The Instigator
Statesman
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

The U.S. best hope for national security is to stop policing the world.

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: 1/15/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,386 times Debate No: 1812
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (10)

 

Statesman

Pro

America's best hope for national security is not being involved in every area in the world it is to secure our borders. The United States involving themselves in other countries matters only gives these countries reason to hate us and sets this country up for disaster later. Osama Bin Laden would not have the power he does today if it were not for the fact that the U.S. sent him aid to fight the Soviets. Now he is our greatest and most dangerous enemy. Alot of people would say that the idea I have just put forth is one of isolationism and is what caused WW2. Isolationism is not what caused WW2. The Treaty of Versailles dictating how Germany had to live and Britain's and France's military weakness caused WW2. I am all for constantly building up the military for national defense, but it should be used for defense, not for policing the world.
cody30228

Con

The United States should police the world when it need to be policed
This debate is solely focused on out national security
So here are some reasons why policing the world directly and indirectly protects national security

1. Directly
Let's imagine there are two countries called X and Y. X is neutral and builds weapons while Y is weak but hates the USA.
Country Y sells weapons to Country X
The USA can wait for X to attack, or take a preemptive strike and blockade the trade between X and Y.
Example
Cuban Missile Crisis

2. Indirectly
Say the USA relies heavily on Israel's protection in the Middle East. Iran threatens to attack Israel. Iran has the whole Middle East on it's side. USA can step in and stop Iran or watch as our ally falls, and then we are defenseless and are soon attacked too.
Example
Gulf War
(US placing of troops in Saudi Arabia)
Debate Round No. 1
Statesman

Pro

I disagree. In your hypothetical situations you propose that the U.S. should do two things. Use military force to stop weapons sells, and basically make decisions along the lines of we're allied with country A. Country A has gone to war. We should go to war. Ok, as to the first situation. President Eisenhower said "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously who came and talked about such a thing." This was the man who commanded the allied forces in WW2. He knew war. Second scenario. George Washington warned us against entangling alliances. If one studies WW1 they will find that the reason it became a WORLD war was because of entangling alliances. Basically, two nations got into a war and their allies went straight to war with them. No questions asked. Now that I have rebutted your hypothetical situations with real life ones, let us pretend that your hypothetical situation about the countries selling weapons to each other was real. President Reagan started a program called Star Wars. It's purpose was to destroy enemy missiles headed toward the U.S. If we had kept programs like these, built more of them, and secured our borders then the threat your hypothetical country posed wouldn't be much of a threat at all.
cody30228

Con

You make three points
1. Eisenhower said preventive war is bad
2. Alliances are bad
3. Peaceful protection

1. "The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on."
Ulysses S. Grant
"War is the only game in which it doesn't pay to have the home-court advantage."
Dick Motta
"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace." Ulysses S. Grant
"We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it." Dwight D. Eisenhower

All these men, INCLUDING EISENHOWER, claim war is necessary.
Now when war is begun, you can start it, or you can get hit by hit. We got hit in Pearl Harbor. We got hit in September 11. We hit first in the Cuban Missile Crisis. We made a PREEMPTIVE strike in Cuba and saved the lives of countless Americans.
You ignore a key point, we aren't debating war, we are debating policing of the world. The CMC was not an act of war, but the placing of trade embargoes (world policing). Why is controlling the economy of countries to saves lives bad. Besides, a life is priceless.

2. George Washington made that quote when there were only around 4 countries in the world that mattered. France, Spain, England, and America. The first three were all violent towards each other off and on. In that case, making an alliance would lead directly to war. Today is a new day. We NEED ALLIANCES TO SURVIVE. Imagine if no one wanted to sell us oil? What if we fought off WWII all by ourselves? Washington was right in 1785, but not in 2008. We need our allies. What is wrong with having help? I never claimed we would make alliances and go to war because we are allied, but go to war, protect our allies to protect ourselves.

3. "You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time"
Albert Einstein
You claim that we can protect ourselves and prevent war. Einstein would disagree. And he makes sense. If you are preparing for war, you are instigating it. What if we are invaded from troops? We would have to kill them. We can't just shoot down missiles. War involves so much more than that. We could fund programs that will protect us. But you can not ignore that we can protect ourselves better if we never let other countries even get the missiles to fire at us.

"Everyone's a pacifist between wars. It's like being a vegetarian between meals."
Colman McCarthy
Debate Round No. 2
Statesman

Pro

In your second paragraph you say that "we're not debating war we're debating policing the world." However, in your first paragraph your talking about war. All your quotes are about war. First, I agree. War is inevitable. So what we're debating is how can the U.S. stay out of the most wars. What is the best way to prevent ourselves from being attacked? You point out that we got hit at Pearl Harbour but you don't give any solutions as to what we could have done to better protect ourselves. You point out that we got hit on 911. At this time the U.S. had long had a policy of policing the world. We have military bases all over the world. We had CIA operatives constantly looking for Bin Laden. The U.S. government was trying to control so many areas of the world. Guess what? We still got hit on September 11. This wasn't the first time we got hit either. The twin towers had been hit before. How bout the USS Cole? We got hit on September 11 because we didn't have control of our borders. These guys basically walked across our southern border took flying lessons and hijacked some planes. So what do we do about this? Well we definitely don't have control of our borders. (Really quickly though. I do think that we should hunt down Osama Bin Laden and terrorists where ever they may be. I think we should bomb the living crap out of them when we find them. However, I want it to be clear that killing terrorists is a response to an act of war they committed. It's not policing the world it's fighting a war somebody else started. I don't think that setting up a democracy in Iraq is part of this war. That's policing the world.) In fact some of the most experienced border agents we have are being paid huge salaries by the government to leave their post guarding the Mexican border with New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Texas and to go to Iraq to defend their border. Talk about making matters worse. Also the reason we haven't seen attacks over here is because terrorrists are just as happy to kill Americans in Iraq as they are to kill Americans here at home. If we don't drop this policy of trying to manipulate world events and focus on securing our borders and bringing our troops home to help defend our nation then when everything settles down in Iraq and our troops start leaving we will get hit again. Remember also that in the Cuban Missile Crisis we were in the Cold War. It wasn't a traditional war but it was a war nonetheless. While I do think that some of the actions taken in the Cold War were policing the world (Vietnam) I don't think that this was one of them. This was a country we were at war with (even if it wasn't a traditional war) putting missiles on our back door step.
cody30228

Con

You only make one point this time
We need to police our borders.

Now, you ignore a few key points
1. importance of our allies
If we protect the borders of our allies, that is policing the world

2. better protection of our selves comes from policing
If we police some parts of the world, we have a better chance of saving lives

What you actually brought up,
Means very little in this round. Yes we need to police out own borders. But the best defense is a good offense. The Cuban Missile Crisis, was an event of Russia sending weapons to Cuba. We were not at war with Cuba. The Cold War is more of a time period than a war. Vietnam and Korea were wars. We went to the UN security council and POLICED RUSSIA AND CUBA to stop trading weapons. Specifically CBM and IMBM (close range and intermediate range ballistic missiles). The IMBM had the range to reach our capital! We forced trade embargos, started policing AND stopped direct confrontation. In this instance, the best defense is a good offense.

***We better protect ourselves be policing the world.
***We better help our allies by policing the world.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cody30228 7 years ago
cody30228
Statesmancody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 solo 9 years ago
solo
Statesmancody30228Tied
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 reachingformore 9 years ago
reachingformore
Statesmancody30228Tied
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 Statesman 9 years ago
Statesman
Statesmancody30228Tied
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 nat12137 9 years ago
nat12137
Statesmancody30228Tied
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 TheConstitution 9 years ago
TheConstitution
Statesmancody30228Tied
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 oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
Statesmancody30228Tied
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 ScrewSociety62 9 years ago
ScrewSociety62
Statesmancody30228Tied
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 Demosthenes 9 years ago
Demosthenes
Statesmancody30228Tied
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 Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Statesmancody30228Tied
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