It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 1. ktprktpr V BlackJackal: War on Terror

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Debate 5

The topic for this debate is "The US is winning the War on Terror."

ktprktpr will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
BlackJackal will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included in any post. Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

As a guide responses should be made within 24 hours, If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit their replies and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.




posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
First off, I apologize for the delay. I was sharpening my sticks for this debate. Now to my prelude, my audience. Please, take a seat, bring a loved one, and see the way:

You can still see it. Through the smoky haze. You can still smell it. The blood and asbestos. Born of September 11th, painfully forged in the cataclysmic union of the Twin Towers and Terrorism, a multi-dimensional war was born. This war, like the presence of its late father, is awesome in scope and might.

This war is not a simple thing. It exists along various spectrums, ones of military, ones of the political, ones of propaganda. And for the US, the chief way to observe this war is within the box of US media portrayal, called TV. From the perspective of television, within the United States, for Americans, there can be no doubt that the US is winning the war on terror.

But if we step outside of our little pond, does the answer remain the same? I will passionately argue for the resounding YES. I point to the recent UN unanimous acceptance. I will point out that no terrorist attack has occurred against US soil. When you look at the facts and weigh them against international criticism, it is obvious that the world is falling into line. In military success, in the world endorsing the war on terror, the US is winning the war on terror. God Bless and good night.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I would like to begin by thanking the community, the moderators, and my opponent for the opportunity to take part in this debate. It has been a joy to be a part of a community in which you have the ability to discuss such varied topics with such a group of diverse individuals. Again, I would like to express a heart felt thank you to everyone who has made this possible.

I agree with my opponent the war on terrorism is definitely not simple and unlike anything we have seen in the past. President Bush said it the best, “the war on terror will be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places”. However, looking back at the past 33 months are we safer than we were before the war began or will we ever regain the sense of sanctuary we had before? The unfortunate answer is “No” because it is a war that cannot be won.

The United States has demonstrated it has the muscle to kill, capture, and even invade countries however, attacks still occur. The US can imprison terrorist leaders and disband terrorist cells but terrorism itself is an ancient issue that cannot be decisively defeated.

Mull over the American war on drugs has been waged for the better part of four decades. Drugs can still be found in most communities throughout the country today. Sure, we have won a few battles put a few dealers in jail and shut down a few supply lines but ask yourself can it be completely stopped, at the very least are we winning the war?

The principle target in this war on terror is the terrorist faction Al Qaeda a group of only 1000 worldwide. As of yet the US has been powerless to locate its leader, even when Bin Laden has had no trouble accessing the worlds media outlets. Even with the invasion of two countries it has been unable to thwart Al Qaeda along with other terrorist cell attacks in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombasa, Jerusalem, Istanbul, Madrid or Baghdad just to name a few.

Since 9/11 there has not been a significant terrorist attack on US soil however there will, it is only a matter of time. The war on terror has not made the US safer it has made it a larger target. The gung ho tunnel vision view the US has for the war on terror has irritated the international community and garnered the attention of terrorist groups once unconcerned with the US.

Bottom line, Israel, Spain, Sri Lanka, and other countries have been fighting terrorism for much longer than the US. No Country has every eliminated it and in most it has gotten worse. To say the US is winning this war is to turn a blind eye to the facts. As long as there are people willing to die for religion or political gain there will be terrorism.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Winning requires success at the current point in time. Within the war on terror, success means the following: Physical safety in the U.S. homeland, global support, a committed persistence and, finally, getting the bad guys. If America has all of this, America is winning.

And America does have it all. We haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11. A UN resolution affirming our actions has passed unanimously. With Bush in office, U.S. commitment, for better or worse, can't be doubted. We've killed or captured a majority of Iraqi's Most Wanted playing cards. We got Saddam.

Since winning is a state of successful being that has no reference to eventual outcomes or implications, the assertion that America is winning must be divorced from the future. This makes sense. If you include the future, or speculation, you get stupid things like "failing success." And you can't have a failing success, now can you? Such a thing doesn't make sense.

So, given all of the above, America is winning the War on Terror.

Some question American safety, relative to 33 months ago. But you can compare American safety with any other point in time. Is America safer now than in 1962, during the Cuban Missile crisis? Or is America safer than its 12th century incarnation, when Native Americans keep the continent well? When you get down to it, you have to define what makes safe. And my definition of success outlined above makes for a safe America.

The question of whether a war can be won is has no bearing on whether someone is winning it currently. Look at people fighting old age with skin cremes, cucumbers and relaxation. Through genetics or vanity, many people are winning the battle against age, despite the fact that mortality kills. As I stressed before, winning is a current state, not a supposed result.

America is not omnipresent. This war has just begun. Most countries suffering from terrorist attacks have strong Islamic extremist elements, although this is changing. What could be seen as a spreading danger can be viewed as a political asset that forces fence sitting allies to consolidate their positions. As Bush so eloquently said, "You're with us or against us."

Really, if you look at what hasn't happened to America so far, at this instant, right now, America is winning the war on terror. After all, Bush and crew do not dictate U.S. policy on the run, from cave to stinking cave.



posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Let me start by saying it is good to be back and a delight to debate with an opponent as accomplished as mine. My opponent has definitely raised the bar so I will have to be on my toes.

My opponent has all but agreed that this is a war that cannot be won however; he argues that at the present time the US is “winning” the war on terrorism. I will now prove how that is a false pretense as well.

In President Bush’s speech on September 20. 2001 he outlined the war on terror by saying “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” Now I ask you how can the US be winning the war on terror when it has proved itself incompetent thus far to win the first battle in the war against al Qaeda. The leadership of al Qaeda may be running from cave to cave but the US cannot find them nor disrupt their ability to organize terrorist attacks across the globe.

The US is not winning because the global reaches of extremist terrorist factions are growing. New attacks occur almost daily (at the very least much more than before 9/11), turn on the news at night and listen to the new terrorist attacks around the globe for the day. The single most important reason why the US is losing is the new generation of terrorists that being brought to the front line. This increase in terrorists is directly attributed to the US’s inability to stop the spreading of extremist ideas throughout the global population which is only furthered by each step in opposition to the current terrorists. A catch 22 indeed but the truth nonetheless, the current show of force is not the way to be on the winning side of this war.

All over the world terrorism threats grow each day and they have made their presence known. Terrorist attacks in Madrid led to the defeat of the pro-US government and the subsequent pull out of Spanish troops from Iraq. It doesn’t end there either due to continued fighting in Iraq or mishandling of this war the Coalition of the Willing is shrinking not expanding. After Spain withdrew its troops Honduras, The Dominican Republic, Poland, and now possibly Thailand are all dropping out. The US is not winning its losing strength and momentum.

As far as the UN resolution it proves in no way that the US is winning the war of terror. The resolution is nothing but a stamp of approval on the hand over of sovereignty to Iraq. What the resolution does show is the poor status of the once powerful United States. The US bowed down to every demand put forward in order to get the approval and did not receive one iota of international aid. All that the Iraqi government has to do now to get the US to leave is ask and that would definitely lead to instability and more terrorism.

When this war started President Bush said that we could handle this on our own but now he begs for international help. If we were winning he would never grovel before the UN

Until the US gets out to the WWII mentality of invading countries to win a war we will never be on the winning side. . We have barged into two different countries but both times the only real thing we have accomplished is making another group of people want to hurt the US. The sad truth is we are making new terrorists faster than we can kill them. Terrorists have no country to defend or armies to do battle. How can we think that by invading two countries we are winning the war on terrorism? The only thing that we have done is put most of our military on guard duty in foreign countries allowing terrorists more opportunities to attack us.



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
At no point have I even implied that that the war on terror can not be won. My analogy involving mortality, cucumbers and old age applies to humans, not international social phenomena.

It is also crucial to separate temporality, specifically, the future, from the notion of winning. If the U.S. is winning a boxing match, the future doesn't qualify anything because, simply stated, the U.S. is already winning.

People often use the negative to dis-qualify the U.S war on terror. We've spent billions and still haven't caught Osama. On average, two soldiers die in Iraq each day. Our actions are polarizing the world. Detractors point out what the U.S. hasn't done. But they also fail to point out what hasn't happened. The lack of terrorist violence within America. Take a moment and reflect just how important that is. You get to keep your job and provide for your family because the War on Terror is defending American transportations channels. Excellent defense is a primary component of winning.

This war on terror is a bigger than al Qaeda. It's not a serial thing, but a parallel process, where much happens at once, in part or whole. Consider that international terrorism largely has roots in the middle east. U.S. foreign policy has consistently compromised and reformed anti-American middle eastern elements. Case in point, during 1983, Iraq was a U.S. sponsored buffer against Iran's Islamic extremism. In 2002 we took out Iraq and Afghanistan.

Damascus (capital of Syria) has lost much income, estimated to be $50,000,000 per month (1), normally acquired from arms and oil smuggling to and from Iraq. The Syrian Accountability Act, passed in 2003, mimics the sword that once hung over Damascus. Since March 2004, pressure has been applied to de-nationalize the Syrian economy, which would pave the way for American capitalistic penetration. The ruling Ba'ath part in Syria is currently being restructured and is aligning with American interests.(2)

Richard Perle, a PNAC devotee, who has much credit with the current administration, has said, "I'm rather optimistic that we will see regime change in Iran without any use of military power by the United States." Today the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) begins a review of Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. is very effective at reforming countries that do not fall in line.

Now the question is, at what cost? We are hardening and polarizing anti-U.S. sentiment. But, at the same time the U.S. is aggressively severing ties between terrorists and their material supporters. To carry out more attacks in an environment of reducing support (in material) is to suffocate slowly. The War does not only smash, it strangles as well.

The U.S. could destroy the world in time for supper. It does not need the military assistance from Spain, Poland or Thailand. It needs political support. The recent UN resolution is a propaganda coup. As with men appraising women, it's the outside that counts first. The internal details matter little. The United Nations has endorsed pre-emptive U.S. foreign policy and sanctioned the way the U.S. went about it. Far from the U.S. being humiliated, in fact, I dare say, the U.S. has made the World eat # and like it (15 out of 15 countries agree). I call that winning. The details of Resolution 1546 matter little because we all know how selective the U.S. can be in following international regulation. The Iraqi war is a prime example.

I'm going to say it straight. You can't give me hard facts that terrorist factions are growing in size. That information is classified. So we can only go with what we see. Do daily attacks elsewhere constitute failure for the War on Terror? The daily attacks have to be put in perspective: From starvation, more people die in a single day, than from terrorist attacks in a single year. Yes. Each day 40,000 people starve to death.(3) If the recent bloodbath at Kabul, where 80 insurgents were killed, occurred everyday, only 29,200 would die yearly. Daily attacks on troops may be politically and emotionally "uncomfortable," but objectively, two or three daily attacks do not undermine U.S. military efficiency.

The UN has endorsed U.S. foreign policy and treatment of "rouge nations." Terrorists kill less people in a year than those dying of starvation in one day. Syria is in the process of being politically restructured and economically reformed. Iran has been diplomatically attacked on several fronts, the IAEA review being the latest wound. The writing is on the wall, largely in Iraqi blood. Overall, the U.S. has effectively instituted regime change, both in the West, through the UN and in the Middle East, with Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan being the latest victims.

And these are the reasons the U.S. is winning the War on Terror.

(1) www.talonnews.com...
(2) weekly.ahram.org.eg...
(3) www.animalsvoice.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
The international social phenomena, known as the war on terror, is every bit as fruitless as anti-aging creams in its current state, it just covers up the symptoms. The US thinks invading countries will disrupt terrorist supply lines and in effect destroy terrorism. Sadly this is the wrong strategy and has cost the US much ground in the war on terror. Terrorism is not Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea, or Palestine; Terrorism is an ideology the US failed to understand before declaring war upon it. To overcome terrorism the US must change a mindset in the eastern world; in this the US has succeeded however in the wrong direction. The arrogance of the United States has driven more and more of the Islamic world to hate the west while garnering the respect of the terrorist movement. The US’s own actions are undermining the war on terror, not so much terrorists themselves.

There has not been one significant attack in the US since 9/11, for that I am thankful. However, even though there has not been an attack on US soil does not mean Americans have not died at the hands of terror. Scores of Americans have been murdered by terrorists since 9/11. The goal of this war is for every free citizen to be free from terror, not Americans exclusively. If we measure this war’s success in the fact an attack has not occurred on US soil we are deceived since terror is more alive throughout the globe today than before 9/11(terrorist attacks have increased 36% since 2001, the most in 20 years).[1]

Terrorism is not measured in attacks alone; it is the perceived threat as well. Since the inception of the Homeland Security Advisory System was initiated in March 2002 the threat level never dipped below “yellow”. In effect since March 2002 the US has believed there is significant risk of terrorist attacks and in several instances the warning has been escalated to “orange” indicating a high risk of terrorist attacks. American people are reminded everyday of the significant risk of a terrorist attack within its borders. This risk has instilled fear into many allowing terrorism to succeed without even lifting a finger within the homeland. If the US was winning the threat level would be “blue” or “green” not teetering on the border of “yellow” and “orange”.



Indeed, this war is bigger than Al Qaeda and this is very troubling since Al Qaeda is growing rather than shrinking. There is no way to know for sure how many terrorists this world holds however most estimates indicate the numbers are growing.[2] The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, a supporter of the war in Iraq, has recently concluded the war on terror has provided results just the opposite of those desired. Rather than alienating Islamic extremists the war has only moved hatred of the US into the mainstream.[3] This paradigm shift of thinking is what the US intended to use to squash terrorism however, the shift is into the wrong direction.

It is wonderful Syria, Iran, and other countries alike are being pressured to reform but, this does nothing to solve the problem of terrorism. Worldwide terrorism has evolved to survive. [4] After the fall of Afghanistan the terrorists realized they could no longer depend on governments for support so they decentralized leadership and built an effective underground network. Many times cells in Iraq have no clue what cells in Iran are doing but they all have a common ultimate goal and are seemingly accomplishing it.

The US needs more than just political support at this point in time it needs financial and military support. Bush is asking any country that will listen for either monetary or military assistance in the war. Bush asked the G8 summit members for assistance, [5] and also in Resolution 1546 but received none. [6] Also Donald Rumsfeld quoted as saying "Despite considerable progress, the reality is that today we remain closer to the beginning of this struggle than to its end” is also on the road asking for help in Asia. [7] Simply put these are not the actions of a country that is winning anything.

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how many people terrorism kills the shadow it creates effects millions more. A 15-0 UN resolution means nothing to a terrorist and little more to the US when it offers no assistance. The US will not be on the winning side of this war until anti-U.S. sentiments in the Arab world on which terrorism feeds have been addressed, no amount of bombs, resolutions, or humanitarian aid will change that.

[1] www.startribune.com...
[2] www.cnn.com...
[3] www.time.com...
[4] straitstimes.asia1.com.sg...
[5] www.dfw.com...
[6] www.reuters.co.uk...
[7] www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Terrorism is a noun, but not a place. You will not find "Terr-Asia" on any map. An ideology is rooted among people, who may in turn commit terrorist acts.

All organizations, of at least international scope, are driven by some form of hierarchal control. Hierarchal control can be distributed in many dimensions: Leadership, material, money, etc. Note that systems of non-hierarchal control, such as Communism, have all failed. International terrorist organizations exhibit hierarchy, often in convoluted systems of funding and dispersal of logistics.

Because international terrorists, very much like you and I, need money for activities, there is a reliance on sponsorship. Naturally, the operational scope of a terrorist organization matches the operational complexity that supports it. Simply stated, you can't run al-Qaeda off of a couple of McDonald criminal store fronts. You need a sugar daddy. Thus, hierarchal control will always be present. Even if leadership is decentralized, at least, cash and centralized logistics (note 9/11's synchronization) must be dispersed.

Many CIA and PNAC documents assert that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia sponsor a majority of middle eastern terrorism. Terr-Asia may not be a nation, but she is born of them. Terrorism is state supported. If you smash the state, you force terrorist organizations seek new nourishment. Rinse and repeat, as the U.S. is doing, and terrorists are hard pressed to sustain themselves.

The U.S. attacks on a cultural level, as well. Calling on middle eastern governments to submit to Western style reforms disenfranchises the regional culture and opens the gates to (capitalistic) exploitation. Diplomacy and bloodshed are the quickest ways of forcing Westernization. Look at how quickly, and well, India, Venezuela or Japan were reformed.

The War on Terror is measured, in part, by lack of attack within America. Considering that terrorist attacks may have increased 36%, this War's offensive is more impressive and winning.

The Homeland Security Advisory System measures probabilities, not actualities. Winning is resolved by what actually happens. Since none of these probabilities play out, however high or uniquely colored, as admitted by BlackJackal, American is winning on the homeland front.

It is interesting that the 36% figure is superseded by 20 years in the past. Viewed in historical American context, the War on Terror is cyclical. Twenty years ago the world was an international nightmare; Russia invaded Afghanistan and military conflict broke out between Iran and Iraq. What caused the stretch of relative peace between then and now? Regan, God Bless his soul, having been re-elected, "happened". Like Bush, Regan beefed up military spending and policed the world.

In any head-on conflict an increase in terrorism is expected. Despite public outcry, the War has not stopped. So it can be said, at least, America must be winning enough to go on. Cast in political terms, both Bush and Kerry support this War. Would fore-runner John Kerry chance his political career that much?

According to the Star Tribune, the 36% terrorist increase occurred during the last 55 days in 2003. I don't know what happened, but it is significant that if a Nov. 11, 2003 cut-off date is used, "terrorist incidents in 2003 declined 45 percent since 2001, to the lowest level recorded in 30 years."(1)

The complexity of this War has to be reiterated. Despite BlackJackal's interpretation, this War is not one dimensional. A growing open hatred, among middle eastern civilians, plays into U.S. hands. Clearly from regime changes in Venezuela and Honduras, the U.S. is expert in compromising countries. The U.S. is attacking on multiple fronts (i.e., Syria), pressuring for governmental reform. As governments are found to satisfy U.S. demands (by whatever proxy, the U.N., barrel of a gun, etc.) civilian anger and exertion turns from the U.S. to their native government. This has occurred in Afghanistan, with increased local attacks (and no more 9/11s) and in Iraq, where unrest is focused on occupied territories. The U.S. understands the Machiavellian tactic of divide and conquer quite well. In these terms, the U.S. is well poised to strike Middle Eastern culture.

A 15-0 U.N. resolution means nothing to some. But it means much within the global sphere that international terrorists operate in. The Western world that decried Bush's cowboy ways has now accepted both him and the damn horse he rode in on (Pre-Emptive Attack). The U.N., by instilling legitimacy in Post-June 30th Iraq, has cast the U.S. as leader, whose example they now agree with.

The War is about protecting the world from terrorism. In a sense, it is about world peace. To have world peace, you must have world cooperation. But this level of cooperation requires a global authority, a New World Order. As the U.S. transfers its' responsibilities to the world stage, as a leader by example, defender of global white Western hegemony, it becomes a viable winner to lead the New World Order.

(1) www.startribune.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
In the past terrorism enjoyed state sponsorship but since 9/11 most have realized those days were over. Organized terrorism has evolved to cope with the change and has shown it still has the power to attack.

The simple truth is big money is not needed to support the growth of terrorism. All terrorism needs to grow is people to buy into an ideology. Anti-American sentiment is growing in the Islamic world burying its seed deep into a new generation of terrorists with eyes trained on the US.

To examine the cost of terrorism consider one bullet from one gun can strike fear into millions if the person on the other end is in the public eye. Major Terrorist attacks aren’t very expensive either. Consider the Oklahoma City Bomb that killed 168 people, the total cost of the bomb was only $3500 give or take a few hundred.[1-4] Terrorists cover this nominal cost through varied ways including, theft, credit fraud, bank fraud, and legitimate businesses among others.[5] Thus state sponsorship is not a prerequisite for terrorism.

The terrorism numbers have increased since 2001 and more than likely more than just 36%. In previous years terrorist incidents were tracked to the end of the calendar year and all terrorist incidents were counted not exclusively ones resulting in deaths.[6] The true numbers are sure to come out in the next few weeks and surely the release will do nothing to support winning the war on terror.

Despite my opponents interpretation of America “winning enough to go on” the fact is America has to push forward now winning or losing. The United States has made its bed and now has to lay in it. Afghanistan and Iraq have to be rebuilt prior to any new military endeavors or war restructuring. The US and the rest of the world (as shown in Resolution 1546) realize failure would be devastating on more levels than just terrorism.

I agree with my opponent the complexity of this war is far from many peoples grasp including US leaders. The US invaded two countries to crush terrorism at its base but the desired effect was not gained. The outcome thus far has been to bind the hands of the US military while Terrorism increased strength unabated in Africa.[7] The extremist Islamic ideology is moving closer and closer to mainstream without an answer from the US. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are gaining numbers without slowing due mostly to the US lead war on terror.[8] Terrorist attacks continue daily across the globe and mostly under the nose of an occupying American military force. If terrorism cannot be stopped in an occupied country where can it be stopped?

The US is losing because it has not even begun to deal with the indoctrination children in Arab schools with hate. Children are taught at a very young age to hate in many parts of the Islamic world and the effect is an assembly line of angry young terrorists.

The world is currently polarized along the lines of Al Qaeda’s choosing with the western world viewpoint becoming less and less desirable. American mismanagement, operational savagery, and questionable interrogation techniques have converted large portions of the Islamic world, previously pro-western, into anti-american and thus pro terrorism

The US is currently pursuing a self-defeating strategy of country invasion. Also this policy is stretching American resources to their limits leading Bush to beg for assistance from NATO, The G-8 Summit, the UN, and Donald Rumsfeld to look for it in Asia. Facts of the matter, the US cannot be winning it choose the wrong direction out of the gate and now has to backtrack in order to find the right course.

Another stumbling block for the US is the Israeli- Palenstinian conflict. Most terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, use the conflict as a rallying call. All the while the US refuses to put the appropriate pressure on the Israeli government to form a Palestinian state. The formation of such a state would resolve terrorism in the second largest hotbed outside of Baghdad. A US backed Palestinian state would also take the wind out of many terrorist claims but as of yet the US is unwilling to take that step.

In the end the United states has made great military progress but it has proven ineffective in defeating terrorism. The hasty decision to use all out military force has proven to be costly, handcuffing American resources while allowing terrorism to grow due to American actions. Terrorism now has a large head start and has become more sophisticated since 9/11.[9] The knee-jerk reactions of the US government has put the US on the losing side of a war for the first time since the beginning of WWII.

[1] en.wikipedia.org...
[2] www.progress.org...
[3] www.worldnetdaily.com...
[4] www.dragracingonline.com...
[5] www.latimes.com...
[6] www.alertnet.org...
[7] www.defenselink.mil...
[8] www.borrull.org...
[9] www.commondreams.org...



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Before I begin, I want to thank BlackJackal for a mentally expanding debate. It takes two to tango and despite whoever wins, the dance was beautiful.

Remember, the War is bigger than al-Qaeda.

There is growing international support. The UN resolution. The recent pledge from Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), composed of 57 Islamic nations, to 'actively assist' the Iraqi interim government.(1) Overall, the U.S. is effectively instituting regime change, in the West via the U.N. and in the middle east by Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Blackjackal himself says the key is to change the middle eastern mindset. The OIC pledge is a nice example of that.

The U.S. attacks culturally as well by forcing countries to satisfy its demands. Capitalistic penetration is but one way of "infiltration" and compromising middle eastern countries. Syria is reforming along these lines.(2)

There has been no successful attack within the U.S. since 9/11. The level of daily attacks and local terrorism incidents do not objectively undermine the U.S. militarily. Kerry and Bush are well aware of reports of terrorists expansion and Iraqi attacks, yet they both continue to support the War. Astonishingly, using a Nov. 11th 2003 cut-off date, "terrorist incidents in 2003 declined 45 percent since 2001, to the lowest level recorded in 30 years."(3)

Funding terrorist cells may be cheap, but funding international terrorist organizations is not. The War has started with them. Captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a product of terrorist hierarchy, told interrogators of the Ohio mall bombing plot. (4) Because these organizations, in several forms, work top-down, reforming middle eastern countries is a crucial component to battling terrorist organizations. As we see from (1), this is being done.

In the name of World Peace, this War reduces to increasing global cooperation. On this scale, effective surveillance and defense requires homogenous international law and absolute discourse. The War also requires contemporary experience in reforming nations via international law, diplomacy, bloodshed and economics. Ask yourself, what nation is best at nation subversion and homogenizing international law? As the U.S. transfers its' responsibilities to the world stage, as a leader by example, defender of Western hegemony, it becomes the only viable winner to lead the New World Order.

The debate topic is whether the U.S. is winning the War on Terror. Winning is a current state of success. The future and probabilities do not matter (see my "failing success" oddity). Success is defined in part as physical safety in the homeland, growing global support, commitment and getting the bad guy. The U.S. has done all these things. Excellent defense, too, is a primary component of winning.

This War exists along several dimensions, as previously covered. In each dimension, the U.S. has penetrated deeply and is causing and forcing U.S. positive change. The U.S. satisfies the definition of success given above. This, combined with the multitude of other factors I've covered, yield a winning U.S. war on terror.


(1) straitstimes.asia1.com.sg...
(2) weekly.ahram.org.eg...
(3) www.startribune.com...
(4) www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
The end has finally arrived yet I find myself wishing to continue for a worthier opponent I have never before enjoyed. Win or lose I still feel I have gained.

Judging the war on terror is a difficult task due to the lack of hard evidence, leaving us with mostly analysis and outlooks. However, there are more facts showing the US losing this war rather than winning.


  • Spain, Poland, Honduras, and The Dominican Republic have withdrawn from the Coalition of the Willing with Thailand and the Ukraine close behind.[1-5]
  • The US bowed down to every demand of the French and Germans to obtain Resolution 1546.[6]
  • US has sought for international aid for the war at the G-8 Summit, in Resolution 1546, and within Asia, yet received none.[7-9]
  • Terrorist attacks increased since 9/11 by at least 36% since in previous years attacks not resulting in death have been counted and all attacks were counted to the end of the year.[10]
  • The Threat level has not dropped below elevated once yet has been bumped up several times.


American is engaged in a war it cannot win, Terrorism will never be completely stamped out no matter how hard the US presses militarily, politically, or economically. The course America choose for this war has proved ineffective leading many former supporters to question the effectiveness.[11] While no one can definitely calculate the terrorist strength most analyst believe their numbers are growing.[11-13]

Terrorists have evolved faster than the US has been able to come up with answers. Terrorist attacks have become more sophisticated and more widespread since 9/11. My opponent trumps an attack has not occurred on American soil yet the rest of the world still suffers with this disease. This war is not exclusively for Americans the purpose was to free everyone from terrorism and that goal is far from achieved.

The ideology of terrorism is fueled by every bomb dropped and bullet fired by the US. New terrorists join the fight everyday while American resources continue to dwindle and international aid is harder to obtain. The mindset that fuels terrorism is more and more the norm while western ideals are dying. Children are still brainwashed with propaganda and the world is still polarized along the lines drawn by Al Qaeda. The failed understanding of this ideology has proven to be the most disastrous for the US.

Currently the US finds itself in poor standing with the rest of the world and for what? The US is no closer today to defeating terrorism than it was on 9/10/01 and I dare say farther away. The world finds itself in a strange and confusing time. A time in which the lone superpower is powerless to defeat a band of vigilantes and finds its actions to defeat them backfiring. The US may one day win this war but not until it understands what it is fighting

These are the reasons the US is losing the war on terrorism.




[1] www.janes.com...
[2] www.abc.net.au...
[3] www.cnn.com...
[4] english.pravda.ru...
[5] www.ireland.com...
[6] www.bangladeshobserveronline.com...
[7] www.dfw.com...
[8] www.reuters.co.uk...§ion=news
[9] www.cnn.com...
[10] www.alertnet.org...
[11] www.time.com...
[12] www.borrull.org...
[13] www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Well done guys, I'll pull in the net and set what judges I catch to work. Results in a day or so.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Well finally. The results of this debate are in.

The winner of the debate by a margin of 6-4 is BlackJackal. However, I imagine everyone who has had the pleasure of reading the debate will agree that a very hearty congratulations and thanks should go to ktprktpr. This debate is one of the finest so far in the ATS debate forum. Both of you should be proud of your efforts here.

Some Judges comments:

A standing ovation for this one. We have an excellent field of debaters this time! It is truly a shame that one must stop here, as both did an excellent job. Although my vote is with BlackJackal, this takes nothing away from the stellar performance by ktpr. I had to read it twice and then it came down to a matter of clarity and flow. Bravo!!


WOW What can I say that was a great debate. One of the best I've read. Both guys made solid arguments. I give my vote to BlackJackal since I believe he did a better job getting his point across. Great debate by both participants.


WOW. They should both win. ktprktpr summed it up most powerfully though.


Holy cow....this debate, by far, ranks as one of the best I have had the pleasure to read and judge. Both showed great pose and skill as debators and should be congratulated. If ever there was a time I wished that there was an allowed decision of 'tie', this debate would certainly fall into that category. Unfortunately, only one can be proclaimed as winner. As such, ktprktpr recieved my vote. I do want to again congratulate both debators for an awesome debate, one of the truly best I have had the pleasure to witness!


Is there a better word for impressed?

The debate, was exactly what was needed to breath new life into the forum. Despite the topic, both ktprktpr and BlackJackal
presented their arguements in a near poetic fashion, as far as debates go.

My vote goes to BlackJackal.


When I accepted the duty of judging the debates, I didn't know it would be so hard. If I could, I would let both of you go to the next round. You both made a great case for your side of the argument. All posts were well researched, although I think sometimes the amount of links was a bit too high. A bit more selection there would have been better.

Ktprktpr did well by stating that winning is something that happens now, but BlackJackal responded well by saying that if your actions will cause you to lose in the end, you can hardly be considered winning.

In the end, I have decided to vote for ktprktpr, but I'll hope you'll see again in the next tournament, BlackJackal. You both truly deserve to be in the next round, but only one can win.


damn, that was by far the best debate so far. as ktpr said, "the dance was beautiful." and that is who i shall cast my vote for.

both debators did an amazing job, to say the least. both argued their points incredibly well and knew exactly what they were talking about. great job, all around on this one.


Very well done guys, this was a tough one and it was very hard to not let personal feelings get in the way of judging this but fortunately I got past this.
The level of quality shown in this debate is the kind that should be strived for in every one that takes place, thanks alot.


winning is a state of successful being that has no reference to eventual outcomes or implications, the assertion that America is winning must be divorced from the future.

A couple things happened with that absolute statement & fact: A good debate was started, but also lost by the Pro argument in putting it out there. It polarized focus on present tense & the Con's argument was made, with a coup d'grace finish.


Apologies for the delay, two of the judges were unable to make a judgement on this debate. I had to unleash a reserve judge, it took a little time to pull it all together.

Best of luck to BlackJackal in round 2.




top topics



 
0

log in

join