frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





should the U.S.A adopt a policy of armed neutrality?

Debate Information

As an American, I feel that the current foreign policy will lead to its downfall, as it has been shown in recent times to be a huge failure. I believe if the government we to adopt a policy of armed neutrality, the nation would be better - change my mind

  1. Live Poll

    Should the U.S.Aa adopt a policy of armed neutraity?

    7 votes
    1. Yes
      42.86%
    2. No
      57.14%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    Armed neutrality from what? All potential future conflicts? All current conflicts? Based on what you've written here, your position is that the US should not intervene in other nations, which is a different concept from armed neutrality. Are you suggesting, essentially, that the US function as an entirely neutral body on the world stage with regards to military support? 
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame I mean all conflicts that don't involve the U.S at all, like the Syrian Civil War.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 ;
    So, again, to clarify: are you talking about all potential future conflicts, or just those ongoing today? And, when you say conflicts that do not involve the US, what does a lack of involvement mean? If it affects us economically, does that constitute involvement? If it affects our allies, is that involvement?
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    Yes, I will like to see Trump to bend over and take a beating from the nations he has spoken ill to. I will like him to say he won't fight back.

    Na, the spoke the words so now he's forced to keep his guard up as he's made the other big players licking their lips ready to smash him and his people to pieces (the people voted for him after all).

    Beware in hating Clinton, she'd have left USA much more chilled out and pleasant to live in. You fell for the brainwashing form fake Facebook accounts and fake Youtube 'likers' and 'commenters' influencing rankings.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
     @whiteflame I mean all conflicts today and beyond that DO NOT involve the U.S.A. But if said conflict endangers the U.S or it's allies than they get involved.. And when I mean lack of involvement I mean zero involvement, no lend leases, volunteers etc. 
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
     @someone234 Woah, chillout. I didn't get "brainwashed" I just dislike the current foreign policy, and it makes the U.S look like a bully who gets involved in everything. This had nothing to do with Clinton 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987

    Alright, I feel like that's some clarity, albeit I'm still not quite clear what suffices as endangerment. So, let's narrow the focus. Would you say that the funds and resources sent to Israel to bolster its military are an example of something that you feel should not continue?
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 It has everything to do with Clinton. The only way a slimeball, sociopathic narcissist with a multitude of mental disorders on top of those raw traits got elected is by making himself the 'alternative to the email hider'.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame yes, we should stop funding their military, unless a threat happens i.e Iran declares war on them 
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @someone234 But how does that have to with the question I'm asking?
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame yes, we should stop funding their military, unless a threat happens i.e Iran declares war on them 
    Alright, let's continue focusing on Israel. Suppose we did stop funding them altogether. Israel is a valuable military ally of the US, as well as a source of support for the US on the international stage. That situation is likely to change in some profound ways should the US unilaterally and suddenly decide to stop providing support to Israel. And that's just the most prominent example - you're talking about removing US support from every single nation to which we provide it. I can understand if you're talking about countries that aren't US allies, as they might chafe at the military presence of the US within their nations, but it's your assertion that even the military support of our allies is damaging. Why do you believe that to be the case?
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    Because, our allies need to take care of their own armies, and should actually make them better. Without U.S involvement, they'd be forced to improve their armed forces, because in the end, if WW3 happens, who's going to be doing all the hard work? the U.S.A, trying to defend its allies, who'd have sufficiently weaker armies than if they actually put effort into improving them. 

    As for Israel. They seem to be the aggressor in their own wars, and if I ran the country, I'd be skeptical about helping them
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited July 2018
    @Zombieguy1987

    I... really don't get that argument. First off, not all support that's provided is uni-directional. In fact, very little is. If we're looking at Israel alone, there's plenty we garner from the money we spend on their forces.

    There are plenty of non-economic benefits, including Israel's consistent record of support in UN votes and support in military operations, something none of our other allies have done to nearly that degree of consistency. The long-standing relationship wasn't built off of nothing: we share democratic values, they have consistently repaid debts, they are a major source of both business deals and tourists to the U.S., we share a broad number of innovations (particularly in high tech), we draw from their talent pools, our trade relationships have dramatically risen in value over time, growing in one decade from $6 billion to $20 billion.[http://www.mythsandfacts.org/NOQ_OnlineEdition/Chapter17/unitedstatesisrael1.htm] It also helps that 95% of U.S. aid to Israel is spent in the U.S., which means that the vast majority of the funds we send to them come back and bolster our economy.[http://www.israellobby.org/AIPAC/AIPAC_Vital_Assistance.pdf] ;

    Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East, supporting U.S. policy therein. It's not just location, either. "Israel has consistently been a major security asset to the United States, an asset upon which america can rely, far more so than have been other recipients of American largesse...Israel is arguably the world's leading expert in collecting intelligence on terrorist groups" and we've consistently received intelligence, research and development savings from working with them that value as much as 4X greater than the grants they receive. These benefits apply to counter-terroris efforts and addressing unconventional weapons and cyber-threats. And this value isn't just economic. Their expertise has successfully reduced the effectiveness of improvised explosive devices on our troops, reducing casualties substantailly.

    And that's just their intelligence. The Supreme Commander of NATO himself described Israel as "the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require even one US soldier, cannot be sunk, is the most cost-effective and battle-tested, located in a region which is critical to vital US interests. If there would not be an Israel, the US would have to deploy real aircraft carriers, along with tens of thousands of US soldiers, which would cost tens of billions of dollars annually, dragging the US unnecessarily into local, regional and global conflicts." They provide us with safe and dependable ports and bases in the Middle East, which provide us with a means to deploy troops that reduces costs by trillions of dollars.[https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/107007/us-aid-israel-why-its-must-david-meir-levi]

    Second, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but Israel already has a rather strong military, as do almost all of the nations we support militarily. It's not like their militaries would collapse under threat in the absence of US support. However, that support does function as a continuous means of showing our commitment to our allies. If WWIII should happen, that kind of commitment is all the more necessary. Our allies should know that they can rely upon us, and we upon them. Pulling the rug out from under them because of some misbegotten notion that it will help them grow stronger just misses the whole point of engaging in this practice to begin with, but if our support was so necessary that they would essentially be lost without it, it's all the more confounding that we would place them in such a vulnerable circumstance. At best, your argument seems to be for weaning them off of US support, but even that is going to be perceived as punishment for no clear wrongdoing.

    Third, it doesn't really matter if Israel acts aggressively. If your goal is to sever the US relationship with Israel to punish them for that aggression (and I do think there's more nuance to it than that), then I think you'll have a very hard time seeing any positive effects. Withdrawing all funding damages the relationship we've built with them over the years, and I don't think they're going to start behaving when our goal is simply to withdraw from every military relationship we've fostered over the years. If you don't give them a reason to believe they can get it back, it doesn't improve their behavior. All it does is dramatically worsen our ability to affect that behavior.
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame No, I not saying to punish Israel, what I'm saying is that a lot of the wars they're involved THEY started, and I'd never support them militarily because then one thing leads to another then World War 3. Also, I'm going to say something that you're to say is just pure lies, but the only reason the U.S.A has a lot of bases in the Baltics, South Korea, Turkey, etc. is to intimidate Russia and China. And I feel this kind of policy will have major consequences, the main being World War 3, because let's be real, what Trump's doing is just making Russia hate the U.S even more, instead of easing tensions, and that trade war with China.

    Lets have a look at the amount of U.S bases oversea, and try to explain how this doesn't just say "F you Russia"



    As you can see, a lot of the bases are well within range of Russia, and their allies. This should be extremely concerning to the average person. Even Japan has opposed the U.S bases in Okinawa

     https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/world/asia/japan-okinawa-protest-united-states-military.html

    So, even one of the U.S's best allies opposes the bases in their land.

    If they continue, more allies will become tired of this and more protests will become larger.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987

    Alright, let's take a second to be clarify a few things.

    First off, I really don't get all of this fervor over WWIII. You're essentially arguing that acts we've been taking over many decades are going to lead to a massive escalation of tensions worldwide and initiate a new world war, and I don't see how that's the case. We've supported Israel since it became a nation, yet I don't see any indication that doing so is leading to anything resembling a world war. I also don't see how having bases in other countries, many of which have been there since WWII and before, is going to escalate tensions to such an egregious degree. There is a term in debate called a "brink," and it's the point of some causal threshold just before some clear harm or benefit is going to occur. Where's the brink here? If we've been doing this for decades without anything resembling a world war coming to fruition, why do you believe that these will lead to a world war?

    Second, if your goal is not to punish countries for aggression, then I don't see how you're going to resolve that aggression. All you're doing is telling them that the US is withdrawing (a lot like after WWI, actually) from its obligations abroad. That's likely to actually increase tensions abroad and push countries to take more drastic actions, particularly countries like Israel where we are the last major support they receive. Much as the US has made mistakes (and we definitely have), the fact is that our presence on the world stage as an active military power does provide significant security and discourage international conflict. If anything, such a drastic change is likelier to lead to more international conflict than is staying the course.

    Third, I agree that many of the bases we have abroad are unnecessary (though the reasons why they are there aren't necessarily to intimidate any longer), but your argument is that the US should essentially abandon all overseas bases. That seems a tad drastic. Some of these bases function towards important security concerns, like those in the Balkans, South Korea, and Turkey. Are all of these perfectly good? No. Some probably should be scaled back. But you're talking about removing bases that have functioned as important parts of our relationships with these nations, often providing essential intelligence or a clear show of military support as tensions rise with North Korea. I've said this before and I'll say it again: abandoning these support systems is likely to cause a lot of enmity with our allies. Trump may not be doing us any favors, but these far precede him, and we need to continue them to ensure that any damage he does to our relationships with our allies can be undone.

    It seems like your whole argument is for a scaling back on many fronts, which might be valid, but what you're actually arguing for is a complete withdrawal of US military resources from every single nation. That will have substantial consequences, and I'm honestly not sure why you're ignoring them. I provided an extensive list for Israel alone, one which you've decided not to address, that is emblematic of why these kinds of relationships exist. That's not something you can pretend doesn't exist.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 It has everything to do with Clinton. The only way a slimeball, sociopathic narcissist with a multitude of mental disorders on top of those raw traits got elected is by making himself the 'alternative to the email hider'.
    But no one even knew Clinton would hide emails when 0bama beat Hillary in the '08 primaries.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    The position of armed neutrality in your interpretation has an inherent flaw in it: it fails to address the fact that what goes outside the US borders has a direct impact on what goes inside the US borders. While confining the US military to the US territory and letting the other nations resolve their problems on their own has a certain logic in it (and isolationist policies are not very uncommon in the world for that reason), it also necessarily subdues the US future to a product of chance, to something the US has no control over - which can potentially have severe impact on the US well being.

    For example, consider the alternative historical scenario where the Pearl Harbor attack never happened and the US never participated in the World War 2. With the only three superpowers left - Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany and Soviet Union; all extremely totalitarian and militaristic - the rest of the world would be at the mercy of these vile nations, and these nations would probably fight it out between themselves, and the winner would take control over the rest of the world. Say Soviet Union gets that privilege. Unopposed, it would keep growing, conquering more and more nations. In the end, there would be two states left in the world: the US, and the Soviet Union (encompassing the rest of the planet). Aside from the US losing all the benefits of international trade and cooperation, Soviet Union would eventually strike at the US and probably win - the position of armed neutrality would lead to the US demise.

    No country in the world has the luxury to be able to afford ignoring the military options outside its borders. Even such traditionally neutral and impartial countries as Switzerland or Singapore still have to actively negotiate with the surrounding nations in order to stay in the game, and even if some of them never participate in the military conflicts outside their territory, they do play dirty every now and then, and they do fund those who would fight on their behalf should the need arise - typically the US.

    Finally, I want to note that the vast majority of people criticizing the US participation in, say, wars on the Middle East simply have never lived in a totalitarian society. It is easy to have this vision that everything was fine in Iraq, and it is the US that came there and ruined everything - but read a bit on what it was like for the average Iraqi citizen to live under Saddam, and a full-scale invasion in order to depose the tyrant, with questionable consequences and with significant collateral damage, will not seem like such a terrible idea.
    I have lived in totalitarian states, I have seen them from the inside. And while I do not necessarily approve of every single military operation the US has conducted, I do see the necessity of militarily stopping the regimes that have come too far in principle. A tyranny that gets out of hand is like a disease: it will spread further and further, unless cured at the core. Sometimes the cure leads to a lot of pain, and the patients do not always survive - however, not attempting the cure means that long-term far more people will suffer and die. Again, just consider what would have happened if Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Japanese Empire were allowed a free reign over the world...
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar But here's the problem, the U.S get's involved in every. single. war. The U.S is 242 years old, and has spent nearly 94% of its existence AT WAR! Countries that do tend to look like the bad guy, hell, even the U.S's allies disliked what they're doing in the Middle East, North Korea, Russia, etc. This foreign policy will slowly become the issue to plague the nation.


    On the alt history with Peral Harbor, FDR wanted to help the Allies, but the citizens were against because of the Great Depression. So, if Pearl Harbor didn't happen, the government would still commit some antic to get the U.S involved, similar to how they wanted the public to believe Cuba attacked them as an excuse to remove the communist government (Thank goodness JFK's a smart president) 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch