Since this has been opened up, I'll just put what I've written so far as a rebuttal to
joshbaumgartner. For what it's worth at this stage, here is my rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal...
The problem with this debate is that any side can win under a certain interpretation of the words in the topic. One must then choose their interpretation correctly. JB accepts certain premises at face value that ought not to be. That there was an attack planned the U.S. elections was merely a commonly held fear, and does not reflect any intentions on the parts of the "terrorists." There's no proof to back-up such a statement. If there was, we might be able to display the diminished capacity of "terrorist" cells to attack.
It also does not follow that if "terrorists" do have the strength to launch offensives that there is no reason why they shouldn't. That is a leap of logic. We could say all sorts of things to refute that, like: "they are waiting for a more opportune time," or "they are saving their resources for a larger scale attack." But to make such statements, I'd have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt first of all "who" they are and exactly what their plans are. There is no reliable source of information which gives those details.
The War on Terror is a phrase invented by the White House. Therefore, the question of whether the WOT is being won must be answered in terms of whether the White House is acheiving its goals.
If the goal of the WOT was to stop international terrorism, then I'd be in a much more difficult position in trying to refute JB, but luckily for me, the White House decided to go into Iraq. The threat of international terrorism coming from Iraq never existed, and we discovered this as soon as it was clear there were no WMDs (of course we know that the U.S.A. also has WMDs, but maybe we oughtn't go there right now). So now the stated goal in Iraq is to oversee the democratic process. If this is truly a war, then with the Iraqi
enemy removed, the U.S. army should be moving on to more immediate threats such as Iran and
North Korea, where, to put it lightly, there is much more reliable evidence of the existence of WMDs. With a leader who is more concerned with creating a democracy in a country whose threat has been neutralized, than going after the clear and present danger, we cannot possibly be winning the war on terror.
Of course I don't believe all this. I don't consider Iran or Iraq or North Korea a threat (especially after Team America took care of Kim Jong Il II last year). I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a guise for the expansionist/imperialist interests of the U.S.A. but I think we all know what would happen if I debated under those premises.
This is only about 60% of a winning argument. I know it would have been better complete, but I didn't want the thread to die and besides, given enough responses, I'll be throwing in the other 40% soon enough.
Cheers!
