Argument: Afghan history shows failings of foreign invasion, so this campaign is also doomed to failure.

No state has ever been able to impose alien political institutions on the Afghani people, whether by force or by flattery. The Russians tried and so did the British, but neither was successful. In fact, the greatest massacre of British soldiers happened in Afghanistan in 1842. The British then awarded these tribesmen with fancy titles and the Khyber pass was thereafter protected by Pakistani and Afghan tribes (the ancestors of the Mujahadeen &amp; then the Taliban). The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was thus never manned by British soldiers. More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon made it alive to Jalalabad. [1] The Russians threw bombs, tanks, landmines and napalm at the Afghan guerrilla army, the Mujahadeen. They killed around half a million people, injured many more but they still faced dismal defeat in the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Therefore before the situation spirals out of control, the British and the Americans should commence a power sharing deal with the Taliban. [2] The opposition may argue that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Nine insurgents are very capable of fibbing about the Pakistani intelligence. There is no way that funds siphoned off from any clandestine secret intelligence agency can realistically be traced to it. Word of mouth, especially when the mouth belongs to the enemy is rarely credible. Therefore negotiating with the Taliban directly feels ineffective. They might argue that talks solely with Pakistani-Afghan government representatives is a rather more feasible and less dangerous means of achieving the coalition's desired end. However, such talks frequented have borne little fruit. In fact Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban if any progression towards peace is to be made. The coalition's ancestors were wise.

[1] Robert McNamara, «Britain's Disastrous Retreat from Kabul», http://history1800s.about.com/od/colonialwars/a/kabul1842.htm

[2] «Obama Will Vow Troops Leaving by July 2011», CBSNEWS, December 1, 2009 9:35 PM, Updated 3:44 p.m. ET, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/01/politics/main5851527.shtml

Candidate 1: "The Taliban failed to provide good government for Afghanistan.

The Taliban is more concerned with religious purity than the physical welfare of the people. As a result, millions of Afghans still live in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, while millions of others are desperately short of food and face starvation. The Taliban made the situation worse by harassing UN workers and aid agencies, in defiance of the usual diplomatic norms, imprisoning westerners on religious charges and impeding the flow of humanitarian relief to their own people.

During the five-year history of the Islamic Emirate, much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women were banned from jobs, girls forbidden to attend schools or universities. Those who resisted were punished instantly. Communists were systematically eradicated and thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet. Meanwhile, the Taliban managed to nearly eradicate the majority of the opium production by 2001. [1]

[1] Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban, February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST, http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html"
Candidate 2: "The Taliban manipulates the drug trade according to its will, so it should not be included into the government.

The Taliban are responsible for flooding the world with heroin produced from the opium grown there; over 90% of the heroin on the streets of the UK originated in Afghanistan.

In 2000, the Taliban issued a decree banning cultivation. [1] By 2001, production had reportedly been reduced from 12,600 acres (51 km2) to only 17 acres (7 ha). Opium production was reportedly cut back by the Taliban not to prevent its use, but to increase its price, and thus increase the income of Afghan poppy farmers and tax revenue. [2] Therefore, the regime relied upon levies on the movement of drugs as one of its principle sources of funding. No other government has ever been so complicit in a trade that kills and ruins lives all over the world.

[1] Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban, February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST, http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html

[2] Benjamin, Daniel, The Age of Sacred Terror by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, New York: Random House, c2002, p.145) (source: Edith M. Lederer, "U.N. Panel Accuses Taliban of Selling Drugs to Finance War and Train Terrorists," Associated Press, 2001-05-25."
Candidate 3: "The Taliban is a cruel and undemocratic regime, and so it should not be given any power.

The Taliban oppressed their own people, especially women and ethnic or religious minorities. A very strict, distinctive interpretation of Sunni Islam was enforced zealously (with public executions and amputations) as they attempted to build the world’s purest Islamic state. Television and music were banned, women had to be fully covered up and were forbidden from receiving an education or working (despite many families having lost their male members after years of warfare, and so rendering many families entirely dependent upon food aid for survival), and their access to healthcare was restricted.

The well-known story provided by Time Magazine: Aisha who ran away from her husband’s house. Her husband was abusing her physically and mentally. When she was caught by the Taliban «soldiers», she was taken to the Taliban Court and given a punishment in their law. The punishment was, her ears and nose was cut. She was then left for dead however she survived because an Afghan Rights group managed to save her. She is just one example. Therefore, if we let the Taliban participate in power-sharing, they will try to implement their form of justice which is totally biased when it comes to women. We cannot afford to sacrifice women rights for peace in Afghanistan.

Another example of the violence is the massacre of Yakaolang in January 2001: Hazaras were victimized for 4 days, detained 300 civilian adult males, including staff members of humanitarian orgnisations. Men were shot at public places. Rocket launchers were fired at Mosques were 73 women and children were sheltering. In May 2000, 26 civilians of Hazara Shi’as group were executed in robatak pass. In August 1998 Taliban captured Mazar- I- Sharif. Reports of killing of around 2000- 5000 people mostly of Hazara clan were presented. [1]

All of this shows the barbarity of the Taliban’s activities, which so far hasn’t stopped.

[1] Eyewitness accounts of Taliban massacre in Yakaolang, By RAWA reporters, June, 2001 http://www.rawa.org/yakw-r.htm"
Candidate 4: "The argument here presented by the proposition that the majority of people in US are fed up with the war, true. But that is because they were not the ones facing abuse at the Taliban hands or fighting a civil war which resulted in the killing of 100,000, but the minority will be slaughtered if this is allowed to happen. [1] This genocide in the making should not be allowed to happen. This will also lead to a civil war. Though the minorities are exhausted but they broke it and have a moral imperative to fix it. A lot of people have come out in support of the "western" forces, they will face retribution and future attempts to win hearts and minds will fail when the fickleness of our resolve is exposed. This is a slippery slope if we slide down there is no telling how far down we will fall. This should be the centre of the discussion; our opponents want to put popularity before lives and security and which is wrong.

[1] Dexter Filkins, «Overture to Taliban Jolts Afghan Minorities», The New York Times, published June 26, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?_r=1&amp;pagewant..."
Candidate 5: "The Taliban supports terrorist organizations, so they are not to be trusted.

The Times Square attack and the Twin Tower attacks are examples of how the Taliban are actually cultivating terrorists to carry out international terrorist acts. The Taliban sheltered international terrorists, of whom Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaida organisation were the most prominent. In addition to Al-Qaida’s strikes against American targets worldwide, fundamentalist terrorists trained in Afghanistan have been active in Chechnya, Kosovo, Central Asia, Indian Kashmir and China. This has resulted in the destabilisation of the region and contributed to a great deal of human misery. Therefore, the US and UK cannot afford to risk their nation's security by leaving Taliban to raise, equip and fund terrorists. Even for their own safety, they cannot leave the Taliban in power. The Obama administration is working on establishing a stable government - a government that has trained police force, trusted government officials and better educational system. Therefore, letting the Taliban share power means they will try to reinforce their own system which means none of the above can actually happen. This is not acceptable. [1]

[1] The Economist, Debate: This house believes that the war in Afghanistan is winnable, May 17th 2010, http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/516"
Candidate 6: "This is the weakest argument by far. It isn't logical. As all of us who've read about Karl Popper will attest that a historical trend is not an indication of future courses unless causality can be proven. Here it can’t. It’s a different war altogether. Historical parallels make sense in college classrooms, not when a Taliban fighter faces a drone attack; Did the soviets have drones? No, they didn’t.

Also «Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban» is factually incorrect. The Pakistan president said that talking with the Taliban is not an option «unless we want to breed terrorism».

The current scenario is completely different from the past, not only about the time factor but also political conditions. Previous battles were fought against not only the militia but also its supporting government. This time, the battle is against an independent Taliban force that is backing up the Al- Qaeda group."
Candidate 7: "It should first be pointed out that all conflicts are unique, products of the political and social settings in which they arise. Geopolitics and foreign policy are not as dependent on precedent as most debaters would like to think.

The main objective of the USA and the UK behind the power sharing deal in Africa is to extract the resources of the African continent. The proposition is basically trying to deceive us with this point. The power sharing deals made by the USA (collaborating with the UK, at times) are all for their own selfish interests. Be it in Africa or Iraq, USA has applied its own vested interest in most cases. Africa is very rich in resources. The US saw all of these and then shared power with the nation just to earn some benefit in utilizing the resources. Furthermore, the United States went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, a greater concern to the USA than that of searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) [1] and taking Saddam Hussein out of power.

The power sharing in Afghanistan and Pakistan would not only to exploit the oil resources but also have a watchful eye towards China, India and Russia.

[1] Aryn Baker, «Afghan Women and the Return of the Taliban» , The Time Magazine, July 29, 20, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007407,00.html"
Candidate 8: "Here the argument presented by the proposition is an attempt to deceive the opposition and the house. The act that the proposition has presented has not been passed by the US government and is highly unlikely to happen in the future as well. The argument is right if the assumption that the deficits are long term. And it is not so. The deficit as a proportion of GDP is still more than manageable and more spending is needed. The only current indication of this is long term interest rates on US treasury bonds and these have been falling.

Secondly from a purely economic viewpoint, the battle between US and Taliban is not entirely negative. Historically military spending can help boost growth as was shown by World War II pulling the US out of the great depression of the 1930s. What nations need when in a recession is more economic activity and the arms industry and the countless other industries a war necessitates makes this war as good as it gets for the economy. Of course there is a danger of the US budget deficit leading to higher long term lending costs but if we look at the date from the last ten years interest rates on US treasury bonds have been falling. Therefore the US can borrow cheaply, has 9 million plus unemployed and companies are not willing to hire as they are already reaping huge profits off labor cost cuts. Economically the war in Afghanistan is good for America."
Candidate 9: "How can the Taliban be included if they absolutely disagree on negotiating, but instead want to overthrow the government? So far the Taliban has always insisted that they will refuse to negotiate until all foreign forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan. [1] This means that we are actually making the problems worse for the people over there instead of better.

We really need to have a reliable partner in the region. Nowadays Pakistan is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States with fighting Taliban. In 2007, the National Security Council of Pakistan met to decide the fate of Waziristan and take up a number of political and administrative issues in order to control the “Talibanization” of the area. The meeting was chaired by President Pervez Musharraf and attended by the Chief Ministers and Governors of all 4 provinces. They discussed the deteriorating law and order situation and the threat posed to state security. The restoration of peace in North and South Waziristan will be a great challenge. The dilemma is not only that the local Taliban in North Waziristan are not ready to speak with the government, but they also disallow anyone else in the region from speaking with the authorities. In these troubled areas, political agents are seen only in their official functions and troops are limited merely to forts and bunkers. [2]

Yes, Pakistan already has nuclear weapon, but it is important to underline that legitimate government has it, not the terrorists group. If we go through, we can say, a ‘blackmail’ of terrorist having a nuclear weapon we are risked to have them a chance to capture the power and provide their cruel politics.

[1] Andrew Blandford, «Talking with the Taliban: Should the U.S. "Bargain with Devil" in Afghanistan?», Harvard Negotiation Law Review, http://www.hnlr.org/?p=142

[2] Sohail Abdul Nasir, «The Talibanization of the North-West Frontier», Terrorism Monitor Volume: 4 Issue: 12, June 15, 2006, 01:57 PM, http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=807&amp;tx_..."

This is the weakest argument by far. It isn't logical. As all of us who've read about Karl Popper will attest that a historical trend is not an indication of future courses unless causality can be proven. Here it can’t. It’s a different war altogether. Historical parallels make sense in college classrooms, not when a Taliban fighter faces a drone attack; Did the soviets have drones? No, they didn’t.

Also «Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban» is factually incorrect. The Pakistan president said that talking with the Taliban is not an option «unless we want to breed terrorism».

The current scenario is completely different from the past, not only about the time factor but also political conditions. Previous battles were fought against not only the militia but also its supporting government. This time, the battle is against an independent Taliban force that is backing up the Al- Qaeda group.
