The Instigator
Ignacio
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheSeeker
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Obama's plan for Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/21/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 10905
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Ignacio

Pro

I leave the Con for this argument to respond first.
TheSeeker

Con

First of all I would like to thank you for posting this debate and taking the (Pro) side.

I cannot think of any reasons why continuing this war would benefit the United States of America. When we first went
into Iraq/ Afghanistan it was to eliminate Osama Bin Laden who at this time is believed to be hiding in Pakistan. But we
got sidetracked. We felt that it was our duty to "liberate" the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. SO we sent in more troops to fight his army. After we had eliminated him we had almost caused as much damage to their country as Saddam had. With our rocket strikes we cilled thousands of people be they militants or civilians. Destroyed thousands of square miles total with our artillery and so on. After we finished blowing up everything that moved, we felt bad about all the damage and decided to stay on for a while and help clean up the rest of the terrorist organizations (most of which are not in Iraq and Afghanistan but rather in surrounding countries. Now we do alot of traing the new Iraqi army and police force. A great number of which are there to gather Intel for terrorist. THese terrorists who seem to come from everywhere. To put it simply these terrorist groups are like cockroaches no matter what you do to them they still seem to survive somehow.

Next point. the United States CANNOT afford to keep this war running. In 2004 we were 7 seven trillion dollars in debt... THat was 6 years ago. DUe to this we are suffering the biggest economical clump since the great depression. That money being putt towards this "war" could be used to help get the economy back up on its feet. But according to the government we don't have the money to do it. And yet we can pull about 100 million out of thin air to help Haiti. Its time the United states stopped looking out at global affairs and began looking inward at our own problems.
Debate Round No. 1
Ignacio

Pro

Thank you for a response in this matter. I would like to back up my argument with the following contentions.

1. The additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan would help to secure the Afghanistan Pakistan border.
Currently, Al qaeda and Taliban operatives can easily transport troops, weapons, drugs, and money across this border with little to no resistance. This is why an additional troop count is in the best interest for the United States and Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Reducing the crossover of this border is this nation's highest priority, considering the capabilities already provided to them. An additional 5,000 troops from the 30,000 have already been directly stationed at this focal point, decreasing the physical movement of insurgents across this border. An additional 10,000 troops are on their way to do the same. Isolating the Taliban and Al qaeda operatives is of prime importance, and this plan allows for the centralization of said insurgents in the best way possible leading to the eventual culmination of this war.
2. More troops would maintain security for the troops already stationed there.
The United States has 70,000 + troops already stationed in Afghanistan, without the additional 30,000. These troops are spread across the 3,000 mile expanse of Afghanistan already, in other words, spread thin. General McChrystal, head of US forces in Afghanistan, says that this troops surge would allow for increased security by expansion, and would allow for direct targeting of Al qaeda and Taliban troops by sheer numbers. Furthermore, several thousand of these troops would be specifically dedicated to training the Afghan militia, and doubling their numbers from the current 200,000. This increase would include an additional 97,000 foot soldiers, and 95,000 additional militia members. By increasing the armed forces, we ensure success in the long run, even post US pull-out.
TheSeeker

Con

TheSeeker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ignacio

Pro

Ignacio forfeited this round.
TheSeeker

Con

Seeing as the last 2 arguments were forfeight. Granted i started it i really dont have anything to respond to. So Vote away
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ignacio 7 years ago
Ignacio
No problem, it was a receding debate since the 1st round
Posted by TheSeeker 7 years ago
TheSeeker
Sry i forfeited that round my internet has been sketchy at best recently
Posted by sammyH 7 years ago
sammyH
can u post the websites plz?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
IgnacioTheSeekerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)