The Instigator
Leonitus_Trujillo
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
zarul
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

The United States Needed to invade 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: 12/16/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,522 times Debate No: 552
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (19)

 

Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

Iraq is another issue for another debate. I am going to build momentum here with Afghanistan.

I believe that it was absolutely necessary for the United States to spend billions of dollars in the Invasion of Afghanistan , to deeply American troops, and finally that all the lives lost in Afghanistan are lost justly so; and I believe the people who believe otherwise are a minority so I would like to see them bring up good points here.

Afghanistan was a terrorist haven harboring many of the planners at one point or another that attacked the united States during September eleventh, and even other attacks such as US Embassy's in Africa. The Taliban was an illegitimate Military force that was harboring terrorist repressing the population and ultimately causing us harm. Afghanistan is a battle in our war against terrorism and its a battle the United States needed to fight and needs to continue to fight.
zarul

Con

It was not necessary for the United States to invade Afghanistan.

I. The Taliban regime could have been overthrown without an invasion, and as well, the power of the warlords could have easily been broken.

1. If we are to accept the affirmative in saying that the population was repressed by the Taliban, it is fair to conclude that the majority of people did not like the Taliban.

A. If the majority did not like the Taliban, we could have caused a revolution in Afghanistan at a far cheaper cost then a military invasion.

B. We had airspace from Pakistan, therefore, we should have bombarded Afghanistan with pamphelets (metaphorically, although there's nothing wrong with pamphelets). We should have given them material as to why the Taliban should be overthrown, and why democracy is good.

C. We could have also played the warlords in Afghanistan against each other, by supporting some and not others we could manage their power. No warlord would have the power to become dominant. They would ultimately clash with the Taliban, or support it. In the end, all sides would be weakened.

D. With a weaker Taliban and less powerful nobles, a people ready to liberate themselves, Afghanistan could have a revolution. The people would establish a democracy, which would be supported by the US.

E. There are many other things we could have done to cause this revolution, but I assume the point has been delivered. In essence, Afghanistan was, and currently is like feudal Europe. Warlords are the lords, with power throughout the country side, and the Taliban is the repressive religious force, similar to what the Roman Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages. By breaking up this feudal system, we could make Afghanistan an ally, and a powerful one at that.

F. The reason to prefer this is that it would have lead to increased power in a democratic centralized government. The current situation has much of the power situated in the hands of warlords, and some with the federal government. The Taliban also still has some power, especially in villages in the country, but overall is weaker. The federal government only has power in the cities, and much of this power is only because we support it.

G. If we had not invaded, and instead destabilized the warlords and Taliban, the central government would not need us to support it. It would become an even greater ally.

H. Invasion does not endure every Afghani to the US. The people who lost family members will never support us, and the warlords are only a temporary ally against the Taliban. Had we not invaded, the people would hold absolutely no hostility to the US. We would have a permanent ally in the region, the people of Afghanistan. As well, our now and most certainly future foes, the Taliban and warlords, could have been crushed just as well in this revolution.

I. Since the power of the current Afghani government is mainly from us, it is only a temporary government. As well, the warlords will only support as long as we are willing to ignore their opium trade, as well as pay them for the sake of not causing trouble. All of these factors are great trouble now, and in the long run. Establishing a government without warfare would not have this problem.

J. Had we caused a revolution, we would have a stable and permanent ally. It would not be a shifting alliance such as that with Pakistan. As well, it would have promoted peace and stability in the region.

K. It would ultimately have cost less, we would not be using as much money, as it does take great amounts of money to mobilize for a war.

L. Not only could the Taliban have been removed without invasion, but we would be safer had we not invaded. We would have more troops to defend our nation, and these troops would be more happy, and under less stress (since they are deployed less).

I have offered an alternative to invasion, there are others, but I think you see my point. Now, I will discuss the implications of invading Afghanistan.

II. Invading Afghanistan has increased terrorism worldwide.

1. There have been more incidents of terrorism in the world since our invasion.

2. Invading Afghanistan has unleashed the once dormant force of extremism. This is not something inherently related to Islam, but to numerous factors I will explain.

A. The peoples in Africa, Asia, have been constantly exploited in the past centuries, and even today. Rising education and nationalism has revealed the truth to these people. Not only do they live in poverty, they are forced into it. The ruling class of their countries as well as powerful groups from other countries exploit these people. They are poor, angry, and ready to strike.

B. Many people in Asia and Africa are Muslims. When we invaded Afghanistan, some of them saw it as an attack on Islam. They are then ready to fight for what they believe is under attack (and of course it was not an attack on Islam, but the perception of people is what counts).

C. A minority of people shared radical beliefs with the Taliban, but were not yet violent. The attack on the Taliban enraged them, and made them active.

D. Muslims throughout the world feel as if their religion is under attack, and become more perceptible to radical beliefs (although the vast majority of Muslims still do not embrace these beliefts). Especially in poor countries, where there are other factors to anger these people.

F. Afghanis lose family members, houses, etc. Some feel the invasion threatens them, and they respond violently.

G. Attacking Afghanistan gave the Taliban new propaganda. In some countries, such as Afghanistan, much education comes from religious schools. With radicalism on the rise and Muslims feeling under attack, even young children begin to accept these beliefs.

H. There are many other factors that come in to play, but I only have so many words. So, as you can see, the invasion of Afghanistan caused many Muslims to dislike the US, and some to even hate it.

3. I have shown how the invasion affected perceptions, and that adaquately shows why terrorism has been on the rise. Terrorism now is essentially a extreme reaction to perceived aggression from the US.

4. Impacts of this terrorism:

A. Lives are lost, property is damaged, many of these wrongs are attributed to the US, even though that is often not the case at all. (Remember, we don't control their media and schools)

B. This terrorism leads to more terrorism, this can be seen in Iraq.

C. Terrorism further destabilizes regions, and creates more problems. This can eventually backfire on us.

D. It creates a rift between Muslims and the US, as some attribute this terrorism specifically to Islam. This aggravates the problem further.

So as you can see, terrorism begets more of itself.

III. The way to stop terrorism is not continued military force.

1. Force begets more terrorism. People will continue to see it as an attack on their nation, culture, religion. It will destabilize the region, and hurt economies. People will lose family members, and hate us more. It just keeps growing.

2. The way to beat terrorism is by investing in schools, media, and humanitarian efforts.

A. If we put more money into schools, they will have to teach what we want them to. If we allow our enemies to educate the children of tomorrow, terrorism and hate for the US will increase.

B. If we invest in the media, we can show our side of the story, and foster a favorable view of the US.

C. Humanitarian efforts will genuinely increase people's respect for the US, and will decrease terrorism and hate.

Basically, if we stop using force, terrorism will decrease. And if we help people out, we will be looked at better.
Conclusion

By not invading Afghanistan, we could have saved ourselves money, troops, and set up a strong ally. We could have decreased terrorism, and be seen positively.

I run out of room...
Debate Round No. 1
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

I.
That is not so. Anybody who does any amount of research will understand that warlords city officials and the Taliban have been deeply engrained in Afghani society and culture the first two more so than the ladder.
Also your pointing the finger in the wrong Direction. When the United States invaded we took out the Taliban Government working with multiple warlords and the Northern Alliance.
1.
We are unclear as to weather it was a slight majority or a slight minority. The fact of the situation is that initially the people felt indebted to the Warlords for winning the Jihad against Russia in the 80's. The Taliban split with the traditional Mujahedeen anti-soviet Warlords , and worked for a national force to eliminate the corruption and maliciousness in the country. The Taliban then strengthened as a movement, people allied themselves behind the Taliban and worked to reach their purification goals. Their whole movement gained a lot of support. Once The Taliban established an Emirate government, they then began to turn increasingly oppressive in their interpretation of Islamic law, and their use of religious police to enforce their interpretations. Women were repressed but that just asserted male. And since males fight in the military there, that sort of repression we couldn't have taken advantage of. It's not like we were going to start an all female rebellion. On that note most of the people who were repressed by the Taliban had no real means for revolting, no weapons and no way to sustain themselves if the revolt was successful. Revolting would take them away from their farm lives , and since people there farm to feed themselves and not for profit this would mean hunger.
The People who could revolt were the people with weapons which were invariably allied with someone already. So they had a stake in sticking with the Taliban as long as they were the Dominant Force in the Region. It required an invasion to dethrown the Taliban to convince the Warlords to change alliances. If The united states would not have invaded there would not have been any changing in the situation in Afghanistan.
A.
As stated above a grass-roots rebellion with the regular people of Afghanistan was implausible. They did not have the means or the provisions. And it wasn't a horrible repression either, many Afghans were sad at the oppression but pleased as the elimination of corruption and non-Taliban crime didn't exist, when before it was rampant.
bring in my key argument. We were not going to wait around for a rapid change in events by generated by….pamphlets? Its almost an insult that the situation in Afghanistan can be reduced to a nice fix with …pamphlets. No! Septemeber eleventh 2001 that is what we're dealing with. America was brought down to its knees and it needed to take action on terrorism . The Taliban was harboring terrorist and we knew it and had hard intelligence to back it up. The Taliban wasn't even denying that they had Osama Bin laden they just refused to cough him up. The United States knew for a fact that terrorism brought down the trade centers, and the Professional terrorist organization Al-Quida controlled by Osama Bin Laden specifically planned it. We knew that. But what we did not know were any plans that were going to come there after. We only knew that our buildings were blown up it was Bin Laden's fault , there was a declared Jihad against America and we had no idea what was next. Zarul ,the gravity of the situation did not call for pamphlets , the situation called for quick action, it was war, and we needed to act fast in the face of imminent threat , and imminent hostilities.
C.
The complexity of the situation was this. Local leaders backed warlords. Warlords had their own forces and the majority backed the Taliban. The Taliban had their own forces and controlled a government that they established called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The warlords were not going to rebel against the dominant force that controlled 90% of that country. Just as the United States had to win some victories to convince the French to ally with us, we had to bring down the Taliban before the Warlords would ally with us. And that's what we did. We used our air superiority to attack the Taliban from the Sky. We then relied on the Northern Alliance, a group of warlords that are affiliated with the explicit purpose to fight the Taliban. The Northern Alliance use to be the Government of Aghanistan that the Taliban ousted. After they were ousted the Government split up into warlordships. Without being able to unify for any other purpose they unified militarily to oppose the Taliban. The United States DID use this force in their war to bring down the Taliban. However this was a minority force and relied on our air superiority to gain victories. After they started winning against the Taliban other war lords Left the side of the Taliban and allied behind them.

D
. You think our intent was to go and liberate Afghanistan. The statement of the augment was the United States needed to invade Afghanistan. This isn't Iraq , there was a clear purpose we invaded Afghanistan to protect ourselves. The mystical revolution that you advocate sounds a lot like Karl Marx's wishful optimism in the communist manifesto.

E.
Your alleging that order could come from disarray. let me remind you that logic is to assume that the most probable thing that could happen would most likely happen. The United States could do nothing significant if it limited itself to peaceful means or anything less than force. The people were not in the position and were not contemplating rebellion. The ones who were moved to arms joined if they could the Northern Alliance a long time ago and have been fighting the Taliban at that point for years. The people left behind were too dependant on subsistence farming, and although repressed, the balanced security let them able to live and they were not going to rebel, no matter the propaganda.

G
You make allusions to a central government that does not exist. The Northern Alliance was the government, and were dethrown by the Taliban when the capital fell and the alliance was pushed all the way out to the North. The Only Central Government-like contraption in Afghanistan WAS the Taliban, so your argument there is invalid. We had to take out the Taliban because it was a war ON the government. The Warlords were not going to turn away until we had started accomplishing this feate The Northern Alliance was able to regain control, and then we had them relinquish a lot of authority to a new Central government. Because the fact is all the systems of before weren't working and they weren't going to work if we tried them again. It took a new government with a new structure to work and that's what we did.

H. The people who lost family recognize that the war was incurred upon the land by the Taliban and the connection with Al-Qaedi and Osama Bin Laden.

.
The power of the Afghani government is not mainly from the US. Afghanistan has its own national army. And unlike Iraq these guys are experienced fighters. However before us they did not have the strength to get themselves into a position of power, and even if they had done so they did not have the statesmanship to set up an enduring corruption less government. Also the Opium trade is not in the hands of the warlords its in the hands of the poor. And we look the other way because we are trying to maintain the support that we have established in Afghanistan. The Problem is people do not have any alternative's should we take away their opium trade. They will be disenfranchised and poor and that could lead to them joining an extremist group, or just spreading unhappiness.

UP to this point I had been trying to counter every sentence you wrote but you are very repetitive and then forcing me to be repetitive. So I will end their for now
zarul

Con

I. Refutations

You claim that city officials, warlords, and the Taliban are all entrenched in Afghanistan, which is my point. This has not changed even after invading Afghanistan, there has been no benefit.

You then say I'm pointing the finger in the wrong direction, but actually, in reality, I'm criticizing the very fact that the United States co-operated with the warlords, and continues to do so. The very problems we face, all of this terrorism, cannot be prevented if we do not solve for the root of the problem.
Violence will lead to more violence, it will create a never-ending cycle, and we'll be seeing more 9-11s. What we need is to bring change, not war, to bring education, not guns. Unless you're just saying that Afghanis are inherently stupid or something, in which case you're just a racist.

1. You're quite wrong, the Taliban was the enemy of the Mujahedeen, created in total opposition to their criminal activities(rape, murder, etc.). It's not some falling apart, it's pretty damn hostile. The entire time, I've been saying that this could have been exploited, we could have taken advantage of their hostility, turned them directly against each other, and given power to the people. You say in your argument that men had no problem with the Taliban, I seriously doubt this is true. For one, you are saying that all males in Afghanistan are backwards and oppressive, and then saying that all females in Afghanistan are submissive and weak, in other words, one giant fallacy. Basically, you're insulting Afghanis, while making a logical fallacy. Secondly, if you were to take a more moderate stance (men more supportive than against Taliban, women don't mind it too much, etc.), then you would still only be proving my arguments correct. I am criticizing the whole system of operation, all of our objectives could have been accomplished (and they haven't today) without the use of force. Force is what has messed up Afghanistan (if you do manage to even prove that the people are like this), force from Soviet Russia, force from the US, from Pakistan, from everywhere. Your invasion only entrenches this system that embraces violence and oppression.

You also say that they wouldn't be able to fight the Taliban, but what you don't understand is that the Taliban needs the support of the people to function, and if we remove that support, then it no longer can. It does not have the power of a police state, the enforcers are the people themselves. No one has to leave their farms, no one has to starve, they just have to stop accepting the system. Weapons are irrelevant, this is a revolution, not a war.

A. So you think the Taliban was good? Afghanis were pleased with the Taliban? I'm not giving you that one without proof. And in any case, I argue for the enlightenment of Afghanistan, and an enlightened Afghanistan would certainly realize the Taliban is unnecessary. I have already addressed your provisions argument.

B. Again, pamphelets is metaphorical. I am talking about education, whether it be books, media, or yes, even pamphelets. You argue action based on two things, 9-11, and intelligence. Action based on emotion is foolish, it will lead to failure (as it essentially has). Intelligence, let me just say Iraq. You claim the situation was too serious for a non-invasion solution, but in reality, it was too serious for an invasion. We are talking about our lives, the lives of people around the world, the lives of people to be born. By using force, you entrench a flawed system, you cause more terrorism. Your "key argument" is perhaps the "key flaw" in your plan. I will address your claim that it required quick action later down.

C. This argument is rather pointless, you only argument links to yours. If we use force, if we actually ally with the warlords as you say, then you are doing exactly the thing I criticize. You are entrenching a system of violence, of terrorism. You are entrenching the warlords.

D. My plan solves for all of our objectives in Afghanistan (which force hasn't accomplished), and it has added benefits. This liberation makes the world a safer place.

E. The people would be rebelling if we had done the right things, as I will prove later. But we have entrenched a system, entrenched the corrupt nobles, a corrupt federal government, it's far harder now than it was six years ago.

G. I talk about the government we established, perhaps you should read more carefully.

H. You say the Afghanis wouldn't mind? Proof, because logic demands it. It is nature to blame the supposed source of a problem. (In this case the US gov.)

I. If Afghanistan's army is so great, why are there so many terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. Why do the warlords have more collective power than the central government? Perhaps they're not that good.

Why are the people of Afghanistan still poor, still oppressed? Why is terrorism still on the rise after our invasion? Perhaps it is because your system of violence and force does not work anymore. It does not work in a world where asymetrical warfare waged by guerillas can take down standing armies.

II. The Revolution

From "The Anatomy of Revolution" by Crane Brinton.

Important parts:
- Economic upgrades do not reach the people.
- Government wields autocratic/oppressive power.
- Revolutionary ideas.

Later steps:
- Autocrat uses force to prevent protests.
- Intellectuals transfer loyalty to the people.
- Financial breakdown.
Then:
- Government loses support/control.

1. These are some essential components of a revolution.
The money warlords were making from the opium trade was not reaching the population.
The Taliban was the oppresive government.
Some revolutionary ideas exist in Afghanistan, we would help light the fire.

2. The Taliban, as you say would try and stop it.
The intellectuals would stop any sort of support for the Taliban.
The people would be in rebellion, the opium trade would be disrupted, even greater problems for the Taliban and the warlords.

3. And the government loses control.

4. These are the essential parts of a revolution, Brinton has studied revolutions and noticed patterns common to all of them, and the necessary seeds were present in Afghanistan.

5. All we had to do is be the catalyst.

III. My Plan vs. Yours

1. The cost of your plan is greater than mine.

2. Your plan takes soldiers away from home. It reduces recruitment (people don't want to fight in a war). It puts more stress on our soldiers (are out fighting, or worried about future). In essence, you make our own defenses worse.

3. My plan solves for the inherent problems in Afghanistan, it solves for the the cycle of violence and oppression. In other words, I'm pulling the weed out by the roots. Your cutting it and spreading it's seeds.

4. My plan decreases terrorism globally, it liberates the people of Afghanistan, and does everything that your plan was supposed to do. This will be continued later.

5. You didn't refute anything about the invasion of Afghanistan increasing terrorism worldwide. You don't prove that this invasion is going to solve for the enmity between countries in the east and the US.

6. You didn't refute the impacts of this increased terrorism (more terrorism, etc.)

7. You didn't refute my arguments that force is not the answer.

8. You didn't refute that Afghanistan would be a better ally if we didn't invade, but encouraged an invasion.

9. You didn't give any good reasons why my programs of educating Afghanistan wouldn't solve the issue.

10. Continuing from 4.
We have not yet accomplished our goals in Afghanistan, things are only worse. If we hadn't invaded, the worst thing is that there is less terrorism worldwide, a better prepared military at home, and less hate for us internationally. That's the worst case scenario, and it's far far better than the staus quo of the invasion.
Debate Round No. 2
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

I have length crisis. I wrote a 12 thousand characters response but I am only allowed 8 thousand characters. So I need to focus on certain things.
I am bringing this debate back to the qeustion. Did the US need to invade Afghanistan. And the answer to that is yes. For what was best for the United States of America after the attacks that occurred on September 11th 2001, Afghanistan was a necessary invasion.
Bill Clinton had a CIA team who had Osama Bin laden in their crosshairs, and that team called the white house and requested permission to fire, and Bin Clinton denied their permission. A months later the man who planned the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, Osama was proven to be the force behind the attacks that killed more than three thousand people in the largest structure of the world. We were not going to let a lapse of action kill more American citizens. And because we invaded Afghanistan we have had NONE ZERO ZILCH successful terrorist attacks ON American soil. Terrorist attacks happen in Afghanistan daily, but on American soil they Do Not, and that is the bottom line in regards to how effective we have been fighting terrorism.
We are waging an offensive wars against the self proclaimed enemies of this great nation, to force them to defend themselves, to defend themselves in every single rotten hole they have in that country so that no terrorist over there will have the chance to take a breath, and go on the offensive against us over here. We are having our bravest men who volunteered to protect their families go over there and die in some god forsaken land so that American citizens don't have to do in this great blessed one.
Your plan is week and will not be effective in meeting the security challenges that face's us today in the modern world. Your ideology is perfect if we lived in a Utopian world, but this is not a Utopia. And in fact if it were a Utopia there wouldn't be oppression in the first place, therefore your ideology doesn't fit anywhere. In this world force meets force, and if you fail to meet force with force you will end up in the ground, and that has been fire tested in every single war in the world.
And you have not refuted what I argue is the unwillingness of the people to revolt. You ideology follows the line of Karl Marx in his communist Manifesto it is just way too much wishful thinking.
Terrorist attacks that happen in Afghanistan are done by people who staunchly support the Taliban. People everything, EVERYTHING, their very existence to advance even by some minute degree the cause of Islamic fundamentalism. The cause that in 1994 people rallied behind, and are still rallying behind.
Terrorism attacks are on the rise for the same reason as people were not going to oppose the Taliban. There are those loyal to the Islamic cause we all know that religion is the greatest motivator for warfare.
The people in Afghanistan had no means to revolt, the ones who did were already fighting for the warlords. And if the people who fought for the warlords were the ones who could revolt, there would be no revolt against the Taliban because their direct allegiance was to the warlords. Therefore it was up to the people who commanded the people who fought for the warlords, a.k.a. the warlords themselves to revolt against the Taliban. And as long as the Taliban were the dominant force in Afghanistan the warlords WERE NOT going to revolt. The United States to save American lives that would have died had we pursed your wishful thinking tactics, had to dethrone the Taliban in order to allow the Warlords to begin to revolt because they were the people who could revolt. And history shows, they did.
The problem is that for people to revolt for something better they have to have a tangible idea of what that something better is whether they experience it or not, they have to know what it is. The people of Afghanistan have suffered a horrible war against the Russians from the 70's to the 80's. Following that they went through a period of weak federal government, that was enormously corrupt. Following that they went through a civil war. Then the Taliban came and ended all of that and substitute it for strict enforcement of the already dominant culture. That is why I say and it a fact that support fore the Taliban has always been a split issue many supporting it many not, but that has only gotten to the surface now that we kicked the Taliban out of power, and it was good that we kicked them because the United States was looking out for the United States.
And you say that the cost of my plan is greater than yours. Fine for something as stupid as the economic cost your right the cost is greater. But I measure success on something that is much more important, the cost of AMERICAN LIVES, and in that my friend the cost of my plan, which is a plan of action , of action in the hands of the American people, my plan is far more less costly.
You say that my plan takes soldiers away from home and reduces recruitment because people don't want to fight wars. Your right that it reduces the amount of people in the armed forces who think the military is there to give them a free ride in life and fun travels around the world. However it increased the percentage of people who join the military because they have a committement to protect me, they have the balls to go wherever they need to go, to hell and back to make sure that I can go to school tomorrow and not have to worry that I am going to be blown by some suicide bomber. And in that case I cannot lament the fact that the army is composed of more soldiers who are ready to give there lives for me than before, that's definitely a plus.
Your plans could do a lot. Your plans is all about possibly doing a lot. My plan is about getting the job of securing America done, that is what I care about that is what this debate about.
You think that my plan won't solve the enmity between countries in the east and the US. Frankly the security of the United States comes first and that again is the purpose of this debate. And when you say that good relations means a safer America I agree. And to be fair only 3 countries in the world every recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Pakistan, The United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. And when they saw that the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda which just blew up more than three thousand Americans lives all three withdrew support. Those countries had respect for us maybe not as much now because of Iraq, but at that point they understood. http://www.cbc.ca...
Whether Afghanistan would be a better ally now or before is not the case of this debate. The case was if we needed to invade. The answer is yes, that is something that even Pakistan , Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates understood. The bottom line is that Afghanistan couldn't have been an ally at all if we didn't invade. Al-Qaeda and groups similar declared a holy war on the US. The Taliban supported the Al-Qaeda.
Its not that educating Afghanistan can't solve some issues. The point is that in 2001 supporting Education couldn't stop another 9-11 from happening within the coming months.
Things are better in Afghanistan. Democracy is beginning to do its work. Many of the ex warlords are now turning to the democracy to fix the problems and that has been working. Afghanistan has served as a unifying center for countries around the world. One of the few instances were the UN voted to enact offensive combat operations, the other notable one being Korea. NATO has sent troops, Countries that aren't in NATO have sent troops. We have German commanders, Italian commanders, French Commanders, Canadian commanders. We've had troops from all around the world come to Afghanistan to work together to get the job done. And at the end of the day strong allies is what will win World War Three. America Is more secure.
zarul

Con

First, I kindly ask all voters to actually read my arguments, yes they're long, but if we all vote on opinions, then what's the point of this site?

I. Refutation (of AFF)

1. Yes, on 9-11, American lives were lost, yet, the action you propose was unnecesary.

A. Before 9-11, we American's possessed the mindset that we were untouchable, and 9-11 destroyed that. It made us more aware of the world around us.

B. Simply the fact that we were more aware as a people that this could happen, I would say the chances of a another attack happening would be reduced by 90%.

C. Add to this the increased air plane security, more border security (arguably not enough, but no terrorists in 9-11 or otherwise snuck across the border), and increased intelligence efforts in preventing attacks, we were essentially protected from any terrorist attacks.

D. Invading Afghanistan has decreased our image in Afghanistan, and has lead to increases in worldwide terrorism (which you didn't refute in my first round). This, combined with the fact that we have less troops at home, makes a terrorist attack more and more likely everyday we stay in Afghanistan.

2. I did, I gave you the essential components of a revolution, from a book by an expert. You are yet to source anything in this debate. I clearly demonstrated in round 2 that all the essential components of a revolution were in Afghanistan, we simply needed to light the fire. Also, you bringing up Marx is simply an attempt to gain support by comparing me to communists, you criticize me for using "wishful thinking". Your hypocrisy is blatant here, you claim that invading Afghanistan will not make people hate us, that we'll be able to get terrorists (where's Laden?, that's far more wishful.

3. You claim terrorist attacks happen for the Taliban, do you have any sources? It's just as possible that they do it to "liberate" themselves from a foreign occupier (which you can't bullshit around, we are foreign to Afghanistan, and we are occupying).

4. Tell me, what did the French have during the French Revolution? They had knives, forks, and lots of bodies. They defeated a much powerful force than they, because the upper class needed their support to dominate them. As I showed, all the essential ingredients of a revolution were in Afghanistan, or could have easily and cheaply been provided. The warlords and Taliban need the people's submission to dominate, without it, they are powerless. Your bullshit on the warlords and Taliban doesn't apply.

5. You don't give evidence for your claims. The Taliban was not the single most dominant force in Afghanistan, power was spread between them and the warlords. Because of this, we could have played the different warlords and Talbian to weaken them all and bring change.

6. If we had brought education and new ideas to the people of Afghanistan, there would have been less support for the Taliban, and the people would have a tangible idea of how to make a better government.

7. You say cost isn't important? You realize it isn't a coincidence that the French Revolution occurred at a time when the cost of bread was high? The British taxing the colonists had nothing to do with the American War for Independence? Cost is always a huge factor, often the greatest. My alternative brings more tangible benefits at a cheaper cost, that's why it's so much better than invading Afghanistan.

8. My plan saves more American lives in the long and short run, so it's clearly better, I'll resummarize previous arguments later.

9. You admit that the war reduces the size of the military and its efficiency, thanks! Wars don't increase the amount of "brave" people fighting, those brave people are already in the military.

10. My plan "does do a lot", and unlike yours, it doesn't hurt us in the long run.

11. By 2003, there were over 3000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan (and there's a lot of under-reporting seeing as more would make us look even worse). It's been four more years, and the death count certainly hasn't gotten smaller. You say it's worth it, but what you're doing is putting a value on a human life, and saying that an American one is worth more than an Afghani's. You're dehumanizing Afghanis, and I implore voters to vote for me, at the very least to give a symbolic victory over the quest for vengeance that people like my opponent advocate. He willingly admits that the war has killed many Afghanis and increased worldwide terror, but he's ok since not too many Americans have died (though perhaps I should remind him about our serving soldiers).

12. Your article doesn't show that the enmity between the people of those countries and the US has decreased. None of those countries are democracies, none of them represent the voice of the people. The leaders recognize it is in their best interests to go along with the US, but that doesn't mean the people don't hate us more than they did before the invasion. You have brought nothing up to disprove this, while you openly admit terrorism has increased (showing increased hatred).

13. Educating Afghanistan could prevent ten 9-11s from happening in the next decade though, which is arguably very important.

14. America is not safer, as I have already proven, and will restate later.

II. My Final Case

1. All the essential ingredients for a Revolution were in Afghanistan prior to the invasion (round 2, sourced), or could have easily been provided (round 1). Problems, such as the power of the Taliban or warlords could have easily been taken care of (round 1).

A. We could have helped start a Revolution, bringing a more prosperous and stable Afghanistan. It could have been a constant ally in the region, and would have helped prevent terrorism (instead of being its breeding ground).

Refer to round 1 for more on point A.

2. Not invading would keep us safer.

A. We would have more troops at home, more troops in general, and all our soldiers would be less fatigued, helping prevent an attack.

B. We would have much more money, my alternative is far cheaper than war.

C. Our increased awareness and effort in intelligence could easily prevent another attack.

D. The war has caused much enmity between the US and the East (especially Muslims).

E. War and conflict is the breeding ground for terrorism, and Afghanistan is a breeding ground now especially. Terrorism begets terrorism. My opponent has never refuted this, in three rounds.

Round 1 for more on E.

F. There is more terrorism now than before Afghanistan, opponent has admitted this.

G. Increased hate and terrorism begets more terrorism, makes us less safe.

Round 1 for more on G.

H. These are byproducts of the war, making us much less safe in the long run.

3. Failed Rev. better than status-quo

A. A failed revolution would leave us with a people still yearning for freedom, and another rev. could be started.

B. The world would not hate us as much, and there would be less worldwide terrorist attacks. These attacks cause instability, and make us less and less safe everyday. Terrorism is a vicious cycle.

Round 1 for more.

C. We would have more $ and troops at home for defense.

D. Extra $ could be used for humanitarian & educational purposes, bettering our image, decreasing hate. See round 1

E. The invasion is a temporary solution to a long term problem. My plan, even if failed, will increase education and relations, and make us safer, as well as solve the problems caused by a system of violence in the Middle East.

I finally ask that everyone read before they vote. I have defended an unpopular position, but I feel I did so well. Both my opponent and I have put some time into this debate, don't do either of us a dis-service by voting based on your personal opinions, and not the quality of the debate.

Good debate Leonitus, and thanks to all the people that care to read this debate!
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
LOL, that was such a good saying I wanted to let you have the last word but ....

They think about the consequences of thier actions. The American consequence, not so much the Afghani consequence unless it would compromise American security in way we couldn't respond to.

Im pretty sure General Patton wasn't so concerned about damaging the German landscape when he was trying to win the European WWII with his Armored Division.

And I hope Bush was more concerned on how to stop another 9/11 on American soil within the coming months, than how to teach some afghani half way around the world how to read, in the hopes that through education one day he could figure out what was right.

In war time the White House should think about the consequences of their actions, the Consequence that it would have on US, not the enemy. We're going to have a hard time winning a war where we place the enemy's priorities ahead of ours. Thats just a charity event.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Well, if the people sitting in the White House don't think about the consequences of their actions, then they are even shittier at running a country than I first thought.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
But sitting in the White House trying to Determine what is best for your own country with a defensive wartime mentality doesn't have too much space for how it will adversely affect the country who you plan to declare war on.

I accept that it comprises a small portion of the thought process, but I think you over emphasized that portion.
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
One must look at the effects of an action to determine whether it is the best action, I though this was common sense.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
well than you bsergent for your lovely words. Unfortunately we all can't feal emotionaly detached when a person does something good for us, or when a country never stops to give us endless possibilities for our future and the future of our families.
I believe I stuck to the question more, and was more focused on should the United States have invaded, and zarul was more focused on the side-effects of invasion. I would have focused on that to but the word constraints made me pick and choose.
I think it was a good debate.

And on a final note, nationalism is a great force and it serves many countries well, and yes it does do a lot of harm. But I would rather vote for a strong nationalist than an anarchist any day. Im pretty sure I wont ever see an anarchist in Public office, thats sort-of an oxy-moron.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Clearly people are once again treating this as a survey, no rational mind could consider Leonitus_Trujillo's conflicted emotional rhetorical drivel an honest argument.

It's a veritable examples list of fallacious logic and appeals to emotion and authority.

Rest assured zarul, you have the ethical and logical high ground. You presented your case with clarity and conviction. Do not feel too bad if you lose this debate, it is not for this generation to judge the validity of either side. History will judge who was visionary and who was sycophant.

Evolution will take care of this problem for us. We are a young nation yet, and in time we will shake off these parasitic deceptionists and preening yes-men as surly as a child defeats the chicken pox.

As I cannot say it better I'll again steal the words of a greater mind. for those of you who missed it the last time or fail to see it importance and relevance.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
The idea that we "had" to invade Afghanistan because it was "harboring" terrorists is ludicrous when you consider the fact that so many other countries were also harboring terrorists - yet none of them were on the short list of nations to be invaded and occupied after 9/11.

Fifteen of the ninteen hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis - and yet our government continues to maintain a cozy relationship with the Saudi autocracy (even as Wahabbi fundamentalists continue to proliferate and the Saudi government continues to buy them off to keep their aggressions focused on the west and not neocolonial proxies like the Saudi government.).
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
"Osama was proven to be the force behind the attacks that killed more than three thousand people in the largest structure of the world."

Heh, Bravo Sierra, Over. Proven by what stretch of the imagination?

Fox news says so I suppose. This is disgusting. Our era truly will go down in history, and the footnotes will not be flattering.

"and Bin Clinton denied their permission."

Which administration but bin laden's family safely in the air while the FAA grounded literally every other flight?

Do you really see this as clear cut as republicans good democrats bad?

"Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein

"One of the great attractions of patriotism–it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat, Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous." – Aldous Huxley

"Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority." – Arthur Schopenhauer
Posted by Toored 9 years ago
Toored
Ah, great topic! With so much attention being placed on the disaster in Iraq, Afghanistan has become the forgotten war.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Required reading for any debater.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Fallacies and spelling issues to be noted here after.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"first two more so than the ladder. "
‘latter'
"Your alleging that order could come from disarray."
‘you're'
"We are unclear as to weather"
‘whether'
"It required an invasion to dethrown the Taliban to convince the Warlords to change alliances."
‘dethrone'
"until we had started accomplishing this feate"
‘feat'
"So I will end their for now"
‘there'
"Taliban and the connection with Al-Qaedi and Osama Bin Laden."
'Al-qaeda'

Appeal to Ignorance.
"Anybody who does any amount of research will understand that warlords city officials and the Taliban have been deeply engrained in Afghani society and culture the first two more so than the ladder."

Black and white fallacy or the false dilemma.
"Septemeber eleventh 2001 that is what we're dealing with. America was brought down to its knees and it needed to take action on terrorism ."
"Zarul ,the gravity of the situation did not call for pamphlets , the situation called for quick action, it was war, and we needed to act fast in the face of imminent threat , and imminent hostilities."
"The United States could do nothing significant if it limited itself to peaceful means or anything less than force."

Straw man.
"The mystical revolution that you advocate sounds a lot like Karl Marx's wishful optimism in the communist manifesto."

Wishful thinking fallacy.
"The people who lost family recognize that the war was incurred upon the land by the Taliban and the connection with Al-Qaedi and Osama Bin Laden."
"The Problem is people do not have any alternative's should we take away their opium trade."
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 3 months ago
Mharman
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 UberCryxic 9 years ago
UberCryxic
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
Leonitus_TrujillozarulTied
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