The Instigator
philwright228
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
walvekarakshay
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Military Intervention on Humanitarian grounds: A welcome development in international affairs?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 37302
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

philwright228

Con

I have an essay title which is:

Military intervention on humanitarian grounds " as justified by "Responsibility to Protect" " is a welcome development in international affairs. Disuss.

All opinion and debate is most welcome.
walvekarakshay

Pro

i am ready to debate on the topic "Military Intervention on Humanitarian grounds: A welcome development in international affairs?" as argument pro as i believe that military intervention is a welcome development and a great way to ensure the basic rights of humanism and thus boosting friendly ties with the future government leading ultimately to world peace.....
Debate Round No. 1
philwright228

Con

My main argument hinges on the fact that 'humanitarian intervention' is almost alway politically motivated rather than passionately motivated, and its particularly topical now with Syria. Russia and China have vetoed action in the UN Sec Council as they are allies with Syria. They cannot deny the humanitarian issues on the ground but will not intervene on political grounds. The US and UK want to intervene... Why? Yes the treatment of civilians is abhorrent, but then so was the case with the Kymer Rouge, Uganda and Mexico. Is it because the fear chemical attacks being launched against Isreal, or western forces in Iraq/Afghan or otherwise. Or is it that they fear that use of chem weapons being used now will lead to other countries using them in the future? They were prepared to do almost nothing before the use of Chem weapons in Syria where 10's of thousands had been killed, however now Syrian actions (chem wpns) fall into line with political agenda (prevention of use) the guise of 'humanitarian grounds' seems well placed to allow them to use military force without being seen to attack the sovereignty of another state.

Its a pretty interesting topic and i'm looking for a good balanced argument so appreciate your time in this debate.
walvekarakshay

Pro

I think that as long as the intervention DOES take place and the stability and peace of the region IS restored, it DOES NOT matter whether the actions were 'politically motivated' or only carried out on humanitarian grounds, because in this case there is the question of safeguarding not only the lives of crores of people (who are being brutally killed using WMD's) but also their basic rights of freedom of speech and expression. The government which does not believe in humanism and liberty is by rule an unstable and malevolent form of government (irrespective of the type of government.....whether democracy or dictatorship) and if an intervention causes the downfall of such a government the 'political motivations' behind it can surely be treated as collateral damage.............. Russia and china have not decided to intervene only and only because of their own vested interests which will be fulfilled (in this case) by not intervening .......There are political motivations behind each and every decision of each and every nation........
Also the lack of strict action against the use of WMD's will encourage its use on a larger scale by more nations ........
Before the use of chem weapons by Syria , the civil war was Syria's internal issue.... but their use of the weapons on civilians has made the issue an international one, necessitating strict action against the Syrian government....
thus I conclude that by the military intervention peace can be restored in the area which is what the world needs.......(the world doesn't need another war)
Yes I agree its an interesting topic and much is being said about it... I would like to hear more from you on it
Debate Round No. 2
philwright228

Con

philwright228 forfeited this round.
walvekarakshay

Pro

walvekarakshay forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
philwright228

Con

philwright228 forfeited this round.
walvekarakshay

Pro

walvekarakshay forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
philwright228

Con

philwright228 forfeited this round.
walvekarakshay

Pro

walvekarakshay forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.