The Instigator
boredinclass
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
HandsofManos
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The united states federal government should end the war in afghanistan.

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...
boredinclass
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,908 times Debate No: 15908
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

boredinclass

Pro

First round is for acceptance.

War in afghanistan- The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001,[28] as the US Armed Forces launched Operation Enduring Freedom. This includes counter-insurgency forces and war on drig efforts in the region
http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)

I invite anyone to join in this debate
HandsofManos

Con

Hey, this is great. This is my first time on here so I'm really excited and looking forward to this debate.

A bit of background qualification. I served as an infantryman in the Ohio Army National Guard for more than seven years. I spent thirty days in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit conducting search and rescue missions. I also spent almost all of 2008, in Iraq.
Debate Round No. 1
boredinclass

Pro

TIME TO GO HOME!!

OBSERVATION ONE: WELCOME TO THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
Rising DEATH TOLLS, CRIMINAL PRACTICES of occupation that has SHATTERED the lives of TENS of THOUSANDS with REPEATED TOURS all to support the interests of a TINY few financial elites are IGNORED by the administration that rode the wave of anti-war sentiment and promised CHANGE

A GENIUNE struggle to end WAR DEMANDS immediate WITHDRAWL of U.S. Troops
http://axisoflogic.com...
Such numbers, however, do have an immense significance and demand serious reflection tens of thousands US troops who have seen their lives shattered by horrendous physical wounds as well as the immense psychological toll of repeated tours of duty fighting a hostile population as part of an army of occupation.
when soldiers are sent to kill and die in a war based upon lies, a war whose human costs are covered up by the government and a servile media and a war that is waged to suppress popular resistance to foreign occupation, this psychological toll is sharply intensified.
The Obama administration’s claims—echoing the lies of Bush and Cheney—that US is fighting in Afghanistan to prevent another terrorist attack on US soil have been discredited by the military commanders themselves, i. It involves criminal practices US soldiers are dying to prop up the venal puppet regimewhich represents a group of brutal warlords and heroin traffickers on the CIA payroll, Far from securing the country, the increased US military presence has only led to a steady escalation of violence and death.
unarmed civilians, the majority of them women and children, killed by US-led occupation forces in night raids, bombings, checkpoint shootings and drive-by killings by US convoys also doubledThe level of bloodletting is set to escalate sharply,
The broad popular hostility in the US to this war, continued under Obama, has not disappeared. But it can find no expression whatsoever within the two big business parties
or in the mass media, which largely echoes the official line that the US is fighting a “good war” in Afghanistan.
must demand the immediate withdrawal of all US troops


OBSERVATION TWO: THE HARMS
U.S. Military Presence in Afghanistan has caused severe damage. We will isolate a few independent scenarios.

SCENARIO ONE: THE ECONOMY
U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE WILL COLLAPSE THE U.S. ECONOMY
http://www.eurasiareview.com...
the immense magnitude of the present-day military complex certainly complicates all efforts to effect a recovery, by draining more than $1 trillion a year from the economy’s potential to produce private consumer and producer goods. The current long-running wars and military occupations in Afghanistan, which will probably never end, , only add to the economic drain on U.S. resources


THE MONEY SPENT ON THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS WASTEFUL


SWANSON
former coordinator for ACORN 2k10
http://www.commondreams.org...; May.
more troops will mean ongoing higher costs to maintain the Afghan occupation, construct new bases there, fuel the machines of war, and provide the weaponry. Looking just at the militarythis is $33 billion to be added to a pile of waste. According to the CBO, Congress has already approved $345 billion for war in Afghanistan,
that same money
The fact is that military spending is destroying the U.S. economy*Investing public dollars in the military produces fewer jobs
.
*Investing public dollars in any of these areas: healthcare, education, mass transit, construction for home weatherization and infrastructural repair has a larger direct and indirect economic impact than investing in the military


NEW TROOP DEPLOYMENT TRADES OFF WITH DOMESTIC PRIORITIES DEVOURING OUR ABILITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY

KANE
member of the International Security Program 2k9
http://www.washingtonpost.com...)
the new troop deployment would crowd out funding for domestic priorities
the troop buildup and cost of the military efforts "could devour our ability to pay for the actions necessary to rebuild our own economy. We simply cannot afford to shortchange the crucial investments we need in education, job training, healthcare, and energy independence. The biggest threat to our long-term national security is a stunted economy

SCENARIO TWO: AFGHANISTAN INSTABILITY
U.S. PRESENCES HAS FUELED THE ETHNIC DIVIDE WITHIN THE REGION
The Pashtuns, Afghanistan’s LARGEST and HISTORICALLY dominant ethnic group DESPISE foreign occupation and have INTENSIFIED opposition to U.S. Troop Presence. The Tajik ethnic minority has taken advantage of that presence to fight back their historic Pashtun rivals.
THE U.S. HAS BACKED ITSELF INTO A CORNER FOR WHICH THERE IS NO GRACEFUL ESCAPE.
HARRISON
2k9
Selig -; THE NATION,10/21; http://www.thenation.com...
t the Pashtuns, Afghanistan's largest and historically dominant ethnic group, will unite to fight a foreign occupation force simply because it is foreign. As Howard Hart, a, "The very presence of our forces in the Pashtun areas is the problem. The more troops we put in, the greater the opposition." The tenacity of the Taliban insurgency is rooted in opposition to an occupation that is, in this case, a particularly distasteful one to the Pashtuns. The US infidel is hated for Persian Gulf and Middle East policies--especially unconditional US support for Israel--that are perceived as anti-Muslim.

There have been too many innocent civilian causalities in Afghanistan due to unreliable US troops and airstrikes
Smith, Sep. ’09 http://www.hrc.org...)
civilian casualties rose 40% in 2008 according to a UN report. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, the US military has admitted errors, but drone attacks continue. Thousands of non-combatant Afghanis have been killed, ]“As the conflict has intensified, it is taking an increasingly heavy toll on civilians.”

An increase of US troops in Afghanistan has contributed to the unstable conditions of violence against women, in addition to an increase in sex trafficking, prostitution, and rape
Smith, Sep. ’09
(http://www.hrc.org...)
“Self-immolation, rape and abduction of women and children has no parallel in the history of Afghani
Afghanistan”¦the US government has no and will not have any genuine concern for the condition of freedom, democracy and women’s rights in Afghanistan
The US Army has reported the highest level of suicides and mental health issues of US troops as a result of the countless troops fighting an endless war in Afghanistan
Smith, Sep. ’09 (”,http://www.hrc.org...)
In 2009, the US Army reported the highest level of suicides among,. When soldiers are finally released from the military, care is often woefully inadequate to address both physical and mental health needs. The troops who refuse to fight the war in Afghanistan are at the forefront of ranks swelled with discontented men and women who see no real justification for endless war and occupations.
There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan. The occupation is immoral and unjust. It does not make the American people any safer. It has the opposite effect.” “US Army Spc Victor Agosto who refused to deploy to Afghanistan in May 2009
Having troops in Afghanistan reinforces the war, approving torturing methods US soldiers implement on innocent civilians of Afghanistan
Smith, Sep. ’09”,http://www.hrc.org...)
The use of torture methods by US forces in Afghanistan “all clearly outlawed” has been well documented.
the mistreatment of prisoners was routine: shackling them to the ceilings of their cells, depriving them of sleep, kicking and hitting them, sexually humiliating them and threatening them with guard dogs
HandsofManos

Con

First I would like to address pro's description of of the "tens of thousands of us troops who have seen their lives shattered by horrendous physical wounds as well as the immense psychological toll of repeated tours of duty..."

I would ask the voters to pay special attention to the numerous times pro states the tragedies faced by the troops and their loved ones.

Pro linked a source siting more than 1,000 dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This will sound callous, because it is, but 1,000 dead soldiers in a war that has lasted nearly ten years, is a numerical success, not a failure. In Vietnam, a war that lasted nearly twenty years, more than 56,000 U.S. troops were killed. The invasion of Normandy in WWII cost America more than 2,000 lives. That is more than twice the number of American dead in a single battle, versus a ten year long war.

Now I'm not trying to lessen the sacrifice of those who have died fighting. I feel their pain, I really do. However to use the number of American dead as a point of failure is absurd. Soldiers fight. Soldiers die. Its what we do.

Next Pro states that the anti-war movement has not disappeared. while this is technically correct, there are still many of us out there opposed to it, there are almost no national rallies and what few there are, have meager attendance.

I do agree with Pro that continuing this large scale war and massive spending on the military has a horrendous impact on our economy. I would also agree that a large reduction in forces would be in our nations best interest. However, Pro stated in the challenge that he included special operations removal as well. This is where I disagree.

to quote Robert A. Heinlein:

"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing... but controlled and purposeful violence."

An invasionary force is not necessary in Afghanistan, however a well funded and equipped Special operations and intelligence group, given license to fight a war without constantly asking permission to fire on the enemy, would successfully end the fighting in less than a year.

I realize that that my time line may seem optimistic, but if there is one thing that American soldiers, especially our special operations groups, are good at, its war fighting. You may ask, why then are we still there? why have we not "won?" The answer is that the war has become political.

War is not pretty. It is ugly, violent, and harsh. People die. Soldiers face the brunt of the casualties, but it is impossible to conduct a war that in which no civilians, no innocent, no children are killed. That fact is why politicians, and the American people that they answer to, must not declare war without long and careful consideration. however, once war is declared, all strategic and tactical decisions must be handed over to the military.
Debate Round No. 2
boredinclass

Pro

>>>Pro linked a source siting more than 1,000 dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This will sound callous, because it is, but 1,000 dead soldiers in a war that has lasted nearly ten years, is a numerical success
- it is extremely callous. anybody dying is bad, especially, when it is also innocent civilians. plus extend smith 09 this war is dehumanizing civilians women and the SOLDIERS. end the attrocities

>>> there are still many of us out there opposed to it, there are almost no national rallies and what few there are, have meager attendance.
- well, nonactivisism does not show no support. (triple negative)

>>>I do agree with Pro that continuing this large scale war and massive spending on the military has a horrendous impact on our economy. I would also agree that a large reduction in forces would be in our nations best interest. However, Pro stated in the challenge that he included special operations removal as well.
-- since he agrees, hen why debate?

>>>An invasionary force is not necessary in Afghanistan, however a well funded and equipped Special operations and intelligence group, given license to fight a war without constantly asking permission to fire on the enemy, would successfully end the fighting in less than a year
-he cites no one to say that special operations are good

>>War is not pretty. It is ugly, violent, and harsh. People die. Soldiers face the brunt of the casualties, but it is impossible to conduct a war that in which no civilians, no innocent, no children are killed. That fact is why politicians, and the American people that they answer to, must not declare war without long and careful consideration. however, once war is declared, all strategic and tactical decisions must be handed over to the military
-exactly, if war is ugly, why continue it? he gives no reason why, therefore you must vote pro

also, special operations drain 275 billion extend that this money could have been spent on domestic priorities.
http://gc.nautilus.org...

Vote pro, he never answers my instability advantage
HandsofManos

Con

I actually had stated quite plainly that any loss of life is bad. I was making the point that Pro cannot use the number of dead American soldiers as a measure of failure. Every soldier is willing to give his life, if he isn't, then quite frankly they shouldn't be in the military.

Saying "end the atrocities." is not an argument.

In the challenge Pro stated he wanted to remove all military conduct in Afghanistan, including Special Operations. I agree with Pro that a removal of the bulk of our troops would be a wise move. However, the removal of all of the troops does nothing but leave a giant vacuum. Someone will fill that void, and more than likely it would not be a friend.

Do I really need to cite someone to prove that Special Operations are good?

I ask this of the voters and of Pro, have you ever served in the military? Have you spent time in a Forward Operating Base? Have you ever been in combat?

The simple fact is that anyone who is not willing to hold a rifle in their hands and step into battle, has no business dictating military strategy. Let me repeat myself. No one, that is not willing to go into combat, should be deciding military strategy.

I do however, believe that it IS the civilian and politicians job to decide WHEN to go to war. But once that is decided, they have no authority when it comes to strategy and tactics. With the obvious exception of war crimes, for which the military already has laws governing.

War obviously creates regional instability. Its War. Its not happy go fun time.
Debate Round No. 3
boredinclass

Pro

ok, first, he doesn't answer any of my arguments, therefore I gain all offense on case. Secondly, he asks you to vote on bias, this completely goes against the spirit of debate. I ask you to not vote on bias. That only creates a close-minded society

>>Do I really need to cite someone to prove that Special Operations are good?
-yes, cite someone to say that they are worth the 257 billion they cost

>>War obviously creates regional instability. Its War. Its not happy go fun time.
-how? and please use a source

vote pro
HandsofManos

Con

The 257 billion you keep mentioning is how much Australia spends. Not the U.S. Are we not debating the U.S. war in Afghanistan? When did we start debating about how much money Australia spends.

If you truly cannot see how Special Operations are effective then you have an insane amount of military history to read, dating back to ancient times.

>>War obviously creates regional instability. Its War. Its not happy go fun time.
-how? and please use a source

Why are you asking me to prove a statement that you first said? You brought up instability "...he never answers my instability advantage."

Why are campaigning for votes? Do your arguments not stand on their own?
Debate Round No. 4
boredinclass

Pro

Wow, That was a mess up.

kick the source,

And I missunderstood that statement.

In conclusion
I win this debate. First, he drops every single one of my arguments. He gves you no reason to continue a war in afghanistan. He drops all my arguments so all points go to me. Just vote pro, There is absolutely no reason based on this debate to vote con. However, he concedes that war is horrible, hurts the economy, and causes instability. Therefore we should end the war. VOTE PRO
HandsofManos

Con

Why is Pro campaigning for your votes? shouldn't his arguments stand on their own, without him asking every other sentence to vote for him?

Pro claims I didn't address is arguments. Thats not true. He raised numerous economic and instability arguments, that i do not disagree with, becaue they are arguments against having and maintaining a large occupying force in Afghanistan. I do not disagree with the removal of a large number of troops. So why did I debate? Because in his challenge, Pro stated, and I quote: "This includes counter-insurgency forces and war on drug efforts in the region." That statement is what I am argung against. And it is that fact that I did not respond to the economic arguments. When I pointed this out, Pro placed a false source and continued to use its irrelevant numbers as a talking point.

War is painful and costly. It is arguably the worst interaction that humans can engage in. That is why it is imperative that the citizens of a nation and their elected leaders show as much caution as possible before declaring it.

However, we live in a world where we have declared war. Pro's argument is that we should pull out every single troop and dollar and let cards fall where they may. That is just as irresponsible as invading in the first place. Has the current strategy failed? That depends on how you look at it. Militarily it has been a success. That is because a military victory can come at sch a high cost to seem a total failure. Just ask King Phyrrus of Epirus after he defeated Rome in 280 B.C.E.

Pro's simple and foolish strategy of "end the war now because its horrible and costing an insane amount of money" is typical of someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of military strategy, or history.

It is the cry of the ignorant, and it is a dangerous cry.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by HandsofManos 6 years ago
HandsofManos
I've never actually done any kind of "formal" debate. i just really enjoy arguing and i recently stumbled across this site.
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
It's a kind of high school/college debate
Posted by HandsofManos 6 years ago
HandsofManos
policy?
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
Do you do policy?
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Gotta love that Economy DA.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
boredinclassHandsofManosTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CON doesn't make a single argument and doesn't use a single source. He doesn't rebut anything PRO states. Bad conduct on both sides. PRO's first round was poorly formatted (underlying everything) making it painful for readers. CON uses ad hominem attacks.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 6 years ago
Brenavia
boredinclassHandsofManosTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: boredinclass use Policy debate cards, while HandsofManos used only quotes and analytical arguments. Wile I belive the U.S. has still not achieved all of its goals in Afghanistan and should remain there, it is my fair and unbiased vote to say that Pro won this debate.