The Instigator
Postup10101
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Muslim
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

War On Terror

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 8/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,502 times Debate No: 12831
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (9)

 

Postup10101

Pro

I would like to begin this argument by saying that I fully understand why people are against the war in the middle east. I agree that this war has been going on for far too long now and I'm am going to make this short but sweet. A lot of American's want Obama to pull out all of the troops overseas, but I don't think these people understand how far we have come since that horrible day in 2001. Bush may have made mistakes, but that's a whole other debate, but to be honest, this situation goes all the way back to Clinton, if not further. I am not a Bush fan, but I will say that he has had it rough, some he deserved, some he didn't. If I haven't made my point clear yet, let me make it more direct. We have lost way too many brave man, way too many resources, way too much many over these years that it would be a shame for it to go to waste. Obama says that "Project Iraqi Freedom" is accomplished and that troops will be being pulled out of Iraq within the next year, but we can't count on that. I think there should be no rush to pull the troops out. We need to finish what we started, and get what we came for: Peace. Once we sort out the civil and domestic situations in Iraq, we can send some of those troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and then send them to Iran to put an end to their nuclear weapons movement. I hope you all agree with me on this debate, and God Bless America.

Peace
Muslim

Con

I accept my opponents proposed challenge and I look forward to hiring the differing points of view. The proposition on offer is that the War on Terror must continue until "Peace" is achieved, in the countries currently being fought in, because too much has been sacrificed as of now. If this is an unfair characterization of the argument; I ask my opponent to correct me. I plan to address the "unintended consequences" of the war on terror, the vague definition of the term "war on terror", how it is unconstitutional, the economic problems and the ever lasting effects it has on the region of the Middle East as well as the United States and its Allys.

I look forward to the debate, and may the best view point win. I wish my opponent good luck. I await the first argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Postup10101

Pro

I appreciated you responding to my argument... how much of an ongoing and never-ending topic it can be. You prove a good point there. The war does hurt out economy pretty badly. But for the safety and assurance of our country, sacrifice is eminent. Our country has made it through hard times before, the Great Depressions, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc. We will make it through these days as well. We cannot let the thought of a nuclear threat on our country be a possibility. It's almost like playing poker. You can't tell who is bluffing, or who has the royal flush. As I mentioned before about us overcoming catastrophes in our nation, if the economy is on hold for a while until we get back on our feet after this war is over, then let it be. People need to make smarter investments and choices financially. It's the little things that count. The economy is an important part of our country without a doubt, but whats even more important is the safety of our country. I think people would rather lose a few hundred dollars rather than have another larger war on our hands that could lead to something as horrifying as an invasion. Thank you for follow this argument and i look forward to round 3.
Muslim

Con

I appreciate my opponents timely response. And now to address the points;

War on Terror "A campaign initiated by the US government under President George W. Bush which includes various military, political, and legal actions taken to "curb the spread of terrorism," following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States"

Despite the attack on America 9 years ago, there is still a debate on defining the war on terror. The objective of the mission, the target group, distinguishing between hateful or terrorist speech.

In my opinion the War on Terror is very vague, but since Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded under this umbrella, for arguments sake, I'll stick with those two countries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Iraq; the War against Iraq is unconstitutional. Congress can not declare War without stating the following;The start Date, The End Date, How much it will cost, and what the mission will be. In the case of Iraq this hasn't been done.

"Some might ask how George W. Bush's war against Iraq is different from other U.S wars. Congress has not declared war since World War II. While some of the U.S. military actions since that time have received the equivalent of a congressional declaration, others have not. There have been other violations of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution."

The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: "Congress shall have power...To declare war... " No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear.

Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war." George Mason said that he was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson stated: "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."

In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.

http://www.albionmonitor.com...

American Soldiers have no business dieing in civil wars between Iraqis. Iraq's domestic problems is their problem; no where in the constitution does it state American Soldiers should be involved in nation building. If that's the case, why not send troops to every country in the world that is having Domestic issues or civil wars. (eg. Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, Yemen etc)

--------------------------------------------------------

Now Afghanistan.

After 911, it was clear America had enemies and the perpetrators of that horrific attack was said to be the Taliban/Al-Qaeda. The mission, at the beginning, was clear; defeat the enemy and hold them accountable. The problem today is; this war seems like an open ended war. What is the objective today? Are American troops dying for Nation building in Afghanistan? Who are the enemies? Is it still the Taliban, who are apparently seeking cabinet seats in the Afghan government
http://www.nytimes.com...

Why Reconcile with a group of individuals trying to kill American troops?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I close my arguments in the 2nd round, I would like to address a couple of my opponents comments.

----->"Once we sort out the civil and domestic situations in Iraq, we can send some of those troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and then send them to Iran to put an end to their nuclear weapons movement."<-------

It's clear this statement lacks consideration into how the current wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and the "anticipated war" with Iran will be funded. The United States government is broke. Period. America's debt is in the North of 10 trillion and once you take into consideration the entitlement programs and social security, that goes up to almost 50 trillion

http://www.cbsnews.com...

and the cost of wars keep going up...---------------> http://costofwar.com...

Not only is it unwise to fight these wars the way America has been, its also economically stupid. For anyone whose rebuttal is "we need to defend ourselves" I direct you to Congressman Ron Paul statement, a Republican.

Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 3rd round I plan to address the Economic Effects and The Lasting Social Effects of the wars
Debate Round No. 2
Postup10101

Pro

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

"We make war that we may live in peace." - Aristotle

"War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin, keep out of the way till you can." -Winston Churchill

"Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense" - Winston Churchill

These are just a few quotes that really show what war is really about, and what this war in general is meaning. To explain the first quote: We are in this war right now for a reason. Whether you like it or not, this is World War III. It hasn't technically been announced. We have a war with USA, Britain, Israel, and other ally's vs. Iran, Afghanistan (Al Qaeda), Iraq(Taliban), and we even have North Korea in Asia giving us a headache. We need to finish what we started by completing Project Iraqi Freedom, defeating the Taliban, exterminating Bin Laden and all of his Al Qaeda slaves. To me opponent: I understand you are of the Islamic religion and i have no problem with that. I highly doubt that your a radical. What people have tried to tell us over and over again is that Islam is a religion of peace, but what peace was being made on 9/11? What peace is made every week when an IED explodes and kills a soldier who's baby had just been born. What peace is being made when a car bomb in Time Square goes off and kills a couple hundred people
(Thank God it was prevented)? You get my point. I have nothing against Muslims as i said, but i have a problem with Radical Muslims. They say they want all of this peace, but they are really just making things worse. We need to get the message across that the U.S. has came, and we aren't leaving until our job is done. So if all of the terrorists would just step aside, let out army handle the making of peace, and then we can all just go home, and live in a peaceful world for the time being. I enjoyed this debate and I look forward to my next one.

Brendan Corwen
14
New York
Muslim

Con

Indeed I enjoyed debating my opponent. I would like to address my opponents comments in this round.

-------> "Whether you like it or not, this is World War III. It hasn't technically been announced. We have a war with USA, Britain, Israel, and other ally's vs. Iran, Afghanistan (Al Qaeda), Iraq(Taliban), and we even have North Korea in Asia giving us a headache."<-----------------

First, there is no connection between Iraq and Taliban, so I do not why my opponent connected those. I'll assume it an error, otherwise please do advise how they're connected by posting a comments. Secondly, I disagree this is WW3 and the United States Government has gone on record numerous time stating "We're at war with a radical group and not a Religion or a Country". Lastly on this point, North Korea affairs should be their affairs. As a Libertarian we believe "no country is in any moral position to tell how another country should live". Why should one country be free to possess nuclear weapons and another shouldn't? I'm not saying North Korea should have nuclear weapons, what I'm stating is simply what many Libertarians believe. Defend your borders and country. Be pro-active and not re-active. Don't worry about other countries affairs. In fact, my best advice to the US is to trade with North Korea. That would do more in easing the tensions then any war.

Frederic Bastiat said, "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Countries that trade freely are almost unlikely and highly impossible to go to war or have any animosity. Will USA and Canada fight each other?

----->"We need to finish what we started by completing Project Iraqi Freedom, defeating the Taliban, exterminating Bin Laden and all of his Al Qaeda slaves."<-------------

That was the objective, however this is not the case. It's been almost 9 years and nobody knows where bin Laden is. But yet they found Saddam Hussein within months after capturing Iraq. It's clear the mission in Afghanistan is nation building. American troops are dying so that a functional government in Afghanistan is established. As mentioned before, the Taliban is being offered positions in the government of Hamid Karzai. Why give them offers when they're killing American Troops? The Taliban should be defeated, not negotiated with if they're the enemy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----->"What people have tried to tell us over and over again is that Islam is a religion of peace, but what peace was being made on 9/11? <----------------

The people who attacked America on 911 where in no way representing Islam or Muslim Values. George Bush and the White House Spokesperson at the time, Ari Fleischer, have both stated the people who attacked America have a "perverted" view of Islam. Islam has history that dates further back then September 11, 2001. Islams contribution to history is unmatched and worth the recognition. For arguments sake, we will not get into that. But Islamic history is rich with innovative, educated and productive individuals that have shaped the world we will live.

--->"What peace is made every week when an IED explodes and kills a soldier who's baby had just been born."<-------

I want to point out, this statement is usually made with emotion and addressing it with another emotional statement proves no point. The best way to answer this question is; Iraq and Afghani innocent families ask the same questions "Why is this happening?" " Why are we being invaded and bombed at"? More than 100,000 thousand innocent Iraqis have died so far, if not more.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org...

As a Libertarian I believe every country should deal with its own affairs.

-------->What peace is being made when a car bomb in Time Square goes off and kills a couple hundred people (Thank God it was prevented)?<--------------

This is a classical example of fear mongering perpetuated by the media and more specifically Fox News. We are all thankful nothing happened and no one was hurt on that day, but the truth is we face death every single day. In fact, emotions aside, and just dealing with statistics alone you are more likely to die from an Accidental poisoning then a Terrorist act.
http://www.wired.com...

Yet the budget allocated to the US Military to fight these terrorist is 600 Billion! http://en.wikipedia.org...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------->We need to get the message across that the U.S. has came, and we aren't leaving until our job is done. So if all of the terrorists would just step aside, let out army handle the making of peace, and then we can all just go home, and live in a peaceful world for the time being"<-----------------------------------

There soo many errors with this statement I'll try to address them

1) This makes the US look authoritative.
2) It goes against the Consititutional
3)) Lastly this is a Utopian world my opponent is proposing.

America should defend her borders and stay out of these other coutnries affairs. These wars has bankrupt the country, the soldiers are coming back with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) and it allows Radicals to use it to recruit misguided and emotionally unstable individual who lack judgement.

Again Good Debate, but the burden of proof was on my opponent. I respect my opponents views and wish them all the best.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by the-good-teacher 6 years ago
the-good-teacher
Who does the US think they are ?,,First they bomb their own hole, then blame it on a bunch of guys with paper cutters and then they start acting like they own the world,

War on terror ? don't make me laugh. the US attacked their own place on the Egyptian and Masonic New Year (NY 9/11)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
Postup10101MuslimTied
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 Karne 6 years ago
Karne
Postup10101MuslimTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
Postup10101MuslimTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
Postup10101MuslimTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Postup10101 6 years ago
Postup10101
Postup10101MuslimTied
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 RazaMobizo 6 years ago
RazaMobizo
Postup10101MuslimTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by BobMarleyIsDead 6 years ago
BobMarleyIsDead
Postup10101MuslimTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
Postup10101MuslimTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Postup10101MuslimTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06