[jchen]

Much like my other thread of the same nature, Why the US is winning the War on Terror , I'd like to discuss (and bring up some arguments of my own on the debate topic, for those who are too lazy to click the link, the purpose of the thread title is that it is the current January 2004 Public Forum debate for competitive high school debate) reasons and arguments why we are failing in the war on terror.

Okay, here we go (this is a very very rough sketch by the way, it's what I can think of from the top of my head):

1. The current administration has failed to properly research and empathize with terrorists, declaring an axis of evil and refusing to negotiate with any organizations as such. The methodology employed is black and white, somewhat similar to Vietnam. Rumsfeld has failed to answer whether United States unilateralism is a reliable solution, a popular solution during the Johnson administration but one losing support currently. There was a commentary in Newsweek about this a while ago, I'll have to dig it up but it included comments from former Secretary of Defense McNamara from the Nixon administration.

2. Continuance of overwhelming support for Israel. More efforts need to be focused in favor for Palestinians to alleviate terrorist activities.

Iraq related:

1. Iraq has no WMD (yet if they exist), resources are being allocated to post-war Iraqi, diverted from other areas of initial interest (Afghanistan).

2. Finite funds and the political gains/losses in such a war, should we experience downturns, the nature of the war changes on behalf of the United States. For example, the recently announced (don't know the exact date but I recall hearing about it) accelerated training the Iraqi army and in return having American troops come home early by an expected date. The War on Terror is a political tool by that measure, needs to be portrayed positively in all circumstances in order to win another term (large issue at least).

3. Cultural factions in Iraq make reunification and reconstruction difficult for a democratic Iraq. Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds; Sunnis in power prior to US intervention but compose the minority.

4. Pertinence in War on Terror? (Not really an argument, I was hoping someone could clarify, links, etc, I haven't read all of the Bush Was Right, Iraq did have contact with Al Qaeda thread yet so I will do that after I finish typing up this post)

[saab95]

Originally posted by jchen:
Much like my other thread of the same nature, Why the US is winning the War on Terror , I'd like to discuss (and bring up some arguments of my own on the debate topic.......Right, Iraq did have contact with Al Qaeda thread yet so I will do that after I finish typing up this post)

I strongly disagree with your post in its entirety.

Here's one realistic perspective

Yet another

And Another

And still another

About the only thing I can say about your post is that we are NOT making that much headway in the war on terrorism. My links strongly point to the direction as to why.

[jchen]

Originally posted by saab95:
I strongly disagree with your post in its entirety.

Here's one realistic perspective

Yet another

And Another

And still another

How do you disagree when my post is about why we are losing and you're providing supplemental links supporting it?

In addition, why are the majority of your links from Ayn Rand's site?

[kindbud]

hahahaha

That's what happens when knee-jerk anti-American peaceniks don't pay attention.

Which is pretty much all the time.

[wireframe]

The US will lose this so-called war, unless they wish to kill every person on earth outside of the States. The more we see a dictatorship invading nations like Iraq, the more we will see normal citizens turning against said nation. Where exactly does the line get drawn between terrorist, and innocent fighting for freedom? We've seen how Bush has tried to partition this notion by using terms such as Axis of Evil, the 'Patriot' act, and linking Saddam to Osama.

We're seeing words bandied around now, cloaked in the language used for terrorists, purely to further a specific agenda, just look at how the Bush cronies tried to link Saddam and Osama. This type of nonsense is goign to continue, anyone who is not 'With Us" will be labelled a terrorist, well good luck, cause i must be one too then, I'm certainly not standing by Bush's little monogram, and I'm certainly not 'With Them' if it means devastating sovereign nations.
I'm all for stopping real terrorists, but I want to see those same people who support them, adn have supported them, in the dock too. I say string up Bush (metaphorically) and his cronies, bury their moral high-ground words with them, most of us don't buy it, sorry.

[OreoCookie]

Well, if you bring in the Iraq issue in your debate, you could also elaborate out, how Iraq is connected (or rather: not connected) with the War On Terror.

Too tired to write more,sorry. The hints in your other thread should guide you.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by jchen:
empathize with terrorists

Something seriously wrong with this...

Originally posted by jchen:
2. Continuance of overwhelming support for Israel. More efforts need to be focused in favor for Palestinians to alleviate terrorist activities.

Yeah, we need to empathize and focus efforts in favor of terrorists in order to alleviate terrorist activities. That'll work.

Originally posted by jchen:
Iraq related:

1. Iraq has no WMD (yet if they exist), resources are being allocated to post-war Iraqi, diverted from other areas of initial interest (Afghanistan).

Wrong. Special Forces have now been reengaged in Afghanistan now that Saddam has been captured.

As far as WMD's, find me a statement where ANY anti-war individual pre-war claimed that there weren't any WMDs.

They will be found, or they were transferred to other countries or destroyed because of the invasion. No matter what, the war resulted in a net gain.

Originally posted by jchen:
The War on Terror is a political tool by that measure, needs to be portrayed positively in all circumstances in order to win another term (large issue at least).

The War on Terror isn't a political tool. It's a tool to improve the safety of the world's law abiding citizens from cowardly attacks by terrorist who somehow think that blowing up innocent non-combatants their points have been advanced.

Originally posted by jchen:
3. Cultural factions in Iraq make reunification and reconstruction difficult for a democratic Iraq. Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds; Sunnis in power prior to US intervention but compose the minority.

So it was better when the minority ruled the majority? Do you just think that because there are different groups in a country the country cannot have a unified government? I'll remember that when I look around at how many varied groups live in the United States.

Or maybe that you think that the Middle East and Iraq specifically don't have any people sophisticated enough to have a peaceful democratic system?

Originally posted by jchen:
4. Pertinence in War on Terror? (Not really an argument, I was hoping someone could clarify, links, etc, I haven't read all of the Bush Was Right, Iraq did have contact with Al Qaeda thread yet so I will do that after I finish typing up this post)

Pertinence? Well, I am sure a simple Google search could tell you the number of terrorist attacks in the United States before 9/10 and after 9/12/2001.

[OreoCookie]

Wasn't this thread (like the other) about helping to structure your speech instead of discussing the actual topic?

[osiris]

Speaking of the US losing the war on terror: It should be noted that 'US' = us, not the United States, for we are the ones who will suffer from the War on Terror.

The ongoing delay with British Airways is a clear indicator that we lost. Now we have to live with daily flight delays in exchange for security.
(Along with all the other nazi-style searching of old ladies, children, and non-arabs)

The US Gov has it's head up its ass, for it knows not what it is doing - the British Airways incident is further proof. Why weren't the supposed terrorists followed? Why were the supposed terrorist's passports approved? Why would these supposed terrorists even be allowed near the airport? Who the hell are these supposed terrorists?

It's a bunch of BS designed to instill fear. It fits in nicely with the whole WMD fiasco.

God Bless America - we need it.

[jchen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

Something seriously wrong with this...
Yeah, we need to empathize and focus efforts in favor of terrorists in order to alleviate terrorist activities. That'll work.

empathy
- the ability to share in another's emotions, thoughts, or feelings

To empathize isn't to be sympathetic (in using the common definition of sympathy to display additional feelings of pity), all I was saying was that it is important to put oneself in a terrorist's shoes in order to anticipate and execute a successful plan. The Bush administration failed to anticipate postwar Iraq, expecting minimal resistance shows lack of empathy.

As for efforts in "favor" of Palestinians, I'm afraid that was an overstatement and I simply meant that overexcessive support of Israel isn't the smartest thing, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been cited by many terrorist organizations as one of their primary incentives for waging war against the United States

Wrong. Special Forces have now been reengaged in Afghanistan now that Saddam has been captured.

As far as WMD's, find me a statement where ANY anti-war individual pre-war claimed that there weren't any WMDs.

They will be found, or they were transferred to other countries or destroyed because of the invasion. No matter what, the war resulted in a net gain.

It's very simple, have we found any WMD RIGHT NOW? No. Perhaps we will but at the present moment, we do not have any. This would be a characteristic of minimal progress on the WMD front regardless of strides in intelligence and efforts.

The War on Terror isn't a political tool. It's a tool to improve the safety of the world's law abiding citizens from cowardly attacks by terrorist who somehow think that blowing up innocent non-combatants their points have been advanced.

Execution of the war is largely determined by a political framework.

So it was better when the minority ruled the majority? Do you just think that because there are different groups in a country the country cannot have a unified government? I'll remember that when I look around at how many varied groups live in the United States.

Or maybe that you think that the Middle East and Iraq specifically don't have any people sophisticated enough to have a peaceful democratic system?

Was the United States established with the same ethnic makeup that you now speak of when you "look around"? Absolutely not, at the time when our country was founded, we were speaking of a primarily homogenous population. Granted there were still many conflicts given from geographical differences that were addressed during the Constitutional Convention, I was simply addressing the difficulties in establishing a democratic government and how these difficulties might be exacerbated given the nature of history in the Middle East and militancy between such cultural factions to this present day.

Pertinence? Well, I am sure a simple Google search could tell you the number of terrorist attacks in the United States before 9/10 and after 9/12/2001.

I was asking whether the War in Iraq (not the War on Terror itself) was pertinent to eliminating terrorism (as it may affect the US) in the Middle East. As far as I know (there is a huge thread regarding this issue as well), evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda is shaky at best.

---

My partner and I had our first debate yesterday in Indianapolis, we went 3-1 and placed 10th out of 25 teams so it was all right for the most part (considering it was our second tournament ever in Public Forum). OreoCookie, I would also like to discuss the issue as well, case structure is no longer an issue (it seems like many judges liked our approach but my partner lacked the speaker points to place any higher).

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by jchen:

As for efforts in "favor" of Palestinians, I'm afraid that was an overstatement and I simply meant that overexcessive support of Israel isn't the smartest thing, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been cited by many terrorist organizations as one of their primary incentives for waging war against the United States

You forget how the US Government works.

We do not aknowledge Terrorist statements. Hence we can't accept that as a motive.

The president said, they don't like freedom. Hence that is "officially" their motive, in the eyes of America.

While the rest of the world simply asked them directly.

Strange? Yes. Stupid? Absolutely.

Terrorism is method of creating a platform to getting heard when lost in the crowd. Nothing more. It's not a war strategy. It's incapable of winning a war. All it can do, is get people's attention.

Execution of the war is largely determined by a political framework.

Well, we all knew during the Bush vs. Gore campaign that it was going to happen. So yes, that's right. I would have suggested earlier in his campaign, as he knew he couldn't have an exit strategy, and it would hurt re-election (his father said so many times himself after he left office that the reason he didn't "finish the job" was no exit strategy). I think 9/11 threw a curve ball into that.

I was asking whether the War in Iraq (not the War on Terror itself) was pertinent to eliminating terrorism (as it may affect the US) in the Middle East. As far as I know (there is a huge thread regarding this issue as well), evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda is shaky at best.

The goal of the Iraqi campaign was to secure Oil. Nobody has denied it.

Putting a western friendly (puppet to some people) government in place, and keeping them out of OPEC means that no matter what the Saudi's do.. the US and Israel are getting Oil from somewhere. No embargo can cripple them.

It's key to the war on terror, because right now, if we get to sloppy, we can be repremanded by Oil prices. The Saudi government owns much of the weight in what oil prices are, as they are the primary power in OPEC, which no matter where you get your oil from, will interfere with the global prices of oil.

Oil is cheap to them, it costs little. It's almost pure profit. It's very easy to manipulate the market when you have a powerful monopoly of an organization that you control.

Taking Iraq, the largest oil reserve means, that even without OPEC, we have a secure source.

That is why concern #1 is the pipelines. Even more than setting up a government, or ending insurgents. It's getting the pipeline secure. That's the first and only priority now. Once the oil is safely and reliably flowing... We have a huge weight against OPEC. Something they can't easily interfere with.

Kewait was technically the same thing. A pretty Oil rich country. If it fell into Iraqi hands, the only thing the US would loose is a cheap source of oil. If they had no oil, the US would not have invaded. It was a mess Bush Sr. knew was not good to get into. He's said so himself. But if he didn't... we quite possibly would be taking the bus.

The OPEC's love that we didn't trade with Iraq. In particular Saudi Arabia. It gave them that much more power. Iraq was known for secretly trading oil at prices not sanctioned by OPEC. the US not dealing with them, meant that OPEC had that much more power over us.

OPEC holds 3/4 of the known reserves in the world. The US consumes more than any other country. We can only go so long without interacting with them. Every year, reserves empty, and we look for more. It used to be OPEC only had slightly more than 2/3 of the known reserves. OPEC didn't grow. The other half of the equation got smaller.


There's a lot at risk. Like the entire western economy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Wasn't this thread (like the other) about helping to structure your speech instead of discussing the actual topic?

such was my understanding.

[kindbud]

re: macvillage

huh?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

The goal of the Iraqi campaign was to secure Oil. Nobody has denied it.

Like hell it hasn't been denied!

Putting a western friendly (puppet to some people) government in place, and keeping them out of OPEC means . . .

Iraq is in OPEC.

Next theory!

[OreoCookie]

Guys, again, for those who didn't get it: you're not helping here. If you want to discuss the topic (again), start another thread.

This is about a debate competition, the opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the one you're standing for (see other thread).

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Like hell it hasn't been denied!

Bush hasn't denied it.

Changing topics, and denying are two completely different things. He has been very careful to not deny it, so nobody can call him a liar.

Iraq is in OPEC.

Next theory!

New government will need to decide for themselves. OPEC won't kick them out (for obvious reasons), but there is no official affiliation between OPEC and the transitional/new gov. The US Government has been clear to make that point about a million times now.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Guys, again, for those who didn't get it: you're not helping here. If you want to discuss the topic (again), start another thread.

This is about a debate competition, the opinion doesn't necessarily have to be the one you're standing for (see other thread).

Fair enough.

[finboy]

Originally posted by jchen:
empathy
- the ability to share in another's emotions, thoughts, or feelings

Kinda like Jews should empathize with NeoNazis. After all, they're entitled to their opinion, right?

Maybe we should get some terrorists and form a circle and sing "This Land is Your Land" or another marching tune.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It should be pointed out that true empathy only extends to a universal set of emotions, thoughts and feelings.

IE: I empathize with everyone's basic desire to live a good life, raise their families, enjoy peace, have freedom, etc. IE: the universal set.

I DON'T empathize with anyone's desire to be a psychotic killer, blow up and slaughter innocents, spread terror and otherwise be a complete drain and burden on mankind.

The later set of actions CANCEL OUT any empathy one might have had for the practitioner�s universal set. Nor are the later set of actions EVER an acceptable way to acquire empathy for the universal set.

If terrorists ever figured this out, and shifted their violent tactics to peaceful, non-violent ones -which has worked tremendously for other groups far more �oppressed� than many terrorist-types pretend to be- they might actually get somewhere.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
If terrorists ever figured this out, and shifted their violent tactics to peaceful, non-violent ones -which has worked tremendously for other groups far more �oppressed� than many terrorist-types pretend to be- they might actually get somewhere.

Indeed. They're like cows with Mad Cow disease. Doing stupid stuff and acting crazy. What do people do with mad cows? Slaughter them, so they don't infect and ruin the lives of other cows. Terrorists, their supporters, and all that sympathise with them are a cancer on the world. Usama and his ilk deserve to have their brains ooze out through their nose or, more preferably, have someone snuff out their pathetic existence with a large small-arms slug to the head.

[tie]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Wrong. Special Forces have now been reengaged in Afghanistan now that Saddam has been captured.

This doesn't prove your point at all. Of course extra wars divert military and financial resources from the war on terror.

They will be found, or they were transferred to other countries or destroyed because of the invasion. No matter what, the war resulted in a net gain.

You seem to be living in some sort of alternate reality . There is no evidence whatsoever that the weapons were transferred or destroyed because of the invasion. How can you possibly believe that? Unless you just don't want to admit that you were lied to (and fell for it).

"The Bush administration has quietly withdrawn from Iraq a 400-member military team whose job was to scour the country for military equipment, according to senior government officials." link

"A report to be released Thursday by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has concluded that it was unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons and related production facilities that American officials claimed were present 'without the United States detecting some sign of this activity.'"

I think that the only rational Bush apologist stance is this: Bush was wrong and there were no WMD. Still, given the intelligence he was given and the potential risks, he was right to be cautious. Moreover, it was worth it to get rid of Saddam Hussein primarily to help the Iraqi people. Secondarily because it is conceivable that in the future Iraq could have been a threat to US security. We should thoroughly evaluate what went wrong with US intelligence so this doesn't happen again.