The Instigator
bluebeans
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The United States foreign policy is an extremely atrocious policy.

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: 7/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,211 times Debate No: 4715
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

bluebeans

Pro

The U.S. foreign policy is a policy that has resulted in the deliberate systematic murder of millions. I will argue this case to anyone who challenged me.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"

Extreme: 1. Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field.
2. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain.
3. Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See synonyms at excessive.
4. Of the greatest severity; drastic: took extreme measures to conserve fuel.
5. Biology.
1. Characterized by severe, usually oxygen-poor environmental conditions.
2. Having an affinity for such conditions: an extreme microorganism.
6. Sports.
1. Very dangerous or difficult: extreme rafting.
2. Participating or tending to participate in a very dangerous or difficult sport: an extreme skier.
7. Archaic. Final; last."

Source: http://www.answers.com...

All of the relevant definitions of here (the third) imply that it must be the MOST atrocious, the HIGHEST in atrocity, with the exception of the third, which still means it must be far beyond the norm. However, bad foreign policies, indeed often worse than the United States, are the norm. Most countries' foreign policies' consist either of complete unconcern with the rights of foreigners, unconcern with the rights of its own citizens (by bending over and accepting whatever the other countries tell them), or both.

"
The U.S. foreign policy is a policy that has resulted in the deliberate systematic murder of millions"
First, this would not establish it is an extreme, i.e. beyond the norm. Most foreign policies have resulted, through negligience or commission, in mass death. Second, you have not proven that such killing is in the US case deliberate, or systematic (or that having a "system" for it is the problem for that matter), or murder (Killing is only murder if it is not in self-defense or defense of an innocent ally. Very few if any of the deaths the United States has caused through its foreign policy qualify as such, indeed, if anything, the problem with US foreign policy is that it is too timid, and thus allows other countries to kill innocent US citizens. )

I await your many-layered proof of specific murders caused by United States Foreign Policy, proof that such are deliberate, and proof that such fit any of the relevant definitions of "Extreme."
Debate Round No. 1
bluebeans

Pro

The U.S. foreign policy is obviously the most extremely atrocious foreign policy in the modern day.

The United States holds the credit for being the only country in the world, convicted of participating in international terrorism (against the Republic opf Nicaragua), when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1986. The United States, in the last five years alone, killed more than 1 million Iraqis (Iraq War). The United States was mainly responsibly for the (more than) 15,000 deaths of Afghans in the last 7 years.

My argument, which I still follow is: The US foreign policy is an extremely atrocious policy. What does that mean?

Analyzing data shows that the US has committed more serious violatons of international law (war of aggression, which is the "supreme international crime" according to the Nuremberg Principles) than any other nation in the modern world. So, yes - the US foreign policy exhibits characteristics of a violent, atrocious, state.

The United States supported Indonesia throughout its campaign to wipe out the population of East Timor. The U.S. continues to give mass arms supply (as Clinton did in 1999), to the government of Turkey. What does Turkey do with those arms? Well, as part of its "counterror campaign" it kills thousands (a conservative estimate by Amnesty International) Kurds.

The U.S. foreign policy has helped impose sanctions on Cuba, (previously Iraq), and now Iran. All three of these sanctions are grave violations of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907. The US knew all of this, but they understand killing must be done to gain domination of the world.

The Bush doctrine released in 2002 (National Security Strategy of 2002), for the first time explained the US foreign policy in clearer terms. The Bush doctrine gave the US the right to wipe out any "rogue state." Well, what is a "rogue state"?

According to the Bush doctrine a "rogue state" is any state which has the potential to threaten us. Since ANY country CAN threaten us (in the future), the U.S. can attack any country which threatens US hegemony.

Most governments in the modern world have killed parts of their own population. However, the U.S. is the ONLY country to commit such massive acts of aggression (the "supreme international crime" according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson who represented the U.S. during the Nuremberg Tribunals), give enormous arms supply to countries which commit genocide while establishing their own dominance.

I could go through more cases, but for the readers' brevity, I have been brief in mentioned the violations of minimal ethical standards that the US had committed.

I do understand that the stance I take is largely unconventional but we must expose the lies of the establishment and speak for the truth.

Thank You.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
The United States holds the credit for being the only country in the world, convicted of participating in international terrorism (against the Republic opf Nicaragua), when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1986."

A uniqueness of conviction does not mean a unique problem. Saudi Arabia and Iran are well known for funding terrorism too. Also, nothing about that conviction included "terrorism." The conviction was for "Violation of sovereignty," a silly ground, because the NICARAGUA GOVERNMENT HAD NO RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY! Nations lose any claim to sovereignty when they do not recognize their own citizens as human beings. The Nicaraguans were well known for imprisoning people solely for political views, engaging in torture of said people, religious persecution, seizure of property (they officially allowed private property, except in the cases of their political opponents, but nevertheless seized it.
The US did indeed fund war against Nicaragua, but Nicaragua had given up all right to complain.

Analyzing data shows that the US has committed more serious violatons of international law (war of aggression, which is the "supreme international crime" according to the Nuremberg Principles) than any other nation in the modern world. First, which data? Second, "War of aggression" is undefined. Do you mean war of aggression as in we weren't directly attacked first? Then sure, there's plenty of that. Or war of aggression as in declaring war on parties not guilty of something deserving it? Then false, EVERY COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THIS PLANET violates the rights of it's citizens. As such, they all deserve war declared against them by whoever violates the rights of it's citizens least often. That would be the United States, as there is no nation freer, though I wish there were, and if there were it too would be justified in war with us if it so chose. This does not mean there is an obligation to create such war, but there is a right. The Nuremberg principles are incoherent when one takes into account the wars of aggression being waged by every government domestically against their citizens (specifically wars of plunder, known as taxes, whether direct or otherwise). Ultimately every war the United States engaged in is not aggressive, but defense of a third party.

And even assuming such international laws were coherent, guess what? Us violating the most doesn't say anything about our POLICY. It says something about our POWER, that we are able to commit the most. But measure it against the ability, and you'll find many nations with many more crimes they do commit per the number they are able to. The proportion we have the ability for is simply higher is all.

"
The United States supported Indonesia throughout its campaign to wipe out the population of East Timor."
And most of the countries on this planet are, officially or otherwise, supporting China, and thereby indirectly supporting the campaign of Sudan to wipe out the population of Darfur.
Need I remind you that the population of East Timor was known for electing pro-Soviet governments, and therefore supporting the Soviets in their campaigns to wipe out the population of whichever spot they were trying to destroy at the moment (be it chechnya or ukriane or....)? What comes around goes around, is not a mark of "extreme" atrocity. And I GUARANTEE that were the power situations reversed, East Timor would have attempted to wipe out the population of not only Indonesia, but also the United States. That is what it's majority votes for FREITLIN as recent as 2001 mean.

"The U.S. continues to give mass arms supply (as Clinton did in 1999), to the government of Turkey. What does Turkey do with those arms? Well, as part of its "counterror campaign" it kills thousands (a conservative estimate by Amnesty International) Kurds."

And Europe wants to invite Turkey into the European Union. No mark of "Extreme" atrocity there.

"
The U.S. foreign policy has helped impose sanctions on Cuba, (previously Iraq), and now Iran. All three of these sanctions are grave violations of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907."

And you really think any of those three countries recognize those articles.Do you know you are contradicting yourself? First you state it's wrong to support genocide, now you say it's wrong not to (in the case of Iraq). Or is supplying the governments that go about genocide (or in the case of Cuba, Communism, which is a program for killing a general rather than a specific group of people, or in Iran, theocracy for killing any non-Muslims and any Muslims who aren't pious enough).

Not to mention, such sanctions DON'T REALLY VIOLATE THE ARTICLES. Do you know why? When you give supplies to a country that has governments like these, the GOVERNMENT seizes them all. Only the government benefits, and since the government is the guilty party, only the government is being punished by withdrawing these. That and anyone who decides to rely on the government, and thereby supports it, and is therefore guilty. Each of those articles only forbid punishment of innocents, not punishment of the guilty.

"
The Bush doctrine released in 2002 (National Security Strategy of 2002), for the first time explained the US foreign policy in clearer terms. The Bush doctrine gave the US the right to wipe out any "rogue state." Well, what is a "rogue state"?

According to the Bush doctrine a "rogue state" is any state which has the potential to threaten us. Since ANY country CAN threaten us (in the future), the U.S. can attack any country which threatens US hegemony.
"
And which other country would not make the same provision if they have the power? Not a mark of "extreme" then, in our policy. A mark of extreme power, but the implicit policy is the same.

"
Most governments in the modern world have killed parts of their own population. However, the U.S. is the ONLY country to commit such massive acts of aggression (the "supreme international crime" according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson who represented the U.S. during the Nuremberg Tribunals), give enormous arms supply to countries which commit genocide while establishing their own dominance."
This is a debate over the extreme nature of POLICY. It is not our policy which makes us unique here, it is our power. When we weren't unique in our power, the Soviets could be observed doing even worse things. More countries are closer to the Soviet model than the US model in terms of policy, therefore, if anything, we are at the extreme end of non-atrocity (sad thing to think of the world, but true :D).

Keep to the resolution. Prove something uniquely or abnormally atrocious about our POLICY, not our power. This means, prove something we would be unique or abnormal in even if every country had the same power as us.
Debate Round No. 2
bluebeans

Pro

bluebeans forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

That's not much of a response... unless you are a foreigner, and the foreign policy of the United States prevented you from posting an argument for that round? In which case you have my condolences, I advise going to China... oh wait China probably doesn't allow sites like this.... :(
Debate Round No. 3
bluebeans

Pro

bluebeans forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Read above, read above, my points have not been bloody well addressed, and so there is not a whole lot for me to do.
Debate Round No. 4
bluebeans

Pro

bluebeans forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Well now, who do YOU think won? And why the bloody blinking heck does this need 100 characters? My opponent didn't type 100 characters :P.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
I HATE FORFEITS!!! Also I agree why does it need to be 100 characters? If someone is dumb enough to not make a long enough arguement their loss. I hate dumb restrictions.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
This could have been a great debate, to bad.
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Nicely done, Ragnar. A shame about the forfeits.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
A MARKET research firm did your body count? Not spectacular.

And the rest of your comment is just repeating yourself without bothering to pay attention to where in the round I addressed it. Why comment when it's your turn to argue anyway? It's not as though you're out of space :P
Posted by bluebeans 9 years ago
bluebeans
About the 1 million figure- thats from Opinion Research Business, a prominent British firm.

According to the Nuremberg Principles, a war of aggression is a "supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes, in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

All the violence resulting from the U.S. Occupation of Iraq (sectarian violence, etc.) are the fault of the occupiers, primarily.

Thank You
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
By the way, about the 1 million figure...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org...

That's from total documented violence, not just United States :D
Posted by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
No argument here.

25 Characters
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
bluebeansRagnar_RahlTied
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 philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
bluebeansRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
bluebeansRagnar_RahlTied
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 Xera 9 years ago
Xera
bluebeansRagnar_RahlTied
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 Puck 9 years ago
Puck
bluebeansRagnar_RahlTied
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 Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
bluebeansRagnar_RahlTied
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