It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Cons of your position
1) A tremendous commitment to a prolonged, multi-font war
2) Very little to show for it, when the prolonged, multi-front war is over
3) Devastating to people and nations who haven’t done anything to deserve it (i.e. the nations and citizens of nations in which the Taliban may operate)
Additionally, death is not much a deterrent to people who are willing to die for what they believe in. Remember that many terrorists - especially Islamic extremists - kill themselves intentionally during attacks.
Remember that high ranking Nazis escaped punishment, and that Bin Laden is still at large.
Originally posted by Epiphron
Ever since our country declared independence from the tyrannical rule of Great Britain, we have stood firmly on the foundations of liberty and justice.
This is about what the US should do,
and since the US has always stood for freedom, it would be hypocritical to deny other human beings the same rights we have simply because they were born in the wrong place.
In 1823, our president James Monroe brought forth the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that no European powers were to interfere with Central or South America, where many countries were gaining their independence, just as we had done a half century before. So it is not a new concept for us to protect people in other countries from tyranny.
So this debate really isn’t about what we ARE doing, it’s about what we SHOULD be doing. Thanks to strong efforts by the media and TPTB, we, as a nation, have become largely desensitized and callous to suffering. Most citizens are simply too self centered to care about the oppression of people on the other side of the world. Indifference and selfishness are the main reasons why there is suffering and injustices going on in the world, so while this may be the current state of things, we really have to ask ourselves, is this right? Is this indifference and lack of empathy found in most Americans the way it really SHOULD be?
That’s not to say that isolationism is the best policy, but certainly the unending pursuit of anyone who disagrees with us was never a goal. It is not now an American policy, and it should never be an American policy.
Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power… Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its peoples.
This debate is not about engaging in an absurdly unrealistic fantasy
There’s a difference between having the right to something and having that thing given to you.
The Taliban are already out of power.
I say forced because Americans are clearly not interested in pursuing your proposed course of action
Recall that earlier in the debate you agreed that the United States should act in agreement with the will of the people. The will of the people is [I]not[/I] to violently impose freedom on every human being on earth. Case closed.
Nation’s duties are to its people, not the people of other nations. How can American citizens be asked to put their lives on the line so that an Afghan woman can go outside? No one can expect foreigners to die for their rights.
• Promotes democracy as a way to achieve security, stability, and prosperity for the entire world;
• Helps establish and assist newly formed democracies; and
• Identifies and denounces regimes that deny their citizens the right to choose their leaders in elections that are free and fair.
I don’t agree with racist violence, so I don’t think you should be violent.
Americans live the by principal that Americans have those rights, not every human being anywhere.
OnceReturned is the winner here, and probably the all star of the junior tournament thus far as well. I wish I could go on at length to spell it out, but in a nutshell, he used his socratic questions and also his answers to them brilliantly to cast his opponent's position in the least favorable possible light. It was an almost perfect argument that forced the perhaps more popular, and perhaps "more American" seeming alternative position to contort itself until it no longer looked American or the least bit advisable. Epiphron did a way above average job actually, but it just wasn't enough against this opponent, and he did trip over some historical and ethical contradictions.