CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I think the U.S. Should pull out. Like the person above me has stated about poking noses in to peoples business, you shouldn't! Hundreds of soldiers are being killed there, and them dying is doing no one any good!
The US shouldn't be sending soldiers and military units over to the Middle East and should continue withdrawing forces.
First of all, many Arabs don't like US military assets in the Middle East, and it is because of US forces in this area that most of the Arab countries don't have good relationships with the US. It is commonly agreed by many Arabs that the US relations could be greatly improved if US armed forces would leave.
Also, the funding used to support US soldiers over in the Middle East is draining the economy, putting the country further into debt.
This doesn't mean that terrorism will go unchallenged. Multiple nearby countries such as India, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have promised and have been making efforts to help end terrorism in the Middle East.
I think we, United States, keep poking our nose into to everyone else's business. Pretty soon we will irritate everyone to the point where no one likes us. I know we need to help people, but is it necessary to run right into this kind of things. Maybe if we had people backing us up or helping us. This is like a one man protest, or a one country versus many. We should fix our own problems before we go helping everyone else out, because when we fall, we can't help anyone anyways.
The U.S. way of life is everywhere, and in everyone's face, and that is inevitable due to globalization and it is going to continue to increase so long as the U.S. is the dominant nation.
Our lifestyle and other Western nation's is an easy target for those who wish to use the impoverished and uneducated for their own power. They will always use us as a rallying cry, a great satan to be defeated, so long as they are poor and dumb and Wester nations (by comparison) are rich and intelligent.
So to an extent, sure, we put Osama there for instance. However even in places where we've not had a hand, our name and hatred toward us and European nations is a way of recruiting for these few.
You are correct that warring with these groups is poor policy though. But for the wrong reason.
Terrorism is a law issue, to be pursued on a case-by-case basis by agencies like the FBI locally and the CIA globally. They are better equipped for it, better at it, and less likely to make the problem worse by approacing it with too-heavy a hand.
The U.S. declaring war on a terrorist group is like a giant bear declaring war on a hive of bees. The bear will break a lot of shit, even kill a lot of bees, but they're too small and the bear's too big and they'll just fly somewhere else and build a new hive.
Al Quaeda declared war on US in 1996. We ignored them. They bombed the USS Cole, two of our embassies in Africa and executed the first WTC bombing. Our response was to kill a night watchman in a bombing of a pill factory and to prevent our intelligence agencies from sharing information with each other. At some point, I am gonna buy a can of raid and soak that beehive with insecticide. And if we didn't say "No thank you" to Sudan when they offered us the queen bee (bin Laden) on a silver platter, it would have been more difficult to move the hive and rebuild the colony, since that queen bee was the source of all the honey (funding). And all of this, the attacks on US property and sovereignty as well as the lives of US servicemen abd citizens was before we even get to 9/11. IMO there is no question we should declare war on Al Quaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and other terrorists who have either declared war or committed acts of war against us. How those wars should be conducted is open to discussion. Increasingly the use of drones and improved intelligence in the area is minimizing the need for tens of thousands of boots on the ground.
"The U.S. declaring war on a terrorist group is like a giant bear declaring war on a hive of bees. The bear will break a lot of shit, even kill a lot of bees, but they're too small and the bear's too big and they'll just fly somewhere else and build a new hive."
This idea of the US being a big benevolent (but somehow very clumsy) creature is one that has been fed to you and most other Americans (of above average intelligence) who need a bit more of a sophisticated lie before they can believe their nation has the best of intentions overseas, as usual the reality of the situation is completely different, but as long as you believe it, and as long most other Americans who have the some kind of power to influence policy believe it, it really doesn't matter.
Let me fix your analogy so it represents reality to some degree:
*"The US declaring war on a tactic so they can justifiably destroy any resistance group that uses that tactic (despite the fact that they routinly use it and with far more devastating effects in terms of damage done and lives lost) against their unending and brutal hegemony overseas is a like a bear who tries to control a hive, because the honey in the hive is mankind's greatest material asset and whoever controls the flow of honey (i.e. oil) occupies an unrivaled position of power in the world, but these crazy bees somehow think its their honey, why, because they were born in the hive, but the bear just kills any bees it cannot control with soft power, the bear doesn't give a fuck a about the bees (never has, never will), it just wants their honey and power that comes with it, the bear gladly destroys entire hives in pursuit of its honey, but it tells all the other bears back at home that its acting in the best interests of the bees, and it only wants to promote democracy and freedom within the hives.
There, now its a little bit closer to reality. If that sounded really cheesy its because I'm exceptionally drunk.
what a load. The bear analogy made no mention or inference of benevolence. You intentionally took it out of context and spun your own interpretation of what he said in order to make an opening for your anti US rant.
As for the rest, as usual as much as I may have inadvertently overstated the U.S.' benevolence, you I believe are overstating it's evil secret schemes to control the world oil supply... I mean, if we really wanted to surpress the world and take the oil for ourselves it is not as if we couldn't. It seems if it were a continuous purposeful goal we'd be doing a far better job of it.
dint apologize! Your post didn't even hint at any implied benevolence on the part of the bear. The bear was attacked first by the bees who had already declared war on the bear. That is fact. If we also want the bees honey (and I dint know what the honey represents since AQ, Hezbollah and Hamas don't control oil, natural resources or riches), doesn't mean we weren't justified in responding with force to the bees' previous deadly provocation.
"Your post didn't even hint at any implied benevolence on the part of the bear."
Ya I suppose you're right, I just recognised it as a popular myth prepetuated in the US in order to ensure its citizens don;t know the truth of its affairs overseas.
"The bear was attacked first by the bees "
When? 9/11 is it?
"by the bees who had already declared war on the bear. That is fact."
One thing you need to learn very quickly is that saying: "this is fact", doesn't make it so.
"(and I dint know what the honey represents since AQ, Hezbollah and Hamas don't control oil, natural resources or riches), doesn't mean we weren't justified in responding with force to the bees' previous deadly provocation."
What are you talking about? The analogy is over, please speak in terms that are comprehensible to others, I have no idea what you're trying to say, I'm sure that made a lot of sense in your head but for someone else its fairly hard to decipher.
IN other words, you assumed he meant what you wanted him to mean?
NO, if you read my postings I referred to the attacks prior to 9/11 that are so often ignored. Two embassies, the Cole, the FIRST WTC attack. All acts of war AFTER the declaration of war by OBL.
And one thing I will be happy to teach you is that trying to win debate points by denying everything is a weak cover for being too lazy, intellectually dishonest or cowardly to actually disprove what I claim is a fact. You can go on the net and SEE him say it. If you think the translation is a lie or the video released to multiple outlets NOT under the thumb of the US is phony and that no one calls it out, you are just being intentionally obtuse.
Sorry. I really don't feel like dumbing it down to accommodate your lack of understanding.
"IN other words, you assumed he meant what you wanted him to mean?"
I've openly acknowledged my error, and it isn't what I wanted him to mean. The idea of the US being a gentle giant that always has the best of intentions (like Paul Bunyan) is a popular myth sold to the American public in order to reassure them. It has even gained traction in the highest social strata, who I am kidding, they invented it. Even the prominent "new atheist" Sam Harris (who I agree with on a lot of the time) espoused this myth, its total fabrication, anyone outside the US can see that, but therein lies the problem.
I extrapolated a little bit too far from his original statement, this I have openly admitted, but given the penetration of this myth in the US I don't believe it was an egregious error to do so. Ask yourself a simple question, why do you think none of the people outside the US believe this myth? particularly those that have been on the sharp end of your countries foreign policy.
"NO, if you read my postings I referred to the attacks prior to 9/11 that are so often ignored."
I'll get around to them eventually, don't worry, rest assured I agree with practically none of it.
"Two embassies, the Cole, the FIRST WTC attack. All acts of war AFTER the declaration of war by OBL. "
I'll deal with these when I respond to your other post.
"And one thing I will be happy to teach you is that trying to win debate points by denying everything is a weak cover for being too lazy,"
What have I denied? And how is it that I have denied everything? Also, what makes you so certain you are qualified to teach me?
"intellectually dishonest or cowardly to actually disprove what I claim is a fact. "
Wow, you've started on the ad hominems already, we've barely gotten our gloves on, I can tell you don't mind fighting dirty.
"Sorry. I really don't feel like dumbing it down to accommodate your lack of understanding."
If you want me to debate you, you're going to have to be explicit, otherwise there's no way to verify anything, if you refuse and continue to write in garbled english (that only you can understand) then there really is no point in continuing this exchange.
"you I believe are overstating it's evil secret schemes to control the world oil supply..."
There's nothing secret about it, just read Noam Chomsky's hegemony or survival, or look up your countries military policy of full spectrum dominance. It just so happens controlling the worlds oil grants you control of the global economy. In the last century only the really massive economies (e.g. traditionally Soviet Russia and China) had the power to resist US ( and Western) dominance (by virtue of their vast size), all others were forced to take part in the global economy, and were thus forced to be subservient to the West. This is true, at least in the general sense, obviously any analysis has highly simplistic as this isn't going to account for the many exceptions, outliers, etc.
"I mean, if we really wanted to surpress the world and take the oil for ourselves it is not as if we couldn't."
"It seems if it were a continuous purposeful goal we'd be doing a far better job of it."
Well it ain't an exact science, but rest assured, you ain't doing such a bad job of it, or at least you weren't until capitalism recently began to deteriorate under the weight of its own internal contradictions, and burgeoning regional (and possibly global) superpowers began to emerge (i.e. China, India, Brazil, etc.).
No, we shouldn't be at war because we are already having problems of our own and, for example, my uncle (who has a family of 4 kids and a wife) is being sent back to Iraq (again...) so I think we should keep withdrawing our soldiers and get them back home.