Should Bashar al-Assad be taken down
Debate Rounds (3)
Read this article: as my evidence
We need to stop interfering in every civil war and revolution around the globe. Starting in Syria we can make a great stand for peace and for non intervention. If Congress represents the voice of the American people, it is significant that 50% of the people are against military intervention in Syria according to an NBC poll. Only 42% support military action. It is also important to bear in mind that the people in countries regarded as the US"s "comrades-in-arms" are also opposed to military force. In France it is 64% of the citizenry. In Britain, the House of Commons, reflecting popular sentiment, has voted against military intervention in Syria.
Also, since the United Nations" investigation team has done its analysis of the alleged chemical attack near Damascus and found somewhat inconclusive, in other words rebel troops may have also used these weapons. An attack on Syria would also be a violation of international law since Syria has not attacked the US.
The Syrian conflict has also reinforced longstanding sectarian and tribal divisions in the area. Actors are exploiting the Sunni-Shia dichotomy in particular as a way of playing the majority sect in Islam against the minority with the aim of weakening Muslim solidarity. Sectarian violence is now rearing its ugly head not just in Syria but also --- and for a much longer while --- in Lebanon, Bahrain and Iraq. Sectarian clashes in the area benefit Israel which views turmoil and upheaval in its neighborhood as a boon to its goal of remaining the dominant force in the region. It is significant that Israel and Zionism have been able to ensure that US and Western policy as a whole is dovetailed to meet the core interests of the Israeli state. Taking military action against Syria with the objective of overthrowing Bashar is what Israel wants because Bashar is an important link in the axis of resistance to Israeli dominance which includes Iran and Hezbollah. Israel has conducted three air strikes within Syria in the last year. In this regard, it is worth reiterating that Israel is the hidden hand in much of the politics of other states such as Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Sudan.
By taking military action against muslim states --- partly at the urging of Israel --- the US has brought nothing but misery and suffering to the people. The classic example is of course Iraq. 10 years after its conquest by the US and Britain, Iraq is a totally devastated nation, wrecked by perpetual sectarian violence. Some advocates of military intervention in Syria are of the opinion that since the military action that Obama is planning is limited in scope and duration, Syria will not end up like Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no guarantee. Once it starts the military operation could assume a life of its own. The response from the Syrian military command, and the reaction of Iran and Russia could be decisive. Besides, there are individuals and groups in Obama"s trench who are determined to oust Bashar, to achieve regime change. That could lead to a prolonged campaign. The American people and treasury has born too much of a burden to right the perceived wrongs of the world. This must stop and we must learn to live with nations who have different values and beliefs than we do. As long as they don't attack us then we shouldn't attack them.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con made more convincing arguments and he happened to refute Pro's contentions and arguments. Overall, I feel like Con did better in 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.