War or Not? ISIS Issues
Debate Rounds (3)
I will demonstrate that the conflict with the self proclaimed Islamist State is a continuation of anti-terror measures that have been previously adopted. ISIS is one head of a hydra we call terrorism, something on going and that directly defies the conventions of 'War' amongst the world community.
We are not at war with ISIS any more specifically than we are at war with 'Drugs', 'Poverty', or 'Illiteracy'.
I beileve that there need to be troops in both Iraq and Syria fighting against these terrorists. Air strikes are a good first move, but it is not enough to stop this force. We need to continue to pound them with air strikes while providing tactical assaults from the ground. As I said before, nobody is doing anything because they want to say that they successfully gave peace to Iraq so their politcal status will be improved for the November elections. To add to that point, we need to realize that dealing with ISIS is not a political issue. They are a direct threat to the U.S., and need to be taken as such.
Also: "Minutes earlier, a Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. John Kirby, used similar terminology. "This is not the Iraq war of 2002," he told reporters. "But, make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL, in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates." , from the same source.
"I beileve that there need to be troops in both Iraq and Syria fighting against these terrorists." --- and there in lay the problem. In the name of fighting the hydra of terrorism, we insert ourselves into more nations, earning us more enemies. There is no surety that should this head get cut off that some other group of malcontent radicals won't just fill in, depleting our resources further.
You are correct in saying that if this head is cut off, others will grow, and that is certainly true. However, this is why troops need to remain in the Middle East until those countries can LEGITAMATELY defend themselves. This means no more cutbacks on the military. If there are troops in the Middle East constantly, these kinds of radical terrorists groups can be stopped before they can have a major effect on the world.
Full on war and their subsequent occupation is what causes our military spending to skyrocket, which is why we cannot engage these situations as 'War' in the expected sense of the word. War has a financial toll on those fighting it. Dropping quarter million dollar ordinance on 6 men in a 'beater' pickup with some 200 dollar black market AKs (or worse, scavenged US and Soviet Era arms from abandon sites) puts us at a marked disadvantage with no foreseeable gain. We have clandestine agencies and covert operatives for situations like these, which dollar for dollar can have a much bigger impact with minimal exposure.
As it was stated by Rear Admiral Kirby, "This is not the Iraq war of 2002". Fighting terrorism requires technology and secrecy, the exact weapons our enemies cannot use (by definition) to spread their ideals.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I can't figure out what debate each side wants to have. Con wants to discuss what it means to be at war and whether the War on Terror is equivalent to a declaration of war, and Pro wants to have... it looks like multiple debates, including, but not limited to, American foreign policy, American leadership, the War Powers Act (which is what allows presidents to "declare war"), and generally just whether liberals suck. I think Pro just wanted to spend this debate venting, and as he fails to produce a cohesive case, he also fails to meet any possible burden, and therefore I award Con the debate, both by default and on the basis that he at least tried to bring some clarity to the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.