American Military and Paramilitary Support in the Secret War in Laos was Justified
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
BOP is shared.
- Pro - American Military and Paramilitary Support in the Secret War in Laos was Justified
- Con - American Military and Paramilitary Support in the Secret War in Laos was not Justified
- Definitions for the context of this debate :
- American - Relating to or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants .
- Military - Relating to or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces .
- Paramilitary - (of an unofficial force) organized similarly to a military force .
-Support - Give assistance to, especially financially; enable to function or act .
-Secret War - America's covert involvement in military actions within the borders of diplomatically neutral Laos during the Laotian civil war. Also the less covert, CIA involvement in Paramilitary organizations fighting against the North Vietnamese Army during the same period of time.
-Laos - The Country of Laos 
-Justified - Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason .
-These terms are not to be redefined during this debate.
-I'm hoping for an interesting debate.
"Geneva Convention: I'm confused, why does this justify war?"
" I see nothing about going to war with the country that violated G.C."
" Secondly, though the acts of slavery are despicable, nothing says America itself can be justified, especially since the distance means that it would have to unnecessarily send troops a long way to support the fight...But considering that other states are much closer and therefore interact with the area in a more day-to-day basis, they both are more suited towards fighting, with better resources and perhaps knowing the culture better."
" Pro must prove that other countries that were authorized to take action were useless in comparison."
"For example, if you could solve the problem with the neighboring countries (which are still delivering justice) for, let's say, one million less dollars, then US involvement is unjustified."
"Finally, the war's repercussion and the level of ruthlessness backfires on the US. A...From 1964 to 1973, the United States bombed Laos more heavily than any country on earth.... Since 1964, at least 50,000 Lao have been killed or injured by American bombs, 98 percent of which were civilians."
"He thinks that any effort to stop something unjust, is justified, regardless of the result."
"Where is the justification, really?"
"Consider, had they thought to decide to evacuate the citizens instead and retreat instead of directly fighting the war"
" They would've prevented the unexploded bombs causing problems, the veterans' PTSD from dangerous warfare, lost lives, etc."
"If they could have sent more troops to win the war and be even more brutal but stop the slavery and problems that pro claims, then there would've been something for show, and show justification."
"In order for pro to win he has to show both the military and the paramilitary support were necessary and justified, in the way America did it. But I'm just not seeing it."