The Instigator
bigbass3000
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Morty
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Should the USA and its allies have invaded Afghanistan?

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: 2/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,023 times Debate No: 2425
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (19)

 

bigbass3000

Pro

After the September 11th attacks, the USA was fully justified in waging war to punish those responsible and to prevent future attacks. The Taliban were not a passive host for Bin Laden but were closely associated with him ideologically, and in his debt for the crucial support he has lent them in their own civil war. By sheltering him and his terrorist network, and by refusing to give him up, the Taliban are his accomplices in the September 11th atrocities and should be overthrown in the interests of justice and global peace.

The invasion of Afghanistan was aimed directly at capturing Bin Laden and overthrowing the Taliban regime that has harboured him, rather than being a war against the entire Afghan people. The Afghan people have suffered greatly under Taliban rule, especially women and ethnic and religious minority groups, and they deserve a different and better government. In the past few years the Taliban have made it very difficult for the UN and other aid agencies to deliver humanitarian relief in Afghanistan, so in the medium-term an invasion would improve matters.

Invasion was the only way to try to capture or destroy Bin Laden and his terrorist organisation. Bombing on its own can prepare the way for a ground invasion, guaranteeing air supremacy and disrupting the enemy's command and control systems, but without the eventual commitment of land forces the USA's global coalition could not hope to achieve its objectives. Conversely, the isolation of the Taliban regime before September 2001 means that there are no meaningful diplomatic sanctions that could be applied in an attempt to achieve these aims peacefully.

Invasion was the only way to prevent future terrorists using Afghanistan as a base. The Taliban have provided a supportive base for a range of terrorist groups seeking to overthrow regimes in former-Soviet Central Asia, China and Kashmir, as well as for the global terrorist campaign of Al-Qa'ida. The stability of the whole Central Asian region pivots upon the installation of a new government in Afghanistan dedicated to peaceful coexistence with is neighbours, and this can only be achieved through an invasion.

Swift and decisive action against Afghanistan was necessary as a deterrent to other regimes thinking of supporting terrorism. If it is clear that allowing attacks upon other countries will result in massive retaliation and the swift overthrow of the sponsoring regime, then the world will have become a safer place and some good will have come out of the tragedy of September 11th.
Morty

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for bringing up this issue, one that is not discussed often enough in the shadow of debates over the legitimacy of the Iraq War.

The main contentions in this debate are that 1) the Taliban should have been overthrown, 2) invasion was the only effective response to 9/11, and 3) the world is safer because of our invasion. I will take each on separately.

1) The Taliban needed to be overthrown.
This is a point I do not disagree with fundamentally, but I oppose the way in which it was done. The people of Afghanistan would certainly be justified in throwing off their oppressive, evil government. But what right do we, as Americans, have to "liberate" the Afghanis?
We have no moral authority to decide the fate of governments other than our own, nor to decide which are "good" and should be supported and which are "bad" and should be undermined. My opponents argues that the members of the Taliban alone were the victims and targets of our military. But this is not so and can never be so when a war between nations exists. The very tactics used - bombing cities, especially - preclude this from being possible. Nations go to war against other nations - they cannot direct their attacks to specific members of the nation. It is simply ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The only forces which might be able to pinpoint the enemy with such accuracy would be those with both near-perfect knowledge of the members of each side (perhaps possible in pitched battles, revolutionary movements, and in the case of assassins - none of these were the mainstay of the Coalition's invasion) and have weaponry which did not significantly threaten any but the enemy (this is certainly not the sort used by the Coalition).
Notions of the "acceptable costs of war" and "collateral damage" notwithstanding, every single innocent killed in the invasion of Afghanistan was a murder committed by the United States military. Being at war does not change the fact that killing innocents is murder and we should regard it as such. That said, the number of civilian deaths directly attributed to the invasion force ranges depending on the source, but it is certainly in the thousands. Some studies suggest a number in the region of 1000-1300 (as of the beginning of 2002 [1]). Others show numbers in the region of 3000-3500 (as of the middle of 2003 [2]). In either case, we must ask ourselves - how can we support the murder of thousands of innocent Afghanis?
We also assume, wrongly, that overthrowing the Taliban necessarily means that the Afghanis will be more free than before. This assumption is common among recent American military adventures - that simply destroying the current oppressive regime, a liberty-loving regime will replace it. But this assumption is a dangerous one. Who's to say that an even more oppressive regime might take its place? Even if improvement occurs in the "medium-run," we are most certainly harming them in the short-run and gambling on the long-run.

2) The second contention is that our only effective response to 9/11 was the invasion of Afghanistan. I disagree and will both bring issue to invasion and suggest an alternative.
First of all, the invasion potentially was a negative move in terms of preventing/lessening the chance of future terrorist attacks. If we look to the reasons listed for the attacks on 9/11, they are the following: Support of Israel, bases in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia), and sanctions against Iraq which killed thousands of men, women, and children. So, how was our cause helped by invading another Muslim nation? How was our cause helped by killing thousands more innocent civilians? It seems that we are breeding terrorism, rather than fighting it.
Secondly, there were other alternatives. Ron Paul suggested Letters of Marquee and Reprisal to the President, which essentially amounts to using the CIA and other special forces to target and attack bin Laden and Al Qa'ida, rather than warring with the nation of Afghanistan. This seems like a very reasonable solution. Another might be a more traditional letter of marquee which would grant anyone the ability to attack Al Qa'ida, perhaps with a bounty on important members. The latter option would allow for the American people as a whole, and anyone throughout the world for that matter, to devise inventive ways to deal with this infamous terrorist organization. This would also allow Al Qa'ida to be attacked by many separate organizations - all with different tactics and unconnected. This would make defending and hiding much more difficult. Instead of depending on bureaucratic central planning of locating and attacking terrorists, we would take advantage of the decentralization and creativeness of the market.

3) The final contention is the world is better off because of our invasion.
On its face, this seems reasonable. The Taliban were obvious supporters of terror and Al Qa'ida bases in Afghanistan were wrecked. However, we must look deeper.
First, I will reiterate that it is very likely we have created more terrorists by invading a nation, killing thousands of innocents, and occupying Afghanistan. Think how you would feel if someone killed your family. Your mom, dad, brother, sister, uncle, grandma, whoever. Would you not want to bring justice to the murderers? Terrorists are not always just zealots. Sometimes they are people who have had enough of their family members being ripped from them and their homes destroyed by murderous invaders.
Second, while Al Qa'ida may no longer be in Afghanistan (some still are, surely), that does not mean they have disappeared. There are plenty of nations which could be hosting terrorist cells - knowingly or not. We cannot defeat the terrorists by simply invading nation after nation.
Third, this hinges on the argument that things in Afghanistan will be better now that the Taliban is gone. But the prospects are hardly as bright as they are made out to be by my opponent. Afghanistan, nor any nation of the sort, can be thrust into liberal democracy. It cannot be expected to succeed, because there is no tradition of freedom in Afghanistan. There is no perfect way to shape a new nation, because there is always a vacuum after a violent overthrow of the government (by internal revolution or by external invasion) and there will always be many looking to fill it. Look to Russia. After the Soviet Union fell, totalitarianism did not go away. It took a new form, but it remains. Merely overthrowing a government is not enough to create real change.
Debate Round No. 1
bigbass3000

Pro

Generations of American leaders have agreed that when
our homeland is attacked or imminently threatened, the
use of force in self-defense is justified. After Japan's
attack on Pearl Harbor, we had to fight to defend our territory.
Sixty years later, most Americans correctly perceived
that military action against Al Qaeda and the
Taliban in Afghanistan needed to be part of our
response to 9/11.
We must also be prepared to act when an ally we have
promised by treaty to protect is attacked or imminently
threatened. Security guarantees, such as those we provide
to NATO allies, and those enshrined in the UN
Charter, are essential to global stability. In addition, the
United States has unique relationships with vulnerable
targets that are not treaty-protected allies - notably
Taiwan and Israel. American support for them can prevent
war by signaling to other powers that these friends
of the United States will not stand alone if they are
attacked without provocation.
Harder decisions involve security threats that are not
imminent, and cases of large-scale atrocities. Should we
use force to prevent a hostile government from developing
nuclear weapons, to weaken an anti-American group
forming terrorist cells in another country, or to protect a
vulnerable population from ethnic cleansing? Many
Americans would answer "sometimes," and ultimately
these decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis.
But our decision-making in these harder cases would
benefit from the articulation of principles outlining the
circumstances that call for intervention.

Use of Force Principles
In the absence of an attack or imminent threat, five core
principles should guide our decision-making. These prudent
principles recognize the dangers and unintended
consequences inherent in any use of force, as well as the
occasional necessity of military action to protect our
security and the lives of others.
The Duty to Prevent: The duty to prevent is a principle
needed in a world where terrorists can wreak the kind of
destruction once reserved to states. It affirms that national
governments have a responsibility to prevent grave
dangers from emerging from inside their territory; if
they fail to do so, other countries have a right to intervene
to forestall the threat. For instance, the Taliban's
blatant shirking of its duty to prevent Al Qaeda from
launching attacks from Afghanistan prior to 9/11, or to
bring them to justice afterward, provided America with
the right to use force in self-defense to remove an intolerable
danger. Looking ahead, military intervention
would be justified if a government with nuclear capacity
intended to transfer a nuclear bomb to terrorists, or was
unable to stop such a transfer. In such cases, however,
given that we would be using force first, we must be certain
of our intelligence and the evidence behind it.

This principles guide us to our decisions. My opponent says first what business. The U.S. is the soul hegemonic country in the world, it is our business because of us being Hegemonic, that is our survival as Norm Chomsky said. Second as said in the Use of force principles, you have to prevent terroist countries from taking over. They took over Afghanistan and thus was a cause of 9/11. We had a obligation to overthrow the Taliban. Lastly my opponent fails to realize, that War is necessary, war is a reality and pacifism is not going to fly in the real world. I will attack your other points next.
Morty

Con

It is legitimate to defend the country, I agree. But the way that it was went about is what I disagree with. Bombing civilians who had nothing to do with the attacks is not self-defense, it's murder.

I'll take on the "Use of Force Principles" now.
"Duty to Prevent: The duty to prevent is a principle
needed in a world where terrorists can wreak the kind of
destruction once reserved to states."
Why, exactly, should states be able to wreak havoc? States are not mythical beings, they are just organizations with people in them. If an average person doesn't have the right to do something, neither does a state. Again, they are just *people* - they are not gods above us with unlimited moral authority. If terrorist organizations should not be able to do it, why should an organization calling itself "the State" be able to? What is the difference between the State and a terrorist organization, save for the better PR department of the former?
Furthermore, states cannot be held responsible for every single one of its citizens. If it was, then it is the state's fault every time a crime occurs internally as well. Every Son of Sam, every Ted Bundy, every Unabomber is a state actor under that line of reasoning. Clearly this position is ridiculous.
However, in the case of the Taliban, there is no doubt they at least tacitly supported Al Qa'ida. Still, we must remember that it was not the Taliban who was responsible for 9/11. If we are reacting to 9/11, then Al Qa'ida should be the lone target, which means, it calls for actions akin to those of the FBI finding a mass murderer, not those of a World War.
But your philosophy on "Duty to Prevent" is very similar to the philosophy of states in war that I alluded to earlier. It is the idea that the State is everyone, and everyone is the State, within a certain geographical area. That is why it is acceptable to kill thousands of innocents with indiscriminate weaponry and tactics. That is why no one is brought up on charges of murder when they ruthlessly bomb centers of population. It is all Americans against all Afghanis. Every one of them is an enemy, according to this idea, and so killing them is entirely justified. I'm sorry, but that idea is completely unacceptable to me. It is barbaric tribalism that does not belong in a civilized world.

America, the Hegemon
When I read the assertion my opponent made regarding America's "business" of being hegemonic, I wondered if he ever considered that perhaps it was that very attitude, and the actions which resulted from it, is what got us into this mess in the first place. Again, I will remind you that Osama bin Laden's reasons for 9/11, that he himself declared, were the following: 1) Support of Israel, 2) Bases in Saudi Arabia, the Holy Land, and 3) Sanctions against Iraq which led to the deaths of thousands of men, women, and children. So, I ask, why should we continue such policies and invite more 9/11 attacks? It is our exercising of hegemonic power and our belief that we can do whatever we want throughout the world without consequence that led to 9/11. Perhaps if we weren't gallivanting across the world, with bases in over a hundred nations, involving ourselves in affairs that don't concern us, entangling ourselves in alliances, and etc, then the hate for America which resonates across the world wouldn't exist.

A History Lesson
Perhaps my opponent is not aware, but the Taliban's rise is America's own doing. In our attempt to defeat the Soviet Union in yet another proxy war, we supplied, funded, and supported radical Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan, the mujahadeen. They were victorious in their defense of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, but they did not just pack up and return to their regular lives. No, they took our weapons and supplies and attempted to control the nation. Mujahadeen warlords fought for years to control Afghanistan. Then, a domestic group (who had also received arms from the USA), crushed the warlords and set up the Taliban. Again, we can see the unintended consequences of interventionism.

Pacifism vs. Unending, Illegitimate War - A false dichotomy
My opponent makes the mistake of calling my position "pacifism," even when I have consistently called for the perpetrators of 9/11 to be brought to justice. Do not mistake an opposition to war as pacifist. My opposition does not come from a moral objection to violence, even in self-defense, but rather from a pragmatic objection to this war in particular and a moral objection to murder. I agree that pacifism is untenable. However, I subscribe to non-aggression-ism, which states that it is wrong to use violence against those who have not violated your rights (life, liberty, property) nor have they made a palpable, immediate threat against these rights. Is this position controversial? Wacky? I think that most people would agree with such a moral theory. I do not see how an oppressive regime thousands of miles away threatens America and I certainly do not see how citizens living under that regime threatened America. I have suggested ways in which we might target the criminals in particular - using some of the best special and covert forces in the world or using the vast innovative spirit of the people of the world to bring them to justice. Yet these are not discussed nor refuted. Only a pacifist strawman is brought up. I eagerly await your responses to my old and new points.
Debate Round No. 2
bigbass3000

Pro

1. Hegemon, being a hegemon means we have responsibilities to the world and to do what we feel is rught, because are say is everyone elses say, whyu because we are the hegemon. Also my opponent brought up it was the Taliban, not Al Qaida, but The taliban supplied them, so we had a obligation to attack for that. Following the use of force principles works. It is legitimate, because of that point alone. The some of the plan for 9/11 happened in Afghanistan. Terrorist work together and Afghanistan was providng a Sanctuary.

"A History Lesson", Well if we did cause, is it not our obligation to fix, what we started. We had a obligation then to attack, and thta is justification a lone.

"Pacifism vs. Unending, Illegitimate War", The war on Terror, can end, we just have to change the ideology, example the communism, People said, we could npt stop it, but we succeeded in the Soviet Union. We have lessened Al Qaida and helped the Afgahni people from a situation they could not of easily done themselves. We saved Women, children, and men of the future there and thus makes it right.
Morty

Con

My opponent, despite earlier promises, has still not addressed many of the points made in my first argument. Specifically, he has not refuted my assertions that there were better and less destructive ways to deal with Al Qa'ida than invading the nation of Afghanistan, bombing cities, and killing thousands of innocent civilians. Neither has he justified the killings of those thousands of Afghanis. He will not address the causes of terror which I have brought up many times and has not responded to my assertion that invading Afghanistan could lead to more anti-American terrorists. Finally, he did not reply to my questioning of how much the world was helped by simply overthrowing one pro-terrorist, oppressive regime with no guarantee that it will not be replaced by another of the same sort.

That being said, I will now reply to the points made in his most recent argument.

Hegemonic America:
My opponent assumes that because America is powerful, it has a "responsibility" to the rest of the world to be its protector and policeman. Why is this so? Simply being a powerful nation does not give a nation the moral authority to intervene in the rest of the world for the cause of "good" (which translates to "whatever it wants" in the real world).
But let us assume for a moment that the United States has a responsibility to promote freedom and such throughout the world. If this is so, should we not invade Iran? North Korea? China? Sudan? Russia? DR Congo? There are 43 countries and 8 disputed territories rated "Not Free" by Freedom House. 60 countries and 6 disputed territories are rated "Partly Free" (and thus partly Not Free). Are we to invade over 100 nations to ensure that freedom exists throughout the world? If not, why do we get to use this excuse with some countries?

I will also accept for the moment the idea that the Taliban is partly responsible for 9/11 because of their support of Al Qa'ida. But again, I must ask, how are the thousands of Afghanis killed by our indiscriminate bombs responsible for 9/11? How is that "defense" when they have done nothing? It is indistinguishable from murder. If you know where a murderer lives, are you justified in blowing up his whole block? Were those who died in this "retaliation" just as guilty as the murderer?

Obligations:
America's intervention in foreign affairs has caused untold amount of oppressive governments to arise. That was the point of my lesson. If we accept my opponent's reasoning, the United States needs to invade essentially all of Africa, as its many oppressive regimes exist in large part because the United States forced the European powers to decolonize. We should invade most of the Middle East under the same idea. Are these positions not ridiculous? America has caused so many problems in the world. Many of them caused by the USA "fixing" other problems. Why should we keep doing the same thing and expect different results? That is the behavior of someone who is insane.

Ideology and another History Lesson:
We did not change ideology in the Cold War. Many Russians still support communism. What happened to the Soviet Union is what must happen to all communist regimes - it imploded on itself. Socialism cannot work. It has no price system to coordinate it and will thus always collapse economically. The Soviet Union collapsed because of its economic policies, not because of some mythological war of ideology waged by the USA. Indeed, the USA has moved closer and closer to the economic system of the Soviet Union every year. In fact, the developed world as a whole has moved in this direction. Look at healthcare. Those who do not support socialism are considered reactionary and uncaring.
Wars of ideology are brutal, much like wars of religion. They must be, because the goal is not conquest or anything tangible, but rather to change the "hearts and minds" of a group of people. How can this be assured? Well, the only way to truly assure this is to kill everyone in the group. After all, they could just be lying. The only way we can be sure is killing them all, which is actually explicitly advocated by some. Surely this barbarism can be rejected out of hand by sensible people.

As to the lives we saved - how can we know? All we know for sure is that we murdered thousands of innocents. That alone makes this an unjust war.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
cont..

"I'm calling soldiers who kill innocent civilians murderers. Many soldiers do and those soldiers are murderers."

Many? What is many? The vast majority do not commit illegal actions over there and it is not fair to make such a false statement. The FEW that do commit atrocities (and its a very, very small number) are dealt with harshly.

You really need to rethink your position. Like I stated many times before, if you are against ANY war in general say so. Don't say you are only for wars that will not have civilian casualities because that is never going to be possible aslong as the enemy chooses to hide like the vermin they are in the civilian population. They are the ones you should be crying out against, the U.S.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Morty,
I know you are having a hard time understanding but try to focus.

"Bombing cities IS targeting civilians. Period. End. Over. Done."

Thats fine, but we don't "bomb cities". We bomb specific targets within cities but not whole cities themselves. Like it was said before carpet bombing and fire bombing a city are tactics that are no longer employed by the U.S. military. Period. End. Over. Done. Fin.

"It is impossible, as you've pointed out yourself, to bomb cities and not have civilian casualties. Thus, what we are saying is that killing civilians is okay and we'll keep using tactics which do that."

No I said it is impossible to have ANY WAR without civilian casualties. Once again we do not bomb entire cities. Can you tell me one "tactic" that doesn't provide some sort of danger to non-combatants? I am sure the Pentagon would love to have you on their staff if you could.

"Precision weapons are used so that the chances of hitting what we want to hit is greater, not so that we don't kill civilians (I've already established that we don't care about that), but so less munitions need to be fired, less people need to be committed to firing them, and the enemy has less chance of escape."

Pretty sure I already stated one of the reason for smart weapons is to have a greater chance of hitting the enemy. As far as not caring about civilians, why don't we just nuke the country if we don't care? We could turn the entire country into glass if we wanted to. So, no, you have not shown that we do not care about civilians. Try again.

"Weak pretext to invade the country, not a weak pretext to go after criminals."

Actually its very legit considering these "criminals" controlled the country.
Posted by Morty 9 years ago
Morty
I don't think you are understanding. Bombing cities IS targeting civilians. Period. End. Over. Done.
It is impossible, as you've pointed out yourself, to bomb cities and not have civilian casualties. Thus, what we are saying is that killing civilians is okay and we'll keep using tactics which do that.

Precision weapons are used so that the chances of hitting what we want to hit is greater, not so that we don't kill civilians (I've already established that we don't care about that), but so less munitions need to be fired, less people need to be committed to firing them, and the enemy has less chance of escape.

Weak pretext to invade the country, not a weak pretext to go after criminals. Again, I suggested various ways we could have gone about this differently, but we chose to bomb cities.

I'm not calling all soldiers murderers, either. I'm calling soldiers who kill innocent civilians murderers. Many soldiers do and those soldiers are murderers. But a soldier qua soldier is not a murderer, just as a baker qua baker is not a murderer. It doesn't have to be this way. It just is.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
ScrewSociety,

Its true, trust me. I remembered when we received our ROE brief in Afghanistan. I was a M2 gunner there.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Morty,

"Three Iraqis. Right. Out of how many? Tens of thousands."

Huh? So every single civilian death is caused by a violation of the ROE? Thats ridiculous. We punish those who recklessly kill civilians, but the fact is not all are preventable. How can you not understand this. The only way to prevent any civilian casualties is not have the war, and that would only work if we are not attacked in the first place.

"You did bomb civilians in Afghanistan. That's how thousands died... How did you think they died? Us bombing areas non-civilian areas and then their houses magically imploding? Your defenses are becoming fantastical."

You really are having a hard time with this aren't you? Show me on shred of proof that the U.S. military INTENTIONALLY bombed civilians.

"Are *you* really so naive to think that is the reason they are developing them?"

What other reasons are there? The purpose of "smart" weapons is to minimize collateral damage and focus on the enemy. Simple enough for even you to understand.

"You have shown that you are naive enough to believe that we don't bomb civilians (yet civilians somehow die from our bombings..?). "

Once again, show me when we have intentionally bombed civilians.

"If the United States government cared about foreign citizens, they a) wouldn't invade nations on such weak pretexts and b) wouldn't bomb cities."

I think 3000 of our own civilians dead is not a "weak pretext" and we do NOT simply "bomb cities". The tactic of firebombing a city is extinct.

Face it. The U.S. military does NOT target civilians. If you are simply against all wars say so, but don't beat around the bush and call all Soldiers murderers because non-combatants are sometimes caught in the crossfire. That is simply a fact of war that is unnavoidable. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that the U.S. military targets civilians.
Posted by ScrewSociety62 9 years ago
ScrewSociety62
Really goldspurs? I thought that it was true. Hmm, excuse me.
I mean, I knew the M82 was .50 caliber, but I thought the vehicle mounted Brownings weren't allowed to be used on personnel.
Posted by Morty 9 years ago
Morty
Three Iraqis. Right. Out of how many? Tens of thousands.

You did bomb civilians in Afghanistan. That's how thousands died... How did you think they died? Us bombing areas non-civilian areas and then their houses magically imploding? Your defenses are becoming fantastical.

Are *you* really so naive to think that is the reason they are developing them? You have shown that you are naive enough to believe that we don't bomb civilians (yet civilians somehow die from our bombings..?). If the United States government cared about foreign citizens, they a) wouldn't invade nations on such weak pretexts and b) wouldn't bomb cities. But the government (and most of our citizenry) doesn't care.

You didn't claim to be an expert on anarchism but you sure had a sure idea what its effects would have to be. I quote:
"do you even realise how many people would be murdered with no goverment? Ofcourse not."
Maybe you have exact calculations to show me.

Oh, and from your link:
"Lawyers for Sergeant Hensley and the other snipers accused in the case have suggested the baiting program is relevant to their defense because IT DEMONSTRATES THE EXTENT TO WHICH ARMY AND PENTAGON COMMANDERS APPROVED unconventional methods OF KILLING NOT ONLY INSURGENTS BUT ALSO UNARMED MEN OF MILITARY AGE who were believed to be enemy fighters." [emphasis mine].
Yeah. Sounds like the military is supremely concerned with ensuring that no one is killed without just cause. I guess being a male of a certain age is now a capital crime.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
ScrewSociety,

"You know the big .50 Caliber guns on the Humvees and such? Well the Coalition is not allowed to use them on people directly, they have to shoot their equipment."

That is actually a myth. I remember hearing that when I was a private. Think about it. We even have .50 cal sniper rifles. It is intended for lightly armored vehicles but can be used against personnel.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Morty,

"What use are ROE when it is within them to bomb centers of populations? Tell me - how many soldiers have been brought up on charges for the thousands of Afghanis killed? Has even *one*? I doubt it"

Actually there have been some Soldiers charged with violating the ROE. It is rare because the vast majority of us serving would not even consider doing it. This link shows a sniper team being court martialled after illegal actions in combat:

http://www.nytimes.com...

Another thing, we do not bomb civilian populations. Do you have any evidence to suggest the military targets civilians? Didn't think so.

"I'm suggesting that perhaps if we go to war we should use tactics which make murder less likely (instead of, you know, bombing cities). "

The U.S. goverment invest billions and billions into researching "smart weapons" that minimized civilian casaulties. We do not simply bomb cities indiscrimately, are you really that naive?

"I loathe murderers who think it is okay to kill people because they wear a fancy uniform."

Thank you. I think its pretty snazzy.

"Your knowledge of how anarchism works is clearly lacking"

Never claimed to be an expert on it. Your knowledge on war is laughable.
Posted by Morty 9 years ago
Morty
When they start bringing killers to trial, I'll consider the ROE serious. Until then, ROE are just good PR.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Morty 9 years ago
Morty
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 
Vote Placed by aodanu16 9 years ago
aodanu16
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 twinkiesunite 9 years ago
twinkiesunite
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 rnsweetswimn1 9 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 DaPofoKing 9 years ago
DaPofoKing
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 bmoe11 9 years ago
bmoe11
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 floydington25 9 years ago
floydington25
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
bigbass3000MortyTied
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 rnsweetheart 9 years ago
rnsweetheart
bigbass3000MortyTied
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