America will never win the 'War on Terror'

Ok firstly Con pointed out that if America looses the war on terror then Europe does as well...i don't agree with this notion as France Germany, England in fact all of the European nations have their own strategy in fighting terrorism...notice how the French, Germans and most of Europe have not suffered from any domestic terrorism in the last ten years...in fact i can't think of any attack in France or Germany or Sweden, or Norway or Poland.....England and Spain are the only countries i can think who have had a major terrorist incident in the last 5-10 years. I also urge...no no I demand the reader to recognize that both Spain and England were (and still are) strong allies to America and were active in Iraq and Afghanistan......both were keen subscribers to American foreign policy yet both suffered domestic terrorist incidents...France and Germany are not in Iraq or Afghanistan and they have not suffered from this new terrorism. Therefore i don't agree at all with Cons slightly blinded assumption that Europe is hanging on to Americas apron strings as con espouses ...I also feel Con has subscribed to the slightly simplistic imagery of ‘surrendering' to terrorists,... we are not going to wake up to a man in a turban with an ak-47 in our face as Con is eluding to..... i have never said once we should surrender....i feel we need a different approach...therefore i believe that the current war on terror cannot be won....we need a new effort.... Secondly...con seems to be slightly obsessed with me not answering his questions....i will be happy to...let's start with his ideas about Britain ‘winning' the war with the IRA.... agreed to an extant but again i think his knowledge is clouded somewhat.,....while the main core of the IRA have given up operations is he aware that only in the last 2-3 months there have been new terrorists incidents by spin of groups carrying on their struggle..Groups such as the ‘The Real IRA' are still active and many in Northern Ireland and Ireland have nothing but hatred for us Brits....so the IRA marches on.... The fact that i said in my last argument that the war on terror was a war against ‘Muslim extremism' does not mean i am playing games with the definition as Con is trying to convey.... i am simply pointing out what we already know....we no they are terrorists and we know they are largely if not all Muslim....and thats about it....i have not magically whisked up a definition.,...i am simply saying what we all ready know.... Con has totally missed the point concerning my last point about what the British Foreign Secretary said about the phrase ‘war on terror'....i will briefly remind readers that the foreign secretary said.. Ultimately, the notion is misleading and mistaken" and later said "Historians will judge whether [the notion] has done more harm than good". The British foreign secretary talks about how the use of the phrase ‘war on terror' was wrong but more importantly says in the article that we cannot fight a war with this ‘tag line' because its far to vague and we draw dangerous ‘dividing lines' as to who is a terrorist and who isn't ....thats how we get incidents like Guantanamo Bay occurring and we mistreat innocent people and draw them away from being sympathetic to the west... i quote the foreign secretary further.... "The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common," Miliband argues, in a clear reference to the signature rhetoric of the Bush era. "We should expose their claim to a compelling and overarching explanation and narrative as the lie that it is." Con tried to bizarrely rearrange the foreign secretaries argument to fit in to his ideas and beliefs concerning this debate... Cons words in full were... ‘What the Secretary is espousing is that the rules of engagement in the fight against terrorism should be police rules with search warrants, lawyers, and forensic evidence gather on battlefields and presented in trials. ‘ If anybody would like to read the full article here is the link...as you will see it has nothing to do with what Con is talking about.,... http://www.guardian.co.uk... The fact is readers is that if we fight this war in the name of ‘the war on terror' we are playing a dangerous game... The term is so loose.....as the article by the foreign secretary explains a state like America cannot ‘kill its way' out of trouble...what Con is suggesting is that America can simply blow away these invisible terrorists in a hail of bullets and bombs....does he realise that in the process America and its allies are killing innocent civilians who are misconceived as terrorists?..further alienating the world from Americas self imposed ‘crusade'........the more America continues to pursue an enemy is can neither find or destroy the more it will alienate the world from its cause and therefore will loose or find itself in a stalemate with its ‘war on terror' Con once again wants to go back to this Cold War argument...he mentioned that the point was not ‘to remove an ideaology but to remove it as a significant threat'....well surely he cannot tell me that Russia is no longer a threat?....although Russia presents itself as a democracy or ‘democratic' it still has undertones of its communist past....Russia is rapidly rearming....the present regime is cutting down on press freedoms and it has recently invaded the small state of Georgia....Its Communists attributes are still there....this shows clearly that Americas economic victory was not enough to silence the Russian monster for long....an ideology grows the seeds of discontent which leads to rearming....and ideology leads to terrorism.... for Con to somehow say that an ideology is not important is nonsense....an ideology is the root that grows the problem in the first place.... Con talks about this new ‘war on terror' is also about stopping states producing and selling nuclear weapons to terrorist or using the weapons themselves against the west....i feel this is a half truth....i refuse to believe for a second that before 9/11 America was somehow not trying to stop nuclear weapons falling in to the hands of terrorists....its simply a continuation of a long American foreign policy...but unfortunately now comes under the meaningless banner of ‘the war on terror'....its not some new phenomenon. Finally Con's ideas in regards to stopping small invisible clandestine terrorist's cells is not convincing....he claims the following.... ‘ Pro asks what stops anyone from setting up a terrorist cell. There are several things. One is that there is limited supply of nutcases to recruit, and as civilization intrudes into the feudal strongholds of the world the supply will be diminished.' Cons point is simplistic....is he telling me that the men who bombed the London underground came from ‘feudal strongholds'? No...they were born, educated, lived and worked in England....yet they carried out a devastating attack....the whole point why this type of terrorism is unique is that it draws men and women from all warps of life and from all over the world...it is not just from feudal strongholds with little bearded men waving a Koran which is what Con believes..... Cons failure to understand the conflict is almost a metaphor of American foreign policy itself....America cannot defeat an ideology...America cannot chase an invisible enemy and invisible cells...Con offers no original argument to combat this.... I have shown this in all my arguments presented in both rounds...yet Con is trying to wean the debate to a more patriotic slant. The motion stands.