The Instigator
halestorm
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Russia should be involved in the war in Georgia.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 797 times Debate No: 5172
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

halestorm

Con

This war is about South Ossetia's problem with the Georgian government. South Ossetia wanted to secede from Georgia. Therefore, Georgia attacked South Ossetia. I do not have a problem with this; it is only right for a country to defend what is theirs. However, Russia has no right to get involved in a civil war in Georgia. They are acting solely out of greed and imperialism and have no business in Georgia.
CiRrO

Pro

"This war is about South Ossetia's problem with the Georgian government. South Ossetia wanted to secede from Georgia. Therefore, Georgia attacked South Ossetia."

--> This is true, I concede.

"However, Russia has no right to get involved in a civil war in Georgia."

--> This is untrue. A country has a right to use military force in cases where the government feels that their citizens are threatened. Many Russian citizens live in South Ossetia, therefore they are threatened by an eruption of war. Therefore, your claim that they do not have a "right" to sue military force is wrong.

"They are acting solely out of greed and imperialism and have no business in Georgia."

--> Russia has gained no monetary or industrial advantage by invading Georgia. Furthermore, they have pulled most of their troops back. Imperialism is domination of the government. They have done nothing of the sort. The 2 major things they wanted were: 1) Protection of Russian citizens and 2) That South Ossetia receive it's own sovereignty.
Debate Round No. 1
halestorm

Con

"Many Russian citizens live in South Ossetia"

This statement is true, however, if they are Russian citizens, then why are they living across the border in Georgia? Unless they have a legal reason to be there and are Georgian citizens, then they should either stick to Russian soil or apply for Georgian citizenship.

"The 2 major things they wanted were: 1) Protection of Russian citizens"

That is also true. I admit that I probably overstepped on claiming Russian intentions to be imperialist. However, it is not necessary for Russia to help South Ossetia rebel against Georgia. This would be like the USA helping Quebec secede from Canada. Instead, if Russian citizens are in danger, Russia can use the military to escort the citizens out of the country and back into Russia. If Georgia attacks this convoy, then by all means Russia has a right to defend its citizens. However, unless this situation happens, then Russia should not be aiding and abetting a rebellion in a foreign country.

"2) That South Ossetia receive it's own sovereignty."

I have said this before, but South Ossetia is not part of Russia. There are Russian citizens living there, but Russia still has no need to aid Georgian citizens in rebelling against an established government. Although I reiterate, it is important to note that we in the USA would feel a lot different if it were the United States helping Quebec rebel against Canada or something of a similar sort.
CiRrO

Pro

"This statement is true, however, if they are Russian citizens, then why are they living across the border in Georgia? Unless they have a legal reason to be there and are Georgian citizens, then they should either stick to Russian soil or apply for Georgian citizenship."

--> That's a rather ignorant statement. The fact still remains that Russian citizens were living there, thus to insure protection, Russian forces moved in.

"That is also true. I admit that I probably overstepped on claiming Russian intentions to be imperialist. However, it is not necessary for Russia to help South Ossetia rebel against Georgia. This would be like the USA helping Quebec secede from Canada. Instead, if Russian citizens are in danger, Russia can use the military to escort the citizens out of the country and back into Russia. If Georgia attacks this convoy, then by all means Russia has a right to defend its citizens. However, unless this situation happens, then Russia should not be aiding and abetting a rebellion in a foreign country."

--> South Ossetia is a Russian ally, and they recognize its sovereignty. Your example is flawed because Canada is an ally, and we would probably help Canada. Furthermore, the attack by Georgia did hurt infrastructure, which indirectly hurts the Russian citizens living. Therefore, according to your standard, Russia has a right to use military force.

"I have said this before, but South Ossetia is not part of Russia. There are Russian citizens living there, but Russia still has no need to aid Georgian citizens in rebelling against an established government. Although I reiterate, it is important to note that we in the USA would feel a lot different if it were the United States helping Quebec rebel against Canada or something of a similar sort."

--> South Ossetia doesn't need to be a part of Russia. It was aiding an ally. Wouldn't you agree we should help Britain if they were being attacked? I believe that you would agree.
Debate Round No. 2
halestorm

Con

The fact still remains that Russian citizens were living there, thus to insure protection, Russian forces moved in."

It is true that Russia does have a right to protect its citizens. However, does this right extend to occupying parts of another country? This could be likened to the USA's war in Iraq. Although I support this war, the only reason I support it is because we need to fix Iraq now that we have messed it up. We of the USA did not even have a substantial amount of citizens in Iraq. However, we invaded and ended up causing violence among Iraqi citizens. We did ruin their peace; even though it was forced by intimidation, we could have handled it in many other ways than attacking them. The same is true of Russia and Georgia; the two countries did not need to go to war with each other.

"South Ossetia is a Russian ally, and they recognize its sovereignty. ... South Ossetia doesn't need to be a part of Russia. It was aiding an ally. Wouldn't you agree we should help Britain if they were being attacked? I believe that you would agree."

The USA would certainly help Britain if it were attacked. However, we would not be helping separatists rebel against a legitimate government.* The Georgian government is a legitimate government that should have the right to solve its own internal problems, rather than have a larger country aid in a rebellion against it. Russia should not remain in Georgia, where it is effectively enforcing its will upon a much smaller country. Instead, it should be simply escorting its citizens out in a more conservative manner, and allowing South Ossetia to handle its own problems against the legitimate Georgian government. These are the mistakes that the USA made in Iraq. By invading and throwing out peace, we created a situation that may very well be impossible to solve. Russia may have done the same thing.

*Yes, we did throw out the Iraqi government. However, this was during the Bush administration. The government is about to undergo a regime change. Also, even if something happens within 4-1/2 months, President Bush should have learned from his mistakes.
CiRrO

Pro

"It is true that Russia does have a right to protect its citizens. However, does this right extend to occupying parts of another country?"

--> My opponent has conceded a main point of the debate. however, he goes to say that it doesn't warrant the occupation of another country. Well, seeing as though Russia has left, it is not occupation. Only peace keepers remain in S. Ossetia for protect of citizens.

"The USA would certainly help Britain if it were attacked. However, we would not be helping separatists rebel against a legitimate government.* The Georgian government is a legitimate government that should have the right to solve its own internal problems, rather than have a larger country aid in a rebellion against it."

--> turn this argument against him. He has not provided a way that a government is legitimate. So for case sake, I will explain for him. A legitimate government is one where the people back it. S. Ossetia wants independence, and the majority of Ossentians do as well. Therefore, S. Ossetia has a right to secede and form its own legitimate government. Now you can infer that Russia has a right to aid it's ally in creating its own government which was being suppressed by the government of Georgia.

[Voting Issues]

1. My opponent has concede the point about protection of citizens. Therefore, to protect them, military force was needed.
2. My ally point still stands. Thus, Russia has a right to help its ally receive independence and halt Gerogian aggression against a province that wants freedom.

For these reasons I urge an affirmation.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
I'll take this up if no one else does.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
halestormCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07