Assad: The man of Syria
Debate Rounds (5)
The Syrian regime has now lost more than 50 percent of its national territory and the strength of their Armed Forces have been down to half of what it was when the war began. The US and its western allies still believe in their ideology that the moderate Syrian rebels would regroup and fight back against the ISIS. But they are wrong!
Do you think they are?? Do you think Bashar Al Assad must step down?
The instigator has not made it clear if he is for or against President Assad stepping down, but as he is Pro I shall assume he is for him stepping down, therefore I am debating he should not step down.
President Bashar-Al Assad should not step down. He has kept Syria unified and if he were to be overthrown, killed or displaced from his position, Syria would be in even more turmoil. It is similar to the previous situation in Libya, once Gaddafi was killed and overthrown, Libya was thrown in turmoil and civil war broke out with terrorist organisations, rebel groups and ISIS fighting for control. Only Gaddafi held together Libya. We could even relate it to former Yugoslavia. General Tito held together Yugoslavia and once he died, it all broke apart and a civil war broke out killing thousands. My point is, dictators hold countries together and stop civil wars breaking out. Overthrowing Assad will make it worse and will make the refugee crisis even worse than it is.
Ah, not a problem. We shall make Round 3 a debating round as you haven't posted a rebuttal.
We must also note that even though Al Assad's regime has lost almost 60% of Syria's national territory, more than 60% of Syria's displaced population still lives under regime control. Another important point to be noted is that the Syrian government has lost only 2 of its 14 provincial capitals, Raqqah and Idlib. In the rest 12 provinces, the government has its presence established.
People living under the regime still attend weddings and go for parties, a stark contrast to the situation seen in areas controlled by the rebels.
I quote from your argument "People living under the regime still attend weddings and go for parties, a stark contrast to the situation seen in areas controlled by the rebels." The rebels can't let people 'attend weddings' primarily because it is a warzone and they are continually fighting and can't maintain proper control over territories as they are 'rebels' not a 'government force' which will surely have more people backing it. Even Saudi Arabia have called for Assad to be overthrown. Its also blatant use of chemical weapons against civilians is apalling and in its own right an automatic war crime, which by international law, means he needs to be arrested and tried for his crimes, which he must answer to.
 "Saudi Arabia - Syria Intervention" http://eaworldview.com...;
The Syrian rebels lack a considerable amount of firepower, something which is still an unfulfilled promise of the US. The Assad regime, on the other hand, even though facing massive manpower shortage, has enough firepower to beat back ISIS. As of now, the Syrian government is the only legitimate Syrian force to defeat ISIS in Syria.
The rebels would be able to maintain control over territories if they recieved sufficient equipment and could be a well trained fighting force, if only the US and NATO would train and give more equipment to them. For an example. the US has only trained '4 or 5' Syrian opposition fighters. The Syrian opposition is currently not as popular but they are still growing so that is expected but currently as you said the Syrian government may be more popular. If they did take Damascus, then they would require more manpower and other assistance from NATO countries, the Syrian rebels could not just defeat the Government by themselves.http://www.theguardian.com...
 "US has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters http://www.theguardian.com...
I would like to end my debate with two questions:
1. If Al Assad goes, then who would succeed him?
2. If Al Assad goes, what guarantee can be given that we don't see another Libya?
In response to your two questions I quote from your argument "1. If Al Assad goes, then who would succeed him?
2. If Al Assad goes, what guarantee can be given that we don't see another Libya?"
In response to question 1, if Assad goes, the Western nations could in theory (may take a bit of work, but would work in the end) re-write the Syrian constitution and force Syria to adopt a democracy. This may sound difficult, but could be done with Western support. To ensure we don't see another Libya situation, we would need to implement new laws and regulations within Syria and begin UN peacekeeping operations and Western support would again be needed. It all relies on other countries as Syrian rebels just don't have the manpower. I quote "So why isn't the Western nations supporting the Syrian rebels while Russia directly supports Assad by providing him with weapons?" The Western nations are TRYING to support the rebels but this costs money and we don't have it to be funding rebels.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.