|
| Thread: Debaters' Guild II - "The War on Terror" | |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 11, 2009 12:26 AM |
|
|
Debaters' Guild II - "The War on Terror"
Go!
I am opposed to the American foreign policies referred to collectively as "the War on Terror". (will continue later)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 05:05 PM |
|
|
The government of the US has the responsibility of defending US citizens. Why should the US not be allowed to defend itself against those who have the stated goal of destroying the US? After the US began the war on terror there have been no furthur attacks on US soil. So it would appear that no only is the US government doing its duty, it is being effective in its war against those terrorists.
The US soldiers have been fighting side by side with Iraqis against the terrorists who want to control Iraq. The violence is way down and the US is mostly in a support role there now. Most Iraqi citizens want freedom, not to live under the boot of an Isalmic cleric who dictates their every action.
We can only hope the US will be successful in Afganistan as well. Now that terrorists in Iraq are basicly defeated the US will shift more troops there to root out the terrorists.
One can only defeat the enemy by going after them. The US and other countries have to take action ouside their borders in order to defeat the terrorists. The world is better off because of the war on terror.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 07:10 PM |
|
|
I think the war on terror is nothing but a ridiculess farse. 9-11 itself is mils aways from being bulletproff enogh to be beliveable, and all the evidence against it makes it harder to belive(and note, CIA and FBI removed evidence).
US invaded Iraq and managed to take down Sadam, well he WAS America's boy in the first place. USA created Sadam, and since they created him he knew how they would take how down. So they had to assault the country, it was a good step since Iraq was not so good to be in. But while they was at it they managed to make it worse than before the assault. The teams that planned how they was going to do it was assembled to be a lead to: "What had planned this carefully before we bombed em to pieces", they did not even get someting to work with!?
Besides, they are not terriorists. They are freedom fighters.
And then on to Iran, WHAT IS WRONG WITH NUCLEAR POWER AND RESEARCH ON IT?! I mean, where did they hide the nukes that was claimed to be there? Pure paranoia.
And while we are on it: What war/assault is USA going to do next? Bombing the pieces out of Iran because "they are belived to have nukes". If this happens i would volunter for blowing apart Washington DC with a suitcase nuke. Simple it needs to be stopped.
And last: USA spews out crap movies like no end, i would rather create my "War on bad movies import" than a "War on Terror".
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2009 07:46 PM |
|
|
The fact of the matter is that there is no War on Terror. Invading Iraq and taking control of the world's energy resources was way more important than the threat of terror.
But to play along, you can measure the number of terrorist attacks. Well, that's gone up sharply under the Bush administration, actually very sharply after the Iraq war. As expected -- it was anticipated by intelligence agencies that the Iraq war would increase the likelihood of terror. And the post-invasion estimates by the CIA, National Intelligence Council, and other intelligence agencies are exactly that. Yes, it increased terror.
Take, say, the invasion of Iraq again. We're told that they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, that's not exactly correct. They did find weapons of mass destruction, namely, the ones that had been sent to Saddam by the United States, Britain, and others through the 1980s. A lot of them were still there. They were under control of U.N. inspectors and were being dismantled. But many were still there. When the U.S. invaded, the inspectors were kicked out, and Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't tell their troops to guard the sites. So the sites were left unguarded, and they were systematically looted. The U.N. inspectors did continue their work by satellite and they identified over 100 sites that were systematically looted, like, not somebody going in and stealing something, but carefully, systematically looted. This is anything, if not directly increases terrorism, at least makes the terrorist attacks more deadly.
Other side effects of "war on terror" is that other nations such as Russia has sharply increased its offensive military capacity in reaction to Bush's programs, which is dangerous enough, but also to try to counter overwhelming U.S. dominance in offensive capacity. They are compelled to ship nuclear missiles all over their vast territory. And mostly unguarded.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 16, 2009 08:20 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 20:33, 16 Feb 2009.
|
No, you will not use this account sometimes, because only 1 account allowed for each member 
____________
|
|
Art-Void
Hired Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2009 03:26 PM |
|
Edited by Art-Void at 15:28, 20 Feb 2009.
|
My point in this matter is crystal clear. If someone starts a war against, so called, terrorists at least they should make the effort to look up the word in a dictionary. As we all know there can be some difference in the interpretation but nonetheless it all come down to the use of violence to reach a political goal. In this case US (I address only the government and not the people) play in a totally different league then any other country or organisation in the world. There have been interventions in Cuba, Haiti, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, Colombia, Italy, Greece, Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, Panama, Somalia, Chile, Mexico, Indonesia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and the list can go on and on.
All of the mentioned interventions have had more or less clear political goals. This is per definition terror acts. If every nation would stand up against terror in all its forms and proclaimed a “war on terror” US soon ran out of friends. My point is that the government of US, all its pros and cons, should first clean its own front yard before starting to “help” and intervene in other countries affairs.
As someone already wrote – it’s a fine line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Only history determines the difference in the long run, but in meantime US and its allies do the job for all of us. That is just sad… If someone should intervene somewhere it must be UN and not a single state. …a terrorist is a terrorist irrespective of nationality.
____________
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted February 20, 2009 10:42 PM |
|
|
UN is one of of the most ineffective organisations in the world.If left for the UN,we would have global occupation efforts by various agressor countries.
Veto rights anyone?Like UN wants to intervene in Uganda cuz of genocide there and then comes China says no for various reasons and so welcome to mass murder IMHO.
BTW There is no evil or good in the world.Saying US is a devil is just as good to say as Russia or China is an angel.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 23, 2009 02:39 PM |
|
|
I've promised myself not to lower myself to the level of involving myself into these sorts of "debates" that are then "judged" with scores or crap like that.
So I'm not going to bother either. I'm just going to barf up my opinion and be done with it, mostly to see if I can actually get the information stored chaoticly in my chaotic brain properly on paper.
I was about 14 when 9/11 occurred and in the beginning I was quick to swallow whatever the media spilled at me. Unfortunately, unlike a lot of people, I have a working set of brains and quickly started to see inconsistencies and typical propaganda crap.
They want the people to believe invading Iraq was a necessary step in 'making the world a safer place'. Quite frankly, the only terror that was done were Bush and his buddies spreading fear into the hearts of dimwitted rednecks via various media about "how dangerous Saddam was". And the propaganda goes on about "how Iraq is now a better place" and "the USA and their lapdogs fight for democracy and freedom". At least, that's what they say. But there are numerous suspicious "coinsidental" benefactors, and inconsistencies, and once all counted together, anyone with half a braincell can make an obvious conclusion.
A) What the hell did Osama Bin laden have to do with Iraq? They blamed the attacks on Osama, and yet they go after Iraq with not even a single link laid between 9/11 and Saddam.
B) Banks and Weapon Industries (particularly carlyle group) made good profits over the war.
C) Coinsidentally, Bush Sr. had a high position in Carlyle group.
D) American (and probably some European) corporations earned many contracts in rebuilding Iraq (Aren't they benelovent?)
E) Oil. Duhr.
F) Various sources on CIA Drug smuggling from Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, it was the Taliban that went to burn down opium fields.
G) Restrictions on freedom and privacy within the USA under the guise of "fighting terror". Interestingly, people are much less reluctant to give up such fundamental rights once fearful enough.
Those are off the top of my head. Once you dig deeper into various materia the more a picture grows of a world ran by selfish elites that go to any length to increase their own profits at the cost of human lives and dignity. There is no "for Freedom" or "benelovence", that's all just propaganda for dumb sheep to swallow, particularly patriotic, ignorant rednecks who eagerly believe they are totally awesome, and think the world hates them because the world is jealous.
Ahhhh venting feels good.
____________
|
| |
|
|
