It's Time To End The War On Terror- Intelligence Squared U.S.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- Days after 9/11, President Bush declared a War on Terror that would "not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." Is America in a state of perpetual war, or has the threat of terrorism justified its position as the organizing principle behind our foreign policy? In 10 years we've been in 2 wars, witnessed the Arab Spring and the death of Osama bin Laden--is it finally time to end the War on Terror?
For: Peter Bergen
For: Juliette Kayyem
Against: Richard Falkenrath
Against: Michael Hayden
===================================
Subscribe: bit.ly/IQ2onYou...
Official site: iq2us.org/vote
IQ2US Twitter: bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
IQ2US Facebook: bit.ly/IQ2onFac...
===================================
*slow applause*....*chanting*.....*people screaming of joy*..... but seriously what you just said was the sad truth, people fail to realize.
I really dislike that these debates seem to be over definitions rather than substance.
of all the topics to post this on, this would be the last one I would have thought to bitch on.
+Lord Razer
But the solution would be for these very busy intellectuals to pre-debate the name of the motion. Pre-trial.
Terms and conditions apply. I deal with this with my customers all the time. There's no way around it. You have to live by the rules, for better or worse.
+Chad W Seems I think outside the box then.
+trumanhw Seems to me that that is the moderator's job, to draw the lines defining what it means to be for or against the motion.
I object. :) Words have meanings... and the inference of a sentence can be more or less accurately interpreted... or at least, the SAT tests thought so.
...and sometimes, when no crisis exists, you have to create one, -to fulfill your agenda. This was the case in the years preceding 9/11.
Terrible debate. You had the G-men debating for the motion that the war agaisnt al-qaeda should not be stopped. Peter was debating the motion in its wider sense and that sense being the one well all thought we were hear to listen to. That america should stop abducting, torturing and assassinating foreign and domestic nationals. And it seemed poor Juliette was debating with herself whether or not to say the wrong thing and jepordize her future career.
Poor show.
dumbass al qaeda is CIA and ISI lmfao at worst... and nothing more then arms dealers on speed dial smh.... lmfao and you actaully believe the US gov't....LOL
This has frustrated me since the beginning. If it were called the war on "terrorism," it would make a degree of sense as an endeavor (futile or otherwise). Calling it a war on "terror" is not only semantically strange (imagine a war on unhappiness or sincerity), but obscures the motivation, the means, the goal, etc. and leads to this "blank check" you refer to. I think this was deliberate.
Not surprised by the results at all. The team against the motion seemed to be more on the same accord (they do work with each other after all), and they discussed ideas in basic terms that the audience could understand. I don't agree with their definitions, but their careful usage and defense of those definitions put them at an advantage. I actually agree with the team for the motion, but they made things too complicated for the audience to grasp (I understood what they were saying though).
Americas continuation of insisting on declaring war on everything reflects badly on the nation, and distorts the meaning of the word.
Exactly. Wars are against nations, individuals or groups. You declare war on a proper noun, not a common noun. They shouldn't have called it the "War on Terror", but rather the "War on Al-Qaeda/Taliban/ISIS." At least that way there is a clearly defined objective and enemy and it is easier to know when the war is won or lost as politicians can't keep shifting the goal posts. If the enemy is gone, the war is won. If not, it is lost. That will stop "endless wars".
The question, however, isn't whether the US is at war, or whether that designation is legally handy for the authorities involved (as per the killing of OBL) - it's whether the war is still effective or necessary as originally conceived. "You don't want to take those tools off the table while there are terrorists out there.... you'll be less safe". US intel cannot wipe out all terrorists, but cannot "end the war" while any still exist, so the war can never be ended, so blank cheque for US intel.
The war on terror was "never" understood to be finite. You're not going to get an omnipotent representative for Islamic terrorists to sit down and sign a binding document to cease hostilities because no one person or faction represents "all" terrorists, everywhere. Terrorism by definition is amorphous. It doesn't have a head of state like a sovereign country to negotiate with. Trying to do that with terrorists would be like herding cats and won't accomplish a damn thing. The problem to me is not to end a war on terrorism but to do it smarter and cheaper. Trillion-dollar conventional wars like Iraq and Afghanistan are certainly NOT the way. We have way too many in our government and military that still think in WW2 terms, and fight like it. I have no problem with targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders and those high up in their support network, no problem using legal and extra-legal methods to cut off sources of funding, no problem stepping up anti-terrorism propaganda....etc, but to declare the war all but won and unilaterally end the fight is idiotic.
excuse me? 'WOT never understood to be finite'? 'never understood' ... by WHOM? military and security contractors? if you were paying attention past 13 years, the only authorized war after 9/11 was against AL QAEDA -- a fringe group now decimated. so this 'war on TERROR' is a bumper sticker war, a slogan employed by those who (for gonzo SF, ideological, political or corporate reasons) wanna peep in our mail and go rambo around the world while enjoying little oversight and mostly black budgets...
THAT'S what most americans want to end. if this means risking another terrorist 'incident' (al qaeda or other), so be it. the cost-benefit of DHS & broader WOT has become prohibitively outta whack.
You should have got Michael Scheuer in the debate!
Its even better if you create them yourself.
I think they argued ineffectively. This was especially glaring then asked about what would be gained by ending war on terror and pro side could not name anything except expansiveness of this war.
Everyone on this panel is insider of the institutions conducting this war. I think that tainted their perspective.
So what is the detriment of this war? It detracts attention and resources from other, more harmful problems, like human trafficking, white collar crime, gang violence, making enemies abr
afghans in exile warned both the british and american govts against arming the mujahadeen,they made it clear that in doing so they were bankrolling their future assasins,well the mujahadeen became the taliban and the chickens have come home to roost,
what the fuck? at 20 the agent killed an unarmed man?? how is that helping him??
That was the for the motion argument essentially. Money that was needed now by the intelligence machine, is not needed as much today, nor the number of people that are in the intelligence community. Yes we need the agencies we have, but when you give any agency a lot of resources, they get to used to that amount coming in and want more, or at least the same amount they have been getting. What the for side was saying is trim the intelligence fat we have as a result of the war on terror.
This debate is very disappointing - some of the other ones were much better.
Not mentioning economic costs, which with indirect cost (corruption with private contractors, healthcare and pensions for military personnel, integration after war) totals over 4 trillion dollars (hey, that's a quarter of your nation's debt), you have lost much more important - your cool head, unshakable courage, freedoms (full body scans at airports - humiliation and a dose of radiotion!!). And terrorists needed only 70 million which they got back through corrupt government of Afghanistan.
+Jack Redemption it's not about understanding though. It's about money, the military industry complex makes so much money. In fact, everytime you hear how much money the war has cost, that's exactly how much money they have made. It's money being spent on tanks, ammunition, uniforms, oil to fuel their tanks, humvees etcetera, food and supplies for their troops and military bases, contractors to build those bases, and so on. They all make so much money and they lobby and pay politicians like the rest of them. It all comes back to money in politics, that's why the war on terror continues, that's why the war on drugs continues, that's why the prisons continue to be filled with people arrested for non-violent drug crimes, three strike laws, etcetera. Money money money.
With regards to the Taliban -- watching any documentary or war journalism will show that the Taliban engages FIRST. The US troops move in, Taliban use tactics and engage them, US troops return fire. One can argue that the US is the aggressor by it's presence in Afghanistan, but the US doesn't shoot armed persons in Afghanistan unless they are hostile. The exceptions are drone strikes, which are alleged to be targeted against very select individuals, not just people who carry small arms.
+trumanhw It's all about perception, in terms of the smaller conflicts like firefights between the US and the Taliban, the Taliban is usually the aggressor. In the larger scope with regards to the country, the invaders (the US) are the aggressors. In the even larger scope, the people who flew planes into building on US soil are the aggressors,... but we could do this ad infinitum and it serves no purpose except to show that it's all about perception.
There is such a thing as a reasonable answer. The Taliban didn't have to engage in firefights... we weren't burning their poppy fields down. What exactly was their grievance??
trumanhw I'd imagine they feel that we are a hostile occupational force looking to subdue them? I imagine the people of the USA would feel much the same should another country send soldiers into their country and start building bases? I'm not stating either is right, simply a rational reasoning that anyone could accept.
Agreed -- but they should relax firing because it's in their lives interest.
"It's Time To End The War On Terror"
5 years after this stupid debate question was asked, we now live in the age of ISIS. Even if we win in Iraq and Syria; we sill can't seem to deal with ISIS in our homelands in the US, France, and Germany and other parts of Europe.
Now have the war in them!
The side for the motion seemed to say Bush had an annoying twangy accent and Obama is cool so let's just do mostly the same stuff, call it something different and bemoan the former administration while praising ourselves for our new thinking that is so successful that is cribbed from Bush but nonetheless was stupid and excessive and let's wash our hands of it...
@ Peter Knopfler Dafuq did I read?
Why always Terror is confined to the Islam and the Muslim countries? what about this kind of Terror: invasion of Iraq, invasion of Palestine by Israel?. I think we should first define Terror.
Exactly, Jeff, and look at ISIL!
Never said that, just a better country... Doesn't have to be 'important'.
I do live here :D Used to live in UK but left that shithole...
American politics maybe, not Finland or other good countries with good gov.