War in Afghanistan

The pro said: "he casualties of war are indeed sad, but as I said, there are casualties in every war. They waged an attack on us, and we're fighting back just as people do in every war." this is a VERY bad way of looking at this. We are sending an army where special forces would be better suited. Think about it, how can we fight a war, where we barely know who to fight? Suicide bombers? We can't tell! Only in firefights have have we known who we are actually fighting. And once in a while it even turns out it's friendly fire! It's empirical that a war against an unseen enemy can't be won. But if we send in specialized troops, we will be able to fight this. Currently the war in Afghanistan has gone overboard, how can a tank kill a suicide bomber, how can a jet full of bombs, kill people intermingled with citizens, how can a helicopter, destroy targets that are not marked by uniform, but by race? This is insane! Also they stated Bush accused Saddam Hussein in IRAQ of having WMDs: This is SO true, and later in this paragraph Bush attempted to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, so if Saddam (hypothetically) had Wmd's and he was linked (hypothetically, because we are talking about a past decision) to al Qaeda, THEN AL QAEDA HAD WMDs!!! All the bullets that i have dropped will be picked up now thank you- The pro said we shouldn't trust the Taliban agreements: I have never stated that we should accept ANY AGREEMENTS with the Caliban: I AM SIMPLY STATING THAT THE WAY THE WAR IS BEING FOUGHT IS INEFFICIENT AND NOT HELPING. I AM SAYING THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE OUR ARMY AND SEND IN SPECIAL FORCES (which the pro has not addressed why not to send in special forces) The pro also said that leaving Iraq would help us win the war in Afghanistan This may be true, but only the instigator has the right, duty, and honor, to send out A PROPOSAL to this shall be REGARDED AS IRRELEVANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now onto their sixth point: "should we just back down and let these corrupt people seize contol of the government? NO!" I will refute this by saying that the pro has FAILED TO NOTICE my point saying we will not FULLY RETREAT, just pull our ARMY out and send in some SPECIAL FORCES, which will work at eliminating the Taliban leaders, not the grunts. If they do take over the government, the special forces will conduct assassination efforts. -------------- THE PRO HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS MY SPECIAL FORCES POINT ----------- The pro asked about our alliances and why we should leave Afghanistan to Taliban control : Just because we leave does NOT mean the Taliban will take control, we are TRAINING Afghans to defend themselves and THE SPECIAL FORCES WILL ACT AS A SAFETY NET IN AFGHANISTAN UNTIL A VERY STABLE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN STARTED. ------------------------------------------------ Now onto the pro's 8th point: they said that "These countries would be a launching pad for terrorism; we should keep faith for a country like China can and will keep Iran in check for the TIME BEING" This is completely irrelevant because this debate is about the war in AFGHANISTAN ONLY; the pro keeps bringing up POINTS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT AFGHANISTAN!!! -------------------------------------------------------- Onto their NINTH POINT, They stated that we should abandon the war in Iraq, AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, ONLY THE INSTIGATOR, NOT THE CONTENDER HAS THE POWER TO PROPOSE, so THIS POINT IS IRRELEVANT. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now onto my opponent's tenth point The pro has stated that the idea that the Taliban is having an easier job of recruiting because of American occupation is false, Now i will tell you why it's not false with this small anecdote: A teenager in Afghanistan is surprised and shocked by the sudden occupation of his home town by American forces, he and his father are pushed around by americans. They are enraged. They hate the Americans for occupying their town. They stomp over to a Taliban training camp. This COMPLETEL REFUTES MY OPPONENTS TENTH POINT. On the same point they said Afghans would think of Americans as Liberators in, like Americans to Jews in WWII. This is false! We are occupying their country. FIGHTING ON THEIR LAND. BOMBING INNOCENTS!!! THIS IS NOT HOW IT WAS DURING WWII. THE GERMANS RETREATED IN WWII, THE TALIBAN WALK INTO A TOWN AND BLOW THEMSELVES UP. The pro also stated that many books have been written on how to win a Guerrilla war. THIS IS ALL IN THEORY, the books that have been written (I WOULD LIKE A source from the pro on one of these books please) THE BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN TESTED, IN WAR. THERE WERE THESE BOOKS DURING THE VIETNAM WAR BUT LOOK WT HAPPENED THEN. DISGRACE, WE FAILED THERE. WE CANNOT WIN THIS WAR. So now to conclude->------------- - - - - - - ---------- WE CANNOT WIN A GUERRILLA WAR AGAINST AN UNSEEN ENEMY UNLESS WE USE MY SPECIAL FORCES PROPOSAL. (which the pro has not addressed) SO while the PRO feels like jeopardizing MANY lives for the sake of one, while I PROPOSE that we use tactical forces to take out the leaders, the people must decide which is more efficient... A TANK AGAINST A SUICIDE BOMBER? no A JET AGAINST A SNIPER IN A TREE? no A HELICOPTER AGAINST A LEADER SENDING OUT ORDERS SOMEWHERE IN A MOUNTAIN? definitely no a special forces unit against a Taliban leader? YES for all these reasons and the proposal the the pro refuses to refute, the CON HAS CLEARLY WON THIS DEBATE Thank You- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ======================================================================================================================================================== Sources: http://www.pollingreport.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... (polling report, New York Times, Washington Post) ========================================================================================================================================================