The Instigator
EHS_Debate
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Lambda3
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolution is to long and will be in the first Round.

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 1 vote the winner is...
EHS_Debate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 10472
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

EHS_Debate

Con

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

PRO will present their case first.
Lambda3

Pro

Introduction:

Obama's Afghanistan Plan will help stop the constant terrorist threat from Al Qaeda, and will finally help towards capturing Osama Bin Laden. For this reason, my partner and I stand in firm affirmation for the resolution which states, President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.
Definitions:

United states' – The current and future citizens of the United States of America, as well as the USA's government infrastructure.

Best interest - Here, best interest is defined to be: better than the negation of the resolution.
Contention 1:

Al Qaeda is still in existence, active and operating, and gaining more members and allies

According to Obama's National Security Adviser James Jones, "...there are still Al Qaeda operations being planned and executed from the Pakistani, Afghan tribal region." He later continues and states that addressing that is "...probably the single most important thing we can do to change the fortunes on the Afghan side of the border." He says that Al Qaeda has less than 100 operatives in Afghanistan, and that this is a good thing. One of our goals is to leave an Afghanistan that doesn't allow for the return of those radical groups to be able to organize, train, and equip themselves and launch other attacks against us and our allies any time in the future. He later asserts that Al Qaeda has allies now, and that they are combining with the Taliban. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, and most recently, the bombing attempt on Christmas of last year. That is just more evidence that Al Qaeda isn't something to not take seriously. Eliminating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan will be a huge step towards making the US and its allies a safer place. My partner and I believe that that is in the best interest of the United States of America.
Contention 2:

Osama Bin Laden is still in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region

In the past, there have been many incidences where a person such as Osama Bin Laden could have been eliminated by the USA, but wasn't and it turned into a greater trouble.

For example, after Germany surrendered in WWII on May 8th 1945, the renowned General George S. Patton quickly asserted his belief that the Soviet Union would soon cease to be an allied force. The Soviets liberated 25,000 US POW's in WWII, but none of them returned to the US. He strongly recommended and urged his superiors to continue on into the Soviet Union and take out Joseph Stalin, while the Soviets were weak, under supplied, and vulnerable. The president did not take his advice, and as a result, Stalin was able to kill, according to Robert Conquest a British historian, approximately 20 million people. Anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of those people could have been saved if the US had eliminated him.

Another example is that shortly following the Korean War, 5 star General Douglas MacArthur expressed a desire to go into China and take out Mao Tse Tung, but President Truman did not want to do this. If the US had gone in and eliminated him, we would have saved more than 20 million lives, and China would not be the extremely dangerous force that it is today.

Yet another example is: After operation Desert Storm in Iraq, General Norman Schwarzkopf wanted to continue into Baghdad and kill Saddam Hussein, but George Bush Senior did not want to do that. Resultingly, the US had to go back into Iraq later and capture him. This Iraq war has cost US tax payers a total of 694 billion dollars. 694 billion dollars that could have gone else where if the US had taken out Saddam Hussein the first time.

History has repeated itself many times, and it's time that we realize our past mistakes and prevent any future mistakes. Obama's plan is a huge step forward in stopping this repeating pattern of mistakes by capturing Osama Bin Laden. If we do not capture him, then who knows what kind of consequences will ensue.
Debate Round No. 1
EHS_Debate

Con

I thank my opponent (and partner ;)) for accepting this debate.

As for definitions I agree to his definition of United States but do not agree with his definition of best interest, as it is not suiting for this debate.

I will define best interest as being the most plausible decision.

======

I will now begin by providing my case and then refuting my opponents contentions.

======

In an article about Obama's approach on Afghanistan Rebecca Griffin on March 27 2009 said that

President Obama was mistaken when he stated in his speech, "the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan." The United States did have to respond to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There were, however, more effective alternatives to military force, but the debate was clouded in the heated response to the attack. Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work does work. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting.

It is not too late for the US to switch to proven, effective, nonmilitary counterterrorism tools such as policing and intelligence.

My partner and I stand in firm negation that President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

I would now like to provide a few key definitions within this debate.
Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan- Earlier this year at West Point New York, President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan, nearly tripling the force he inherited as commander in chief.
United States- can also be referred to as the people of the United States as a whole. Not just the government.

Best interest- producing the greatest satisfaction

Now for our arguments. My partner and I have created 3 contentions that indefinitely support the negation.
1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.
2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.
3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

Contention One- The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.

Under the constitution, Article 1 Section 10, "No State shall…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States by terrorists who were in our country legally. A draft of the war in Afghanistan has never been drafted, therefore, it is unconstitutional to go to war with Afghan.

In his speech on November 18 of last year, Ron Paul states that, "Under the constitution, your supposed to declare the war, know who your enemy is, and know when you can declare victory, and bring the troops home."

We did that up until World War II, but since then we must have forgotten.

Contention Two- The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.

The president's National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim.

Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? Remember that this debate focuses soley on the 30,000 troops being sent to Afghan.

Contention III- We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

This 30,000 "surge" will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful.

In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, "Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels." Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.

The United States government should take heed of the past and make the right decision.

======

My opponent begins his case begins with this

Contention One -
"Al Qaeda is still in existence, active and operating, and gaining more members and allies"

I would like to note that Al Qaeda is not active and operating in Afghanistan anymore.

As General James Jones has reported, there are only a max of 100 insurgents left within Afghanistan. So, if we are in Afghanistan for the reasons my opponent states, " leave an Afghanistan that doesn't allow for the return of those radical groups to be able to organize, train, and equip themselves and launch other attacks against us and our allies any time in the future ." So far, American forces have done this. Why then, would it be in the United States best interest to send 30,000 more troops to an area that we seemingly already have control over. Most of the Al Qaeda forces have already fled to Pakistan.

======

Contention Two -
Osama Bin Laden is still in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region

My opponent has not provided any proof to show that Osama Bin Laden is in Afghnistan. Recent reports indicate that he is not. It is the burden of PRO to back up his contentions. As of now Contention Two is irrelevant.

======
Lambda3

Pro

Lambda3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
EHS_Debate

Con

My opponent has forfeited. My case still stands and his case is still refuted.
Lambda3

Pro

Lambda3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Lambda3

Pro

Lambda3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
EHS_DebateLambda3Tied
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:70