facts or logic to support his position.