The Instigator
Kady
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Democrats do not Have What it Takes to Halt Terrorism

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,320 times Debate No: 1359
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (18)

 

Kady

Pro

Recently it has become the United State's main interest to bring a halt to terrorism at its worst. While terrorism has been a threat to US for many years liberals in office have time and time again cast a blind eye towards Al- Queada, the Taliban, and Islamo-fascism all together. As the strongest nation in the world can we allow another Liberal to take office in the 2008 election?
This may appear to be rhetoric, but history reveals the truth. Liberals can NOT handle the task of halting terrorism.
cody30228

Con

Hello. To begin, I am conservative. I am really conservative. I do not want a democrat to win the election. However, I do not like people saying liberals are bad people (except for me of course)

So this is why a liberal can stop terrorism
liberal is defined by Websters as a political philosophy associated with change.
So when you use liberal in this sense, anyone who is striving for change is a liberal. Using this definition, here is why a liberal can halt terrorism
1. change is needed
Iraq is in shambles. Terrorism has NOT been stopped. We need a new plan. The current war, I support, but we are going about it the completely wrong way. Either follow more peaceful attempts, or go, as my history teacher said, "world war 2 on them." We need a stricter stance against terrorism that we do not have. So any change can better halt terrorism.

I am assuming that you did not know (because I did not know until I looked it up) that liberal meant change. So I am assuming you meant liberal as in the democratic party? If so, here is why a democratic candidate can halt terrorism
2. U S A!!!
Whoever wins the election has control of the greatest army in the world. Any chance that a republican has at ending terrorism, a democrat has. But democrats have an advantage. Congress is held by the democratic party. Imagine if all of America was behind ending terrorism the democrats way! There would be incredible force in every action
3. Plans
This is a cynical way of looking at it, but democrats could end terrorism
Scenario A:
Obama is president. He withdraws from Iraq. This is bad. Terrorism goes un-punished. America is attacked again. Obama must do something. He brings the war back to the enemy, with support of Congress and the people. Vietnam was called the only war America did not win. Why? Because the people did not support it. If we have renewed support to stop terrorism, why might do something.
Debate Round No. 1
Kady

Pro

I appreciate your open mind, Its good to debate a fellow GOP :-) however, Princeton defines the term "liberal" as "characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance". this is carried out by Liberal theory better known in the scope of international relations. I at no time in my previous argument classified current day liberals as bad people, however, I do believe that their foreign policy is so broad that they are incapable of persevering over something as detrimental as terrorism. History shows this trend as recent as the Clinton administration
Examples:

1. Black Hawk down in Somalia
2. In August of 1998 al- Queada destroyed our embassies in nairobi, and tanzania
3. the Uss cole
4. the 1995 Bombing in riyadh Saudi Arabia
5. The first attack on the WTC
6. Khobar towers

ALL of the above assaults were carried out by al-queada operatives, or their connections ( Not including Somalia)

In total over 3,000 people died, and after every attack Clinton said who ever was responsible would pay!!!......but, at the same time he claimed that Al-queada was not a threat. Liberals today, and I use that term broadly, are too worried about appeasing other nations, rather than taking care of problems before they grow. The terrorists would love nothing better than to see a Liberal in office because the only changes that they truly want to see are high taxes, and universal health care.

Best case Liberal in office
barack Obama immediately removes the troops from Iraq and places them into the "most dangerous region in the world" PAKISTAN!...our future looks dim..some one might want to let Obama know that Pakistan is one of our few allies in the Middle East?
cody30228

Con

Ok so are definitions of liberal differ. But my points, I believe, stand. We need change, or a new broad stance on our foreign relations in regards to terrorism. We are fighting terrorism in Iraq. That is the worst place. Try Iran or Afghanistan. We need a new stance to fix the problem.

You state many issues with Clinton's administration. Truthfully, Clinton was many things I can not say on this site and his wife is worse. Please do not do as my father does and relate all liberals with the Clinton's. Why? Because Dems hate Clinton. Edwards said last night, "I won Iowa, because I beat Hilliary."

You state Obama would put troops in Pakistan, our greatest ally? Greatest? Try Israel. Besides, the point i was making was, we would have American's people full support to stop terrorism. I do not think Obama will place our troops in Pakistan. If Iran attacked us through terrorists, we would respond to Iran.
Debate Round No. 2
Kady

Pro

I agree Democrats DO hate Clinton, I used him as an example due to the threat of his wife getting in office. I think you mis read the part about Pakistan... I didnt say it was our greatest ally, I mentioned that it was one of the few, together with Israel and Saudi Arabia. I think by now I do not have to mention the flaws in the Johnson, or Carter Administrations. A serious change does have to be made in the Mid East and it is clear that a Consevative is much more prepared to make the decesions that will lead our great Nation to success.
cody30228

Con

Yes I did mis quote what you said about Pakistan, I apologize.

So what it comes down to is who is best fitted to makes change.

As I said above, democrats would have Congress and possibly the rest of the population while republicans would only have themselves.

Therefore, dems have more power and can fix problem better
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
Jimmy Carter aka one of the worst presidents of all time.
Posted by Kady 9 years ago
Kady
Jimmy Carter is also a good example.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
ok again I'm just using Bill Clinton as an example of democrats not having the balls to halt terrorism.
Posted by RDJORD 9 years ago
RDJORD
Sudan offered to extradite Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia and not the US. It was Saudi officals, not Clinton, who botched that agreement. Saudi Arabia did not want Bin Laden on their soil because he would most likely plot to overthrow the Saudi government.

The "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" states "In February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching officials from the United States and other governments, asking what actions of theirs might ease foreign pressure. In secret meetings with Saudi officials, Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March. Saudi officials apparently wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They had already revoked his citizenship, however, and would not tolerate his presence in their country. Bin Ladin may have no longer felt safe in Sudan, where he had already escaped at least one assassination attempt that he believed to have been the work of the Egyptian or Saudi regimes, or both. In any case, on May 19, 1996, Bin Ladin left Sudan-significantly weakened, despite his ambitions and organizational skills. He returned to Afghanistan."
(http://www.9-11commission.gov...)

Again, my point is this isn't just a "Democrat" issue. This is an issue which was downplayed for nearly two decades by both parties.
Posted by Kady 9 years ago
Kady
It is important to remember that in 1995 President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir(Sudan) offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden along with detailed intlligence about
1. Islamic jihad
2. Iran's Hezbollah
3. Hamas
the only stipulation was that the Us has to uplift sanctions on Sudan. Clinton denied the offer.

Later in February of 1996 Bashir again sent key intelligence to the U.S and offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia. clinton denied the offer again.

Let me remind you that this was after the first bombings of the WTC...There is no way that he didnt know that Bin Lade was a threat.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
ya I read a book about it I can't believe I forget what its called. It details Clinton's inaction with bin Laden and terrorism throughout the 90s and how his inaction has led to this war in afghanistan and iraq. Clinton literally had bin Laden 10 times in his grap and didnt do anything. I'll find the book and get back to you.
Posted by RDJORD 9 years ago
RDJORD
Shwayze, you claim that Clinton had Bin Laden ten times and never acted on it? Do you have specific examples of this?
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
everyone puts way too muh into thinking about Clinton's personal life, which did not stain his value as president.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
you proved my point. Clinton was too busy womanizing. He had Bin Laden 10 TIMES and never acted on it. BJ Bill Clinton is a hack.
Posted by afeinberg 9 years ago
afeinberg
If the Iraq War never happened, Bush's approval ratings would be in the low teens. The one reason being the failure to capture bin Laden. He's had over six years to get that guy since 9/11. FDR would've caught Osama by now, if only we could've elected him 15 more times.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Chickenman 9 years ago
Chickenman
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by D-08 9 years ago
D-08
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jeyasins 9 years ago
jeyasins
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jlholtzapple 9 years ago
jlholtzapple
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Spencerific 9 years ago
Spencerific
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
Kadycody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03