The Instigator
Sahaj
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dylancatlow
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

American Military Intervention is wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,393 times Debate No: 25191
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Sahaj

Pro

This Debate is on whether the American military interventions in various countries have been wrong. I will be arguing that they were wrong, while my opponent must try and justify them.
First Round-Acceptance
Second Round-Arguments
Third Round-Rebuttal and closing statements.
I look forward to an interesting debate, and hope for a worthy challenger.
dylancatlow

Con

Thank you for taking the time to debate with me.
Before we start, I agree we should set what we mutually agree on.

-the united states does not have evil intentions when intervening in foreign territories
-without the united states' intervention in the middle east, Israel would not exist

I am heading off to seattle for a few days tomorrow, I will try my best to find access to a computer to debate! If I don't respond, I am truly sorry:(
Debate Round No. 1
Sahaj

Pro

Thank you for taking the time to accept to this debate. I will understand if you are unable to post arguments, and if that is the case, will look forward to debating the same topic in future. I'm afraid however, that i cannot agree to your terms. As you are at liberty to present your defense, so am i at liberty to present my offense, though i will, of course, attempt not to be malicious slanderous. I follow with my argument.
Ever since the days of the second world war, the Unites States has been engaged in what it calls "peacekeeping operations" in various parts of the world. While i would be the first to agree that intervention in the two World Wars was vital to world security, I maintain that the recent military operations have been unjustified.
Let us take the most famous example, the Vietnam War. People were horrified at the so-called 'atrocities' perpetrated by the Viet Minh, which supposedly 'forced' the U.S. to enter the war. That, however, is not how the war started. It started with the Indochina war between France and Vietnam, which was really a revolution against the french colonialists, who were oppressing the vietnamese. It may be well to add that the Viet Minh, led by the infamous Ho Chi Minh, had won majorities in DEMOCRATIC elections all over the country, but the french did not want to lose their colonies, and with british help invaded vietnam. It was when the french started losing that the U.S. decided to intevene. The viet minh, later the viet cong, were able to recruit so many people because they were fighting for rights and independence.
Or take the Korean War. It's history stretches back to 1945, when Korea war divided into North and South(without consulting the Koreans). Kim-Il-Sung, leader of North Korea, wanted unification and called for elections all over Korea, and sent diplomats to South Korea. They were promptly arrested. The day after this, skirmishes between KPA and ROK troops. The United States,worried about Soviet Influence, decided to intervene, and the rest is history.
Both these , plus many others i shall not go into detail of, like the failed invasion of Cuba, were simply motivated by the "Red Scare" the so-called communist threat. Both these were simply the result of paranoia and fear that the governments could be replaced by others that would not bow to the U.S.'s every word.
I await my opponents argument. I have tried not to sound accusatory, but if i did, please forgive me.
dylancatlow

Con

The United States' intervention in world issues is vital to maintaining a safe world. The United States currently has bases in over 90 countries throughout the world. Many countries depend on the defense of the United States for their security. After World War II, being defeating by the US, Japan has never had a significant military. The United States has provided it with defense for nearly seven decades. Polls find that the Japanese support American intervention is about 70%, which is very high. American military intervention in Japan was the best thing to ever happen to it, and I suspect other future intervention to provide the same results. The United States military budget is around 420 billion dollars per year, or about 42% of world military spending. The United States is in a unique situation being a world superpower. It has the power to influence the world to a great deal. It is the power to push out military dictators, help deprived citizens, or halt a bloody civil war. It has made it clear it is capable of this. Bad things happen when America does "nothing." The lack of involvement from the United States in the Cambodian Genocide directly caused the deaths of 250,000 men, women, and children. It could have easily stopped this, they were up against around a force of a few thousand men with guns. They could have stopped it, and did nothing. This is only one example of the "lack of involvement" by the United States and the implications that can have.
Pertaining the the Vietnam war, the United States was perfectly justified in its involvement. Communism has been shown, without fail, to cause misery wherever it has spread. It was not just ideological differences the United States was concerned with when it intervened. It was for human rights. Vietnam would be better off today if the United States had successfully installed a democracy in its society. The world would have been better off.
America intervening in oil-rich countries to try to stabilize and implement democracies is no less of a world peace keeping than any other issue. The United States is dependent on oil and so is most of the world. Of course it's for oil, and that is a shame. The United states should implement democracies wherever it can. It is extremely naive to think the United States is not justified in intervening in those countries. The world economy would collapse without that oil, people throughout the world would become impoverished, many would go without health care, and many would die. If the world was cut-off from oil, many would die as a result. This reason for intervention is as good as another.
Without the United States' involvement in world affairs, evil people are allowed to do evil things. The United Nations is useless, and most of the world is unwilling in aiding countries in need.
Debate Round No. 2
Sahaj

Pro

Of course, I would be the first to agree that the Cambodian genocide was horrifying. However, i must point out that Pol Pot and his band of murderous maniacs, the Khmer Rouge, came to power because they had overwhelming support from the peasantry. And do you know why? Because the U.S. carpet bombings had killed tens of thousands of completely innocent Cambodian civilians while trying to destroy NORTH VIETNAMESE bases (wrong country, Uncle Sam). And we've all heard about the evils of saddam's regime, that he had nukes (which, by the way, were never found). What is often forgotten is that U.S. airstrikes indiscriminately killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. Or take the invasion of the Dominican republic. It started when the dictator, rafael trujillo, died. In the ensuing elections, juan bosch was elected president. He was a liberal who promised democracy representation in government for all classes of society, and actually took an interest in the people's welfare. This did not down well with the high-ranking army officers, who attempted a coup, which failed. It was then that the U.S. intervened - on the side of the would-be military junta. The U.S. made possible an overthrow of a democratically-elected government in favour of a military dictatorship. Go ahead and try to justify that.
We start to see a pattern in all this. The U.S. cares not for democracy, nor for the lives of civilians. It only wants to create regimes that it can control, it only seeks to increase it's power no matter the cost.
With this I end my argument. I await my opponent's rebuttal, and urge voters to be unbiased if they live in the U.S.
dylancatlow

Con

dylancatlow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sahaj 4 years ago
Sahaj
of course, i agree that soviet russia posed a legitimate threat, but the U.S. went to extreme measures, for example the murder of Aguilera, president of eucador.this honest, upright man was known for his ardent support of human rights, something rare in latin america in those days. He met with the presidents of peru, venezuela and colombia to propose signing a charter in which the principles of human rights were reaffirmed, however, he died in a plane crash a few months after the election of ronald reagan, and there was fair bit of evidence that the CIA set it up. It seems that conservatives in america felt that his trying to bring the countries of latin america closer together, and this was seen as a tilt towards the soviet union. Perhaps it was incidents like these that made countries eveywhere hate america, and embrace communism as protection.
Posted by benjamaison 4 years ago
benjamaison
Sahaj, when you talk about the cold, and the conflicts therein, you have to realize the threat soviets posed for America. I'll concede that certain motivations for entering Vietnam were suspect, but the attempt to thwart the spread of communism was a legitamate trigger. We are talking about an ideology, and country, that goes against many things Americans hold dear to heart. During this time period, if Russia became a member of any conflict, the US had to take interest. We are not two powers that can coincide. Russia was laying down serious claims to lands all throughout Asia, and trust me, even if North Vietnam started the conflict with noble reasons, they lost the heading of their country the second they enlisted the aid of the Soviets. You make claims that the United States establishes regimes submissive to its influence, but no more so then the Soviet Union.
Besides the cold war, the US has conducted many 'peace-keeping' operations and I will agree that not all were done for the best interest of the host nation, but in the end the United States is a super power, and as such, must take the responsibility that the name implies. To hold on to the supremacy that our nation has fought and died for, we have to possess a global presence and that entails getting involved in the politics of other nations, good or bad.
Posted by Sahaj 4 years ago
Sahaj
whoops, just forgot to name my sources.
Basically all my info comes from wikipedia pages of korean war and vietnam war.
No votes have been placed for this debate.