This house believes the War on Terrorism is Justified

[Plekhanov]

I've just been asked to oppose this motion in a debate being hosted by my uni's politics society next week. Speeches will be 7 minutes long followed by questions and points from the floor then concluding speeches of 3 minutes, I think I'll go at it like this:

1. Primarily by attacking the concept of a “war on terror” and arguing that it's a meaningless phrase used as a cover for an aggressive imperialistic foreign policy and repressive measures at home.

2. Argue that it is counterproductive to use the terminology and tactics of conventional warfare to fight something as amorphous as “terror”.

3. Give a quick review of some of our allies in this “war” (ie the Saudis and that crazy guy running Turkmenistan and so forth) and also point out that Iraq had bugger all to do with Terrorism.

Anyway what are your thoughts how would you guys propose or oppose this motion?

[Durandal]

Challenge your opponent to outline a set of realistic, achievable objectives in the War on Terror. If he pulls something like, "To minimize the capacity for terrorist organizations to conduct their operations," ask at what point will the minimalization actions be considered sufficient. If he keeps evading, just ask him very simply under what conditions he would consider the War on Terror to be won.

[Enforcer Talen]

youd almost have to put in torture and how its becoming popularized in the us, making remarkable similarities with our enemies.

if you had time, you might compare contrast brands of fundamentalism, christian and muslim, and what they are getting us into.

[Plekhanov]

Challenge your opponent to outline a set of realistic, achievable objectives in the War on Terror. If he pulls something like, "To minimize the capacity for terrorist organizations to conduct their operations," ask at what point will the minimalization actions be considered sufficient. If he keeps evading, just ask him very simply under what conditions he would consider the War on Terror to be won.

That's a good way of approaching it and one I'll try to remember to use as I do have a tendency in debates to get carried away with rhetoric and neglect the key concepts under discussion and this is one debate where emotive rhetoric will be of more use to the other side and I need to concentrate upon the key issues.

youd almost have to put in torture and how its becoming popularized in the us, making remarkable similarities with our enemies.

The British gov is currently introducing legislation to allow evidence collected through torture (in other countries) to be used in our courts so I expect I'll raise the issue of torture.

if you had time, you might compare contrast brands of fundamentalism, christian and muslim, and what they are getting us into.

I don't think I will have time for this in my main speech as it a fairly complex point and my time is limited, I expect fundamentalism will come up in the questions from the floor though so I can address it then and this being the UK a bit of Bush and general fundie American Christian bashing always goes down well.

I thought I might end my summing up speech by adapting this extract from a judgment in a US court which made the news a while back:

“We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War on Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over,” Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote for the panel. “Sept. 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country.”

BTW do any of the boards resident Bush/Blair supporters, imperialists, neo-cons, chicken-hawks or whatever fancy defending the “War on Terror” it'd be interesting to see what people are still falling for.