Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Private Military firms fighting for U.S.

One-Humble-Man
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:29:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am trying to find out more on the Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives. Whether it is just information or a way you would debate the topic I would more than appreciate the information.
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:29:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:29:01 PM, One-Humble-Man wrote:
Please do my homework

www.google.com =/= www.debate.org
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:29:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, because the US's military objectives themselves are unjustified.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:49:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:29:57 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
No, because the US's military objectives themselves are unjustified.

Well our current ones anyway.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:50:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:29:53 PM, askbob wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:29:01 PM, One-Humble-Man wrote:
Please do my homework

www.google.com =/= www.debate.org

Thanks askbob I thought something was fishy.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 12:44:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://decorabilia.blogspot.com...

If you scroll down you will see some useful blogs on this and previous topics with info and common arguments. Its a very good ld site in general, and you can even ask the blogger questions in comments and he responds very quickly.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 11:57:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:29:01 PM, One-Humble-Man wrote:
I am trying to find out more on the Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives. Whether it is just information or a way you would debate the topic I would more than appreciate the information.:

No, because as we've seen with Blackwater (now renamed "Xe"), there was no oversight or accountability whatsoever. Who should be directly tried in a criminal proceeding are the one's who committed the crimes and the one's who directly ordered it.

And why the f*ck would the government need private paramilitary forces to begin with when it has thousands of upon thousands of military personnel? They do it because they knew there was no oversight or accountability. They knew they could purchase highly trained mercenaries to do the things that the military cannot legally do.

It's bullsh*t and I'm glad it's been stopped.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 12:14:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All nations that rely on mercenaries fail.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Aff

Aff Resolutional Analysis: on the aff you can frame the resolution by claiming that the grammatical structure of the resolution is qualifying "justified" in terms of the phrase of military objectives. Namely its not questioning philosophical justification but justification in the context of achieving X, namely the military operation.

Here are some tags that you should find lots of evidence and cards with::

1. Military Effectiveness. PMFs allow to expand the military numerically and quantitatively.

2. PMFs are needed to effectively end the War on Terror.

3. PMFs ensure that a draft doesnt occur in he U.S.

4. PMFs help achieve military objectives in Africa (e.g. fighting genocide)

Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest

4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:22:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Aff

Aff Resolutional Analysis: on the aff you can frame the resolution by claiming that the grammatical structure of the resolution is qualifying "justified" in terms of the phrase of military objectives. Namely its not questioning philosophical justification but justification in the context of achieving X, namely the military operation.

Here are some tags that you should find lots of evidence and cards with::

1. Military Effectiveness. PMFs allow to expand the military numerically and quantitatively.

2. PMFs are needed to effectively end the War on Terror.

3. PMFs ensure that a draft doesnt occur in he U.S.

4. PMFs help achieve military objectives in Africa (e.g. fighting genocide)



Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest

4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances

Holy fück is your name suspicious...
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:50:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:22:46 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Aff

Aff Resolutional Analysis: on the aff you can frame the resolution by claiming that the grammatical structure of the resolution is qualifying "justified" in terms of the phrase of military objectives. Namely its not questioning philosophical justification but justification in the context of achieving X, namely the military operation.

Here are some tags that you should find lots of evidence and cards with::

1. Military Effectiveness. PMFs allow to expand the military numerically and quantitatively.

2. PMFs are needed to effectively end the War on Terror.

3. PMFs ensure that a draft doesnt occur in he U.S.

4. PMFs help achieve military objectives in Africa (e.g. fighting genocide)



Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest

4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances

Holy fück is your name suspicious...

Now y would my name be suspicious?
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:56:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:50:55 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:22:46 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Aff

Aff Resolutional Analysis: on the aff you can frame the resolution by claiming that the grammatical structure of the resolution is qualifying "justified" in terms of the phrase of military objectives. Namely its not questioning philosophical justification but justification in the context of achieving X, namely the military operation.

Here are some tags that you should find lots of evidence and cards with::

1. Military Effectiveness. PMFs allow to expand the military numerically and quantitatively.

2. PMFs are needed to effectively end the War on Terror.

3. PMFs ensure that a draft doesnt occur in he U.S.

4. PMFs help achieve military objectives in Africa (e.g. fighting genocide)



Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest

4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances

Holy fück is your name suspicious...

Now y would my name be suspicious?

It's awfully similar to a name of someone who I thought was gone...
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 7:57:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:56:02 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:50:55 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:22:46 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Aff

Aff Resolutional Analysis: on the aff you can frame the resolution by claiming that the grammatical structure of the resolution is qualifying "justified" in terms of the phrase of military objectives. Namely its not questioning philosophical justification but justification in the context of achieving X, namely the military operation.

Here are some tags that you should find lots of evidence and cards with::

1. Military Effectiveness. PMFs allow to expand the military numerically and quantitatively.

2. PMFs are needed to effectively end the War on Terror.

3. PMFs ensure that a draft doesnt occur in he U.S.

4. PMFs help achieve military objectives in Africa (e.g. fighting genocide)



Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest

4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances

Holy fück is your name suspicious...

Now y would my name be suspicious?

It's awfully similar to a name of someone who I thought was gone...

No, I've always been here. Just...quiet. : ) And yes, I am that person
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:02:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:57:27 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:56:02 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:50:55 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:22:46 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Aff

Aff Resolutional Analysis: on the aff you can frame the resolution by claiming that the grammatical structure of the resolution is qualifying "justified" in terms of the phrase of military objectives. Namely its not questioning philosophical justification but justification in the context of achieving X, namely the military operation.

Here are some tags that you should find lots of evidence and cards with::

1. Military Effectiveness. PMFs allow to expand the military numerically and quantitatively.

2. PMFs are needed to effectively end the War on Terror.

3. PMFs ensure that a draft doesnt occur in he U.S.

4. PMFs help achieve military objectives in Africa (e.g. fighting genocide)



Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest

4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances

Holy fück is your name suspicious...

Now y would my name be suspicious?

It's awfully similar to a name of someone who I thought was gone...

No, I've always been here. Just...quiet. : ) And yes, I am that person

You're lucky no one else here remembers you
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:06:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 8:02:20 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:57:27 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:56:02 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:50:55 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:22:46 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Aff

Aff Resolutional Analysis: on the aff you can frame the resolution by claiming that the grammatical structure of the resolution is qualifying "justified" in terms of the phrase of military objectives. Namely its not questioning philosophical justification but justification in the context of achieving X, namely the military operation.

Here are some tags that you should find lots of evidence and cards with::

1. Military Effectiveness. PMFs allow to expand the military numerically and quantitatively.

2. PMFs are needed to effectively end the War on Terror.

3. PMFs ensure that a draft doesnt occur in he U.S.

4. PMFs help achieve military objectives in Africa (e.g. fighting genocide)



Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest

4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances

Holy fück is your name suspicious...

Now y would my name be suspicious?

It's awfully similar to a name of someone who I thought was gone...

No, I've always been here. Just...quiet. : ) And yes, I am that person

You're lucky no one else here remembers you

Eh. Certain people do (e.g. you), but yeah good thing I'm not remembered by the populous. And btw, who r u (aka did u use another name before this one when I knew you?)
ccstate4peat
Posts: 2,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 8:07:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 8:06:58 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 8:02:20 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:57:27 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:56:02 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:50:55 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:22:46 PM, ccstate4peat wrote:
At 2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Aff

Aff Resolutional Analysis: on the aff you can frame the resolution by claiming that the grammatical structure of the resolution is qualifying "justified" in terms of the phrase of military objectives. Namely its not questioning philosophical justification but justification in the context of achieving X, namely the military operation.

Here are some tags that you should find lots of evidence and cards with::

1. Military Effectiveness. PMFs allow to expand the military numerically and quantitatively.

2. PMFs are needed to effectively end the War on Terror.

3. PMFs ensure that a draft doesnt occur in he U.S.

4. PMFs help achieve military objectives in Africa (e.g. fighting genocide)



Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest

4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances

Holy fück is your name suspicious...

Now y would my name be suspicious?

It's awfully similar to a name of someone who I thought was gone...

No, I've always been here. Just...quiet. : ) And yes, I am that person

You're lucky no one else here remembers you

Eh. Certain people do (e.g. you), but yeah good thing I'm not remembered by the populous. And btw, who r u (aka did u use another name before this one when I knew you?)

I just wasn't active at all back then
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2011 10:54:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/20/2011 7:20:42 PM, CiRrK wrote:


Neg

1. PMFs violate human rights

2. U.S. Hegemony = Bad (Impact turn)

3. PMFs have an interest in exacerbating war => profit interest


4. PMFs lack sufficient checks and balances

Thats interesting. I've been looking for good neg args (so far I'm just going with Military Objectives bad) and that sounds pretty strong.
TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2011 12:47:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Private Military Firms undermine counter-insurgency tactics. They don't want them there (afghanistan, Iraq) and have voted to have them removed, we just don't have enough troops to replace them with. And as said before, why would we want to support sending PMC's in to support military goals, when military not all military goals are neccisarily good?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227