Military Intervention in Syria against Bashar-Al Assad is Morally Just (even if it comes too late)
Debate Rounds (5)
During September 2013 an attack against the Ba"ath regime of Assad seemed imminent; The American USS Harry S. Truman was in position at the red sea waiting for the UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Israel and Turkey to join it: soon the tyrannical Assad dynasty was to come crumbling down, and the Arab spring would finally democratically re-invigorate the oppressed nation of Syria! But out came every dictator"s favourite kitten "George Galloway" to the rescue; Ed and the opposition also rebelled against the notion, caving in to the Iraq induced apathetic consensus towards foreign policy (to be fair to them they were more concerned about waiting for UN inspection results/evidence). Even a total of 30 Tory MPs voted against the government! The strike was promptly put on hold by the international community, as the UN inspections continued. Vladimir Putin ex- KGB agent, oppressor of freedom and dissent, Poisioner of Ukraine (eu fiasco) Homophobe, continuous supporter of the on-going genocide of Chechnya and corrupted figure was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his vile broker " disgusting (the Nobel peace prize is slowly losing its credibility first the drone warfare barbarian Obama now Putin). The naive demagogues celebrated this as a victory for democracy (which is painfully laughable): I sat in revolt alongside Michael Gove and Vincent Cable, as I watched those so called humanitarians rejoice while Syrian Society decayed. Power loving Bashar had gotten away with it, the man behind the Houla Massacre which cost 49 children their throats, the man who advocated the savage beating of "Ali Ferzat" for a satirical cartoon, the man who orchestrated the brutal shelling campaign on Aleppo which destroyed active hospitals and cultural sites, The man who ordered his military to open fire on a peaceful Arab Spring protests in 2011, The leader whose forces besieged Der al-Zour and took the community"s basic resources and has them living under continuous threat! The man whose air force has been targeting schools for bombing like in Raqqua, And the man behind not only the Damascus massacres throughout the war, but the dropping of an incendiary bomb on a school playground (and those are only his crimes within this period of war, this list would be several pages long if I included pre-war behaviour ; His sadomasochism has helped create a human rights violation record in strong rivalry to his father"s ) " vindicated by many, but history will destroy that conception I guarantee that. What shocks me is that Hezbollah a group who claim to be the protectors of Lebanon support Assad"s regime " A regime that didn"t recognise Lebanese sovereignty till 2008 (and clung on to its imperialist occupation claim of greater Syria until 2005), were suspects in the murder of former foreign minister Rafik Hariri, the implementation of a minefield on the border in 2011 (actually they might like that) and the fact that Hezbollah are exhibiting blatant double standards over the Arab spring and subordination against Muslims. The FSA are isolated, now with only jihadists to turn to they"re fractionalised, practically now a mass idealistically divided undefinable force of men with guns avoiding sectarianism just for one unified cause: so fractionalised that arms supplement will not work as an effective catalyst to their cause; we"re failing the Syrian people and their future! The only plausibly decisive catalyst to Assad"s deserved demise is a military air strike, since until Assad is removed from the picture Syria will never be at peace: After his removal elections could be held, rebels and regime alike would be prosecuted for any crimes, Syrian migrants could return and rebuild, deeper investigation could be held over the chemical attack and the Turkish forces finding sarin in an Al sunara front; and any remaining Al Qaeda affiliates could be better identified and combated. Libya was completely wrong, and I fundamentally disagree with NATO action taken there, so it equally upsets me that that wrong is now impending this course of right. Unlike there the army are against the people (they're Assad pawns and murderous animals). Psuedo-Liberals who oppose the war claim also to oppose imperialism, repression, brutality, censorship, discrimination, torture, sectarianism - All things the Assad Regime celebrate proudly. Syrian prisons make gunetanemo bay look like the Hilton. Most evidence points to Assad being behind the Ghouta chemical attack. Solidarity with Qusai Zakarya Hunger Strike Under Siege in Moadamiya, Syria (a Facebook campaign I thoroughly recommend you look at). Watch the videos of the original protests in Homs being shot down! I wont be pandeirngly pedantic by linking loads of videos but here is one channel definitely worth a watch http://www.youtube.com.... Child Martyrs!!!!!!!!!!
The Syrian opposition coalition are the political body of the movement and once you look at them (as they who're to take power) any preconceptions of Islamic extremism and Christian persecution will be calmed. The rest are merely soldiers to the cause and for the most part don't claim to political authority and legitimacy.
Let us not repeat the laissez faire disaster of Bosnia, the Spanish civil war, Rwanda and Sudan! Ignoring these problems always blows up in your face. To ensure permanent stability foreign policy must be pragmatic, diplomatic and sporadically aggressive. Totalitarianism must be fought wherever it manifests. Its time the UN stepped up and did its job. Genocide and mass murder must never be tolerated or given a blind eye!
1. Syria has not attacked the United states or any other country
2. There is not concrete proof that Syria has chemical weapons, only a video.
3. It will cost a lot of money.
You point out a bunch of other attacks by the Syrian government. However, like the reasons stated above, There is no reason to attack Syria. Back In the United nations, the investiagtion began to look at The Houla massacre. They concluded that"with the available evidence" it could not rule out any of three possible perpetrators (Syrian Government forces, anti-Government forces, and foreign groups), although it considered anti-Government forces "unlikely" to have been the perpetrators due to their difficulty in accessing one of the sites in question against the superior firepower of government forces in the area. You might be wondering what is my point. My point is this. Why does the United states and the United nations have to be the ' Policeman of the world' ? The Vietnam war and the war in Iraq are examples of this. And besides, If you watch your news today, you might find out that Syria has gotten rid of the chemical weapons. Bashar assad is still attacking the Syrian people. But the removal of Chemical weapons happened without military intervention. So do we need to Attack Syria. I say not
Once again the cyclic Iraq analogy is drawn in a nescient manner against Syria's case. In regards to Iraq you seem to only focus in on the potential WMD's and not the other inertia that supported the Iraq Invasion in other people's perspective (Attempted genocide on Kurdistan, attempted establishment of a Greater Iraq by means of invasion and the gross abuses of the Oil-for-food-programme which led to much malnutrition; to name but a few). The invasion wasn't "all for nothing" it achieved the 8 main objectives of 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' and gave Iraq democracy and a free press. I'm by no means trying to support the Iraq war I'm just saying that in-between many of the glaring negatives of misconduct and pretence there are some positives to be found. Saying that half a million Iraqi civilians, 318 coalition solders and 4,486 US milllatry personnel died for nothing strikes me as cold, naive and absurd. I don't support war flippantly and am not a Neo-Con so I'd urge you to not let this bad example (although recent) inflict too much fear in your judgement. Following your logic of not attacking a country as long as it does not invade others - should we have left Hitler alone if he didn't assault Poland?
From your response I infer that you seem to believe that America shouldn't care about Syria (please correct me if i'm wrong good sir). 2 million civilians have been displaced and over 100,000 killed in the conflict! Jordan and other neighbouring countries are packed full of refugees they're struggling to look after; Polio has even broken out! Syria is a huge international issue, and America is whether you like it or not a prominent world power with the world's largest military budget; You're the most practically qualified to assist the insurgency. Why not divert your drones away from blowing up pakistani and yemense villages, and actually put them to good use for once! Syrian intervention is matter of moral dignity not imperialist superiority! History will look back on this event in revulsion if we don't attack! To paraphrase Sartre's existentialism and humanism 'there is no hope except in action': that axiom has stark relevance here, as a strike against Assad is the only way now to finally emancipate the oppressed peoples' of Syria from its current state of quasi-fascism. By ignoring the revolution you leave the Syrian people/usurpers with no one to turn to but the islamists (who are often infighting with the rebels, as the islamists often try to magistrate their lw on them). We must help end this war before syria truly implodes leaving millions without their nation! This is a battle we must fight to not only punish the past, change the present and preserve a future!
The next point i'd like to address is the ill-informed fallacy that there is barely any evidence proving regime forces performed the chemical attack on 'Ghouta'. Here is some counter evidence to your claim:
. British firms have revealed that over the last few years they have traded in chemicals with the syrian regime and given them chemicals that could be used to create the nerve agent Sarin
. One of the rockets used came from the soviet union (we know that Russia has consistently supplied the syrian regime with weapons for decades now)
. The Syrian government denied inspectors initial access to Ghouta ........suspicious
. Triangulating rocket trajectories pinpoints the origin of the attack as within government-held territory. Consideration of missile ranges provides additional evidence the rockets originated from the triangulated government-held region.
. "Human Rights Watch and arms experts monitoring the use of weapons in Syria have not documented Syrian opposition forces to be in the possession of the 140mm and 330mm rockets used in the attack or their associated launchers (both are partial groups analysing the conflict)
. The attacks were also "large-scale", involving at least 12 rockets targeting two different neighbourhoods situated 16 km apart, and surrounded by major Syrian government military positions.
. The attacks were meticulous and tactical, requiring large amounts of nerve agent, specialised procedures to load the warheads with the nerve agent, and specialised launchers to launch the rockets (hardly what you'd expect from Rebels who actually have to build their own firearms in a lot of areas)
. Wind conditions of the day support claim
. New Scientist noted that there appeared to be no government troop casualties from the attack
And this is just to specify a few! Hardly "Just a video" old sport.
So what they joined the chemical convention; The regime still have a huge stock of conventional weapons that administer just as much damage (most notably their shells which rain down on Aleppo and Ghouta daily, destroying hospitals, homes, schools and lives daily!). If you think the destruction of Assad's chemical stockpile will magically end the war your'e truly deluded good sir.
Granted the economic cost is substantial but is worth it purely on humanitarian value. The cost of the proposed isn't impossible however and could be lessened/ solved by budget restructuring in the military department (primarily in Israeli Aid). And also the cost of the attack hasn't yet been finely extrapolated as experts say the differing courses of potential action have different costs. Don't let hideous regimes of vitriol and inhumanity like Putin and khamenei govern this war: we must stand up for the Syrian Street! This is a matter of global geo-politics and human rights don't analyse it within the paradigm of introverted national politics.
In conclusion I have a couple of passing questions I wish to ask you for clarification of your stance and ethos:
1) Are you a pacifist? (apathy with an alibi)
2) Do you support and vindicate the Assad regime?
3) Are you a libertarian
In 1941, the United States declared war against Germany and Japan. It was the last time that a formal declaration of war was made. Now what criteria Must there be for a declaration of war? Two things.
1. The opposing country attacked or plans to attack us.
2. It is a threat to National Security.
World war 2 met all of these requirements. In today's world, we have new problems in front of us. What to do with dictators like Assad or Kim Jong un. You want to invade Syria to free the people. We have a dilemma.
Syria did not attack any country at all! It is wrong on a legal basis to attack because according the U.N charter to which the US and the UK were signers, you can only attack in the case of self defense. As I have said before, Syria has not attacked any country. It is true that Assad is torturing the Syrian people. But then we have no legal reason.
On the matter of the Iraq war, Colin Powell in 2001 asked The United Nations to send troops to Iraq. He said that why attacking Iraq is necessary was because Iraq has WMDs. The United nations agreed. But then, when the truth came out about those WMDs, The president of the United states defended his position saying that Iraq was torturing it's people.
Anyway, My opponent has point out America's unwillingness to do something. However we can not. And if we did, we would not even have a game plan. Pope Francis has spoken against military action in Syria instead asking for Peace. That raises another question. How would Iran or Russia react. Do you want them to get involved too ? For another reason why I do not support military intervention is because I am afraid that it will ' spill the beans,'
ThomasTownend forfeited this round.
ThomasTownend forfeited this round.
ThomasTownend forfeited this round.
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.