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

Current U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines our National Security

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,278 times Debate No: 26567
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Pro Case
Resolved: Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

I would like to give some definitions, courtesy of Merriam-Webster.
I: Current: Presently elapsing.
II: Foreign Policy: the politics of a government regarding relations with other countries.
III: Middle East: the countries of SW Asia and N Africa.
IV: Undermines: to weaken or ruin by degrees.
V: National security: a collective term for the defense and foreign relations of a country.
Contention 1: Foreign Policies lack a set of moral principles, hence leading to the undermining of our national security.
The president's foreign policy lacks a guiding set of principles. Why do troops surge into Afghanistan only to draw them down before the mission is complete? Why condemn Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya for his crimes against his own people and remain almost indifferent to the same crimes when committed by Bashar al-Assad in Syria? Why knock off a dozen al Qaeda terrorists from the air, and release another group from Guant"namo? The answer, of course, is politics. Politics matters to any sane politician; but when politics suffers no competition from principle, the nation's foreign policy is rudderless. It is why our allies mistrust us, our adversaries underestimate us, and why we no longer seek to shape a better world, but instead to retreat from it.

Contention 2: Oil in the Middle East has been the cause of some major terrorist attacks.
We must all ask the question: If there were no oil in the Middle East, would we be so concerned with the region?
Terror attacks that have been carried out to date on the oil infrastructure have clearly caught oil producers unprepared. For example, al-Qaeda"s February 24, 2005, attack on the Aramco facility in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, sent shock waves through the world"s financial markets. On the same day, the price of oil on international markets jumped nearly $2; despite the attack"s complete failure (the terrorists and two security guards were killed.) About 139,100,000,000 gallons of oil come from the Middle East per week. If there wasn"t so much oil in the Middle East
Contention 3: Islamic terrorists attacking us in the Middle East are a reason our national security is being undermined.
The death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. officials in Libya should serve to draw much-needed attention to an increasingly untenable contradiction in U.S. policy toward the Middle East. Even while it seeks to recover from this attack by Islamic radicals, the United States continues to support or tolerate the mobilization of adherents of that very same ideology elsewhere in the region, most clearly in Syria and in Bahrain. There, U.S. policymakers should expect equally frightening results.
The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was carried out by suspected members of Ansar al-Sharia, or Partisans of Islamic Law, a group adhering to the same Salafi (or Wahhabi) religious interpretation more commonly associated with Saudi Arabia. And while the popular anti-American protests that have continued to spread across the region cannot be painted with a single brushstroke, and doubtless have roots in local political grievances, still one feature they share is the conspicuous presence -- and organizational power -- of Sunni Islamists.


Con Case
Resolved: Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

Contention 1: Foreign policy is in the best interest of the US. Foreign policy in the Middle East (and anywhere the US is involved in) has always been in the best interest of the United States. The US would not interfere in the Middle East (as my opponent mentioned) if it was not interested, namely in oil. The US also seeks to promote stability and democracy, of which foreign policy is a necessity. Which brings us into the second contention:
Contention 2: Without US involvement, the Middle-East would be in a much worse state. The Middle-East is an unstable region, of which no country is truly developed. The top five developed countries in the Middle East are Israel, Cyprus, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Even with these being the most developed, their human development index is very low, and all of them show signs that they are still developing. That being said, US involvement is needed in the Middle East to make these countries more economically and politically stable. National security has not been threatened by Cyprus, Kuwait, or Bahrain, nor would involvement with these countries antagonize threats. If a country's only goal is to help stabilize, it would not be threatened.
Contention 3: Terrorist attacks are from previous foreign policy. Terrorism, though a big problem, has not stemmed from current foreign policy. The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 was antagonized previously and only because the terrorist organization al Qaeda did not trust the US any more. Current foreign policy has not antagonized recent national security threats, and therefore is not undermining national security

Debate Round No. 1


zachdebate727 forfeited this round.


Debate4Fun forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Debate4Fun 3 years ago
Seeing as no one so far) has willingly accepted this debate, I will take the challenge.
Posted by ProwlerKnight 4 years ago
Ah then no I cannot challenge for I agree
Posted by zachdebate727 4 years ago
That is what I am getting at.
Posted by ProwlerKnight 4 years ago
I'm sorry I am kindof slow really, so let me see if what I got from what you wrote is the same:

Basically you're saying we're covereing one country and defending agianst terrorists because they have oil, while another country is being attacked by the same terrorists and we aren't defending them, and you are saying we should defend no matter who an where?

If that's what you are saying then I cannot take this debate cause I agree
Posted by TheHunter 4 years ago
I'm in agreeance as well!
Posted by xenofreedomx 4 years ago
I would also debate, if not for my issue of agreeing with you!
Posted by DoubleBindDebater 4 years ago
I would Debate you, but I agree with you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.