The Instigator
ChosenWolff
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
ararmer1919
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bowe Bergdahl exchange was a good decision.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ChosenWolff
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 993 times Debate No: 56577
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

ChosenWolff

Pro

First round is acceptance. I was edgy on who should have BOP for this debate, but I'll take it. My arguments will be based on various points. Most of them relating to the true status of the Taliban organization, and bindings of international law.

Good luck, and god bless America!





ararmer1919

Con

I accept this challenge and it will be an honor to debate with you. Good luck and let's have some fun.
Debate Round No. 1
ChosenWolff

Pro

I. POW: Now or Later

A lot of people innocently forget that Bergdahl isn't the only prisoner of war. According to the Geneva Convention on human rights, all POW's in American possession must be released at the end, or detente, of conflict between two armies. The Afghanistan war was officially over, which means the US was liable to be tried in international court, which WILL happen following every conflict. By holding POW's after Obama's call to end the war, we could be at risk of paying serious reparations to the international community.

Will GOP Heads Explode? At War's End, by Law, Gitmo Detainees Must Be Released & Repatriated

Since at least 1648's "Peace of Westphalia" which ended the Thirty Year's War, both sides of a conflict release POWs at the end of a conflict and/or war. WWII ended in 1945, ten years before the United States ratified III Geneva Convention in 1955. In spite of not having a ratified Treaty, the United States attributes the release and repatriation Japanese POWs at the end of WWII to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

But, I have a feeling that today's Republican's heads would have exploded and they would have screamed like stuck pigs when the United States released and repatriated "terrorist" Japanese POWs who were some of the most ruthless, barbaric enemies the United States has ever fought against.

Just how much "terrorism" and "evil" did the Japanese inflict during WWII?

Were the Japanese we fought in WWII a more gentler and kinder enemy than today's "terrorists?"

Ihttp://www.dailykos.com...-

It was now or never. Even though we are not approving of the Third Convention, we are still liable in court for the things in it. Lets not be a sore loser like Turkey, who refuses to acknowledge it broke international law simply because it refuses to recognize it.

II. Other Violations of the Geneva Convention

There is one reason why the "Gitmo" problem hasn't been solved. In any normal scenario, one could just take the prisoners to international court, have them tried there, and let the UN deal with them. The reason why we can't do this, is because we did so much wacked up $hit to these prisoners, they can no longer be tried in court.

Its the Gitmo problem, and its the only reason that hell hole is opened. Prisoners were tortured, starved, and deprived of basic human freedoms. They can not be tried, or can they continue to be smoked up in Cuba. This was the only solution, and I believe its the only one that will not screw us over in the long run. I contend the following....

P1: We have broken the Geneva Convention dozens of times with Gitmo prisoners.
P2: Gitmo prisoners can not be tried or kept in Guatanomo Bay.
C1: Gitmo prisoners should be released.

My opponent will be required to provide a justifable burden to defeat this premise. In the form of telling me a alternative option that isn't more or equally ugly to the one we went with. Good luck to him on doing that.

III. The Frenemie of my Frenemie

A lot of people are under the misconception that the Taliban are "terrorists". This is unbelievably laughable, and our movement to pressure nations in to ratifying the state departments recognition was coercion in my eyes. The truth is, the Taliban are little more than a civil millitant movement with aspirations to run a country.

They are an opposing army, not a terrorist group within itself. The US can easily refute all blame in Afghanistan by reffering to them as terrorists. Fighting a war on terror, sounds a lot better than picking sides in a civil war. Which is exactly what were doing. We have chosen to help the government fight a civil war, that in reality, doesn't involve us.

I am a military interventionalist, granted, but its one thing to overthrow a dictator, and another to help the man who replaces him rule and consolidate his power. That's exactly the point I'm trying so hard to make.

We are not the Taliban's primary enemy!

We are the frenemie of their enemy. Only a target as long as we continue to support the Afghan government. The Taliban doesn't blow up buildings in America. They don't attack US army bases in Germany. They attack us, in their territory. We are calamity in a civil war. As long as we continue to remain active combat operations. they will attack us.

P1: The Taliban would not be our enemy if we didn't fight with the Afghan government
P2: We are no longer fighting with the Afghan government
C1: We are at no risk to release Taliban prisoners of war.

I do support the endeavors of the Afghan government, but we can do that without sending men to die. We should sign bi lateral agreements, and allow Afghanistan to start fending for itself. They have the capibilities to fight their own battles at this point.

IV. A sign of detente

I would of thought, my opponent more than anyone else, would know that you can't fight a insurgency of this magnitude by killing leadership and capturing Taliban divisions. As I stated earlier, the Taliban are a civil millitant group. For the same reason Syria can't defeat Kurdistan, Iraq can't eliminate Isis, and China wont crush East Turkemenastan . They are a movement, not a collective fighting force.

You can kill a man, but not a idea. The only way to end bloodshed, is with reason and logic. Sorry, but I'm going to get a little philosophical. Why do people fight? Why do they spill blood? What makes them risk everything? From a utilitarrian POV, I would assume its to gain net benefit in their lives.

The Taliban fighters are of the opinion that the gains of war outweigh the risks. With that said, the only way to defeat a movement, is to appease those within it. The Taliban will return in waves, their leadership will replenish, and even if these scum bags died, they would soon be replaced. The Taliban are obviously unpleased with their life if they are willing to kill during it.

Its time for diplomacy. Cease fire. Detente. They wish to live happier lives, like all men. There is no reason why we can't reason with them like civilized humans. Its time to end our little experiment in international wars on terror. We need to treat the taliban like any other armed group. A collection of people with a set of demands.

I thank my opponent and the audience for their time. Best of luck in the following rounds.
ararmer1919

Con

ararmer1919 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ChosenWolff

Pro

Extend arguments
ararmer1919

Con

I'm sorry. I just can't do this right now. Real sorry.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
Lol, it's alright ararmer
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
It means that if you want to debate this, you can do it formally.
Posted by Crescendo 3 years ago
Crescendo
Why not? Your debate is just about over anyway, and I take a perverse pleasure in giving one side some counter arguments in the middle of a debate.
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
Are you going to debate me formally, or yap at me in a formal debate? Your arguments are terrible, and these are the one's I prepared for when I started this debate. I DO NOT debate in the comments.
Posted by Crescendo 3 years ago
Crescendo
Actually, I'm comment sniping.
Posted by Crescendo 3 years ago
Crescendo
Then, Jifpop mentioned the mistreatment of Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. So doesn't that simply mean that they should be treated more humanely, instead of releasing them so they can continue to murder civilians and soldiers alike?
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
Do you want to debate me, or are you going to keep yapping in the comments?
Posted by Crescendo 3 years ago
Crescendo
Not our enemies? Didn't they assist Al-Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on US soil?
http://www.newsmax.com...
Ironically, the terrorist leader mentioned in this article is one of the terrorists released according to the Bergdahl Exchange.
In fact, Al-Qaeda, who were the perpetrators of the September 11 Attacks, have ties with the Taliban.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Therefore, if Al-Qaeda is our enemy, then the Taliban is our enemy as well, and they will continue to conspire against us as long as they exist.
Not to mention that the U.S. had SUPPORTED the Mujahideen in the 1980s in their fight against Soviet Occupation, one of Ronald Reagan's few big mistakes. How's that for gratitude?
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
Not even my argument. The Taliban aren't our enemies, and we will face no more trouble with them when we leave Afghanistan. Just like ISIS in Iraq.
Posted by Crescendo 3 years ago
Crescendo
Stupid auto correct.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
ChosenWolffararmer1919
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
ChosenWolffararmer1919
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF.