The Instigator
TeaPartyRepublican
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Barack Obamas Foreign Policy is Horrible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 72821
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

TeaPartyRepublican

Pro

5) Benghazi: Congress is still investigating Benghazi, but best case scenario, the Obama Administration got Americans killed in Libya by ignoring their repeated requests for more security in a dangerous part of the world. Worst case scenario, the Obama Administration got them killed, deliberately misled the public about what happened for political purposes, and did nothing when it could have conceivably acted and saved their lives. When all the investigations are completed, we'll have a clearer picture of what happened, but at a minimum, good people are dead because the Obama Administration didn't take basic precautions to save their lives.

4) Libya: Gaddafi was an evil dictator with American blood on his hands, but he had also been scared straight by Bush"s invasion of Iraq and was cooperating with the United States. So naturally, Obama signaled the world that it was dumb to work with us by helping radical Islamists defeat Gaddafi. Today, Libya has implemented Sharia law, is a hotbed of terrorism and is descending into civil war. Meanwhile, many of Obama"s supporters still consider that country to be a "success story." Maybe it is compared to say, Obamacare -- but like most of Obama"s presidency, we"d have all been better off if he"d just done nothing and let Gaddafi crush the radical Islamists.

3) Obama's Iranian Nuclear Deal: After a lot of grumbling that Obama wasn't doing anything to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, Obama swung into action and made the situation even worse. He signed a deal with Iran that will allow it to rake in somewhere between 7 and 20 billion dollars in sanctions relief and frozen assets even as it CONTINUES to work on enriching uranium. In other words, the Iranians get billions of dollars, give up nothing of consequence and when anyone complains, Obama claims the problem is solved because we have a "deal" in place stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Given how bad a negotiator Obama is, I guess we should feel lucky that he didn't just give Iran a nuclear bomb in return for promises that it will never use it.

2) The Bowe Bergdahl swap: There's a reason that it is our nation's policy not to negotiate with terrorists. If you reward terrorists for their terrorism, it encourages more of the same. So, when Barack Obama broke the law to release five Taliban generals in return for deserter Bowe Bergdahl, he served notice to every terrorist on the planet that kidnapping Americans could pay big dividends. So it"s not exactly shocking that ISIS is promising to murder a captured relief worker if the U.S. doesn"t pay it millions and release Aafia Siddiqui AKA "Lady al-Qaeda." After the Bergdahl deal, why wouldn"t ISIS expect that to work? Why wouldn"t Al-Qaeda start trying to capture our troops to trade for terrorists in Gitmo? How many of our soldiers will end up being kidnapped and held because of this swap? How many Americans will die when those Taliban generals inevitably go back to the fight? The Bergdahl swap was illegal, short-sighted, and stupid. In other words, it was VERY OBAMA.

1) Iraq/Isis: Despite being told over and over again that it was a terrible idea to set up a timeline in Iraq and pull out of the country for political reasons without getting a Status of Forces Agreement, Obama did it anyway. Then he bragged that "We"re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq."

Not so much.

That"s because ISIS sprang up in Syria as one of the groups fighting anti-American dictator Bashar al-Assad. After Assad rather famously crossed Obama"s imaginary "red line" by using chemical weapons against the rebels trying to overthrow him, Obama wanted to aid them, even though there was every indication that radicals were taking over the movement. Had the public outcry not stopped him, it"s entirely possible Obama would have accidentally ended up helping ISIS take over Syria.

After ISIS gathered strength, it moved into Iraq where it outfought an Iraqi army that outnumbered it 15-to-1. If only those troops had more American training and a minimal amount of American air support, they would have crushed ISIS like a steamroller running over a watermelon with no U.S. casualties. Instead, there"s now an Islamic State stretching from Syria to Iraq run by maniacs who are committing genocide against Christians, taking sex slaves, and promising terrorist attacks against the United States.

What"s Obama"s plan to handle this disaster his policies created? Earlier this week, he said,

"We don"t have a strategy yet. We need to make sure that we"ve got clear plans. As our strategy develops, we will consult with Congress."
Source- http://townhall.com...
bsh1

Con

Thanks to Pro for this debate! I will rebut his points and then discuss some positive points of Obama's foreign policy.

REBUTTALS

(a) Benghazi

I have several rebuttals to make here:

1. Pro commits an ipse dixit fallacy. In other words, he makes a series of unsupported assertions about how Benghazi is this huge scandal that represents the failures of the Obama administration. But he offers no evidence or analysis to support these claims, and thus they cannot be seen as credible.

2. The House Panel on Benghazi came to conclusions contrary to Pro's assertions: "After a nearly two-year investigation, the final report by the House Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA 'ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi and...bravely assisted the State Department' on Sept. 11, 2012, during a deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Libya." [1] The Report further concluded that there were no intelligence failures preceding Benghazi. [1, 2] The conclusion is that the Obama administration was not negligent in its efforts to secure the embassy.

3. The House Panel also "found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi." [1] I might also note that this panel was Republican-led.

4. Even if Benghazi was the fault of Obama, it is more likely an isolated mistake than evidence of a failed foreign policy. Foreign policy involves many decisions and actions; it is a complex web. One cherry-picked example would not be sufficient to prove the whole web is foul.

(b) Libya

1. Cross-apply 4a here, too.

2. Furthermore, at the time that Obama made the decision to engage in airstrikes, it seemed like the best option. Had Obama not acted, there is no evidence that Libya wouldn't be just as bad as it is today. There is no reason to believe that Qaddafi and anti-Qaddafi factions couldn't have spiraled into a long-term conflict that would tear up the nation. By overthrowing the dictator, Obama removed a leader that was oppressive and unpredictable, and given the information he had at the time, this appears to be the best choice he could've made.

(c) Iranian Nuclear Deal

Pro claims that Iran is giving up nothing of consequence in this deal, but that's just false: "Iran will reduce its installed enrichment centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,000, only 5,000 of which will be spinning. All of them will be first-generation centrifuges: none of its more advanced models can be used for at least 10 years, and R&D into more efficient designs will have to be based on a plan submitted to the IAEA. Fordow, Iran’s second enrichment facility...which is buried deep within a mountain and thought to be impregnable to conventional air strikes, will cease all enrichment and be turned into a physics research centre. It will not produce or house any fissile material for at least 15 years...Iran has said it will reduce its LEU stockpile from 10,000kg to 300kg for the next 15 years--probably sending fresh stocks to Russia for reprocessing. Iran’s alternative plutonium path to a bomb also appears to have been satisfactorily dealt with. The heavy-water reactor at Arak will be redesigned and its original core, which would have produced significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be removed and destroyed. No other heavy-water reactor will be built for 15 years." [3] All of these measure will be enforced through highly intrusive inspection regimes. This has created a fairly significant accomplishment: Iran's break out capacity (the speed at which it can acquire a bomb), will be reduced from a few months to a year under this deal, and this lengthened capacity will be maintained for a decade or more. Those are hefty concessions from Iran. Moreover, sanctions relief will be phased out to ensure Iranian compliance. It's not like Iran is getting everything it wants up front.

(d) Bowe Bergdahl

1. Cross-apply 4a here, too.

2. Pro makes it sound as if the Taliban 5 were just handed their freedom on a plate. In fact, that isn't true. They are confined to the city limits of Doha, in Qatar, where they can pose little (if any) significant threat to the United States or its allies. [4]

3. Pro makes no connection between ISIS's demands for ransom and Bowe Bergdahl. He asserts that the connection exists, but asking a bunch of rhetorical questions doesn't actually demonstrate that it exists. It's more likely that ISIS asks for ransoms because other countries, like the UK and Japan, have been known to give under-the-table payouts. So, in that case, it wouldn't be Obama's fault.

4. And, regarding the Taliban/al-Qaeda, let's not forget who kill bin Laden...

(e) ISIS

1. Why was pulling out of Iraq necessarily the cause of ISIS? To me, it seems more likely that Maliki's ethnocentric regime was responsible for alienating various groups (which later joined ISIS), and so he bears more of the blame than Obama and the U.S. strategy. Pro makes a ton of assertions in his arguments that Obama did X which led to Y, but he never explains HOW X led to Y, he just assumes it did. His "link stories" are incredibly tenuous, and shouldn't be given much weight.

2. Pro seems to have overlooked how Obama's policies have turned ISIS on the defensive. The coalition Obama assembled and led (as well as the Kurdish forces Obama supports) has really turned the tide back in favor of the new Iraqi government. [5, 6, 7] Recently, Iraqi forces took back the city of Tikrit, an important strategic location, from ISIS, as well. [8]

3. Pro tries to blame Obama for what he might have done (in terms of supplying Syrian rebels.) This is entirely unfair, because it is all supposition. We can only judge him for what he did. And, he forced Assad to surrender his biochemical weapons, which was a triumph, and would likely not have occurred without Obama's pressuring Assad. [9]

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

Since I am running out of characters and time, this list will be brief [9, 10, 11, 12]:

- Halved the number of U.S. and Russian Nukes
- Helped isolate Russia with sanctions after Moscow's incursions in Ukraine
- Struck a deal with Beijing on climate change
- Eased relations with Cuba, fixing an out-dated policy
- Conclude free trade accords
- Weakened al-Qaeda

SOURCES

1 - http://www.npr.org...
2 - http://www.bostonglobe.com...
3 - http://www.economist.com...
4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
5 - http://rudaw.net...
6 - http://news.usni.org...
7 - http://www.cnn.com...
8 - http://www.newsweek.com...
9 - http://www.nytimes.com...
10 - http://thinkprogress.org...
11 - http://www.newsweek.com...
12 - http://www.foreignaffairs.com...

Thus, I negate. I turn the floor back over to Pro...
Debate Round No. 1
TeaPartyRepublican

Pro

TeaPartyRepublican forfeited this round.
bsh1

Con

Extend my arguments.

Also, wherever I cross-applied 4a, cross-apply 4b as well. Ultimately, my opponent's case is just a lot of assertions without warrants, cherry-picked examples, and ideological rhetoric. None of it really withstands the weight of scrutiny.

Thanks for reading. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
TeaPartyRepublican

Pro

TeaPartyRepublican forfeited this round.
bsh1

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Just reminding Pro he has a day to post.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Just reminding Pro he has about 6.5 hours to post.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
TeaPartyRepublicanbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ffffffffffffff
Vote Placed by Nac 2 years ago
Nac
TeaPartyRepublicanbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
TeaPartyRepublicanbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
TeaPartyRepublicanbsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con refuted all of Pro's arguments.