Should the US military assault ISIS?
Debate Rounds (5)
In my opinion, the entire Western Hemisphere, (Europe, USA, Canada...) and far Eastern (Russia and China) should stay as far away from ISIS/ISIL as possible. I come at this from a pro-Israeli Westerner. The reason for this is, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They are killing off so many of our enemies. Sure, Kurdistan and Iraq are taking a beating, but Iraq is merely a puppet and Kurdistan is able to take handle the beating.
Firstly, I believe that ISIS is the sole greatest current threat to humanity. The US should assault them and exterminate them not based on gain or pride, but based on moral decency. Which of our enemies are they killing off? Syria? Iraq? Palestine? We can handle those countries, but we just chose not to.
Hitler killed Jews in the name of moral decency. Moral decency for what? What new is going on? A bunch of religious extremists are killing each other in the name of Allah and I cannot see what American can do about it. Even if we go in there and crush them (which we completely have the capability) that will not solve the problem. See ISIS and it's territory as a beehive and the USA and western civ as a human. We could crush the beehive easily, completely destroying the infrastructure, income, base of operations etc... However, once that beehive is crushed, all of the bees will come out and sting the human, and the human can do very little about it. All of the ISIS Jihadists will simply become mainstream terrorists, no different than Osama Bin Ladin and the Taliban. While they are ISIS, they hide behind a flag, but when they become terrorists, they hide behind mountains. Let their neighbors (some are also our enemies) kill them off. I have no problem with training moderate Syrian rebels, or supplying Kurdistan with equipment. Any more than that will make ISIS hate us more than they already do. So, do you understand the beehive argument? By making themselves a state, they contain themselves. When they are broken free from the statehood, they become normal terrorists which are by far harder to fight than sovereign countries.
How is that moral? I thought that you were striving for morality but instead you want to engage a scorched earth plan, completely demolishing the territory that they stand on? That is not moral. At least they are wanting to build a country, provide infrastructure and central government. All that I see you want to do is destroy. And you do not understand my analogy. Them being a state is good for us, bad for them. It is harder to fight terrorists than a state. ISIS fighters are just terrorists with uniforms on. The moment we burn their flag, they go back to being terrorists again and it is even harder to deal with them. So, I propose that we do not engage them forwardly, let their neighbors destroy them, so that when ISIS as a state is done, their ex-soldiers will terrorize the neighbors that brought them down instead of the USA. Moreover, you have not explained why you think that ISIS is so dangerous. They are the size of South Carolina with less followers than the population of Seattle. How are they a national threat without ICBMs or Nuclear Weapons?
"How is that moral?"
My idea is moral because ISIS is not moral, so executing their leaders and soldiers and waging total war on ISIS is a just cause. Justice is moral.
"So, I propose that we do not engage them forwardly, let their neighbors destroy them, so that when ISIS as a state is done, their ex-soldiers will terrorize the neighbors that brought them down instead of the USA."
So, let me get this straight. You want the Kurds/Syrian rebels/Iraq to destroy ISIS as a state, then the ex-soldiers will terrorize them instead of us? You do realize that more people will die because of that, right? So you are OK with ISIS killing people, but God forbid they be Americans? How is THAT moral?
I will answer your rebuttals in order of your statements
Im am referring to your total war. If you do your hisory of the civil war, Sherman's campaign through the south, which I thought you were refrring to, was completely unethical. They hurt bystanders. They burnt down farms that had nothing to do with the war. That was what I understood by your comparison to the Civil War. Besides, look at what happened last time we entered another country in the name of morality: Afganistan. Was that a success? I think not. Only a fool would say that the way we engaged the middle east was a success.
Yes. God forbid they be Americans. You do not understand the cultural history sir. There will NEVER be peace in the middle east. "Peace" is a western ideology. Westerners strive for peace. Peace is not the end goal in the middle east. Everytime there is peace, it means that somebody lost a war, and that people group who lost a war will be humiliated. In arabian culture, you cannot leave a humiliation un-touched, so you must fight back. Never has there EVER been complete peace between all nations/tribes in the middle east. Because the Shi'a and the Sunni are all fighting, they you can go back to the Umayyads and Abassids who were fightings before that. In the middle east, people first recognize themselves to a tribe, then country. Everyone who isn't that tribe, is inferior. Thence, there will always be war because humans dont like to be inferior. In the west, the identify to countries, and see other countries as equal, therefore peace is possible and something that the west strive for. So, as an American, I want to get my country out of that mess because it will not be solved. The middle east is a vicious cycle. Never will it ever be solved. So, if people want to continue killing each other (both in the name of Allah) somewhere on the other side of the world in the meiddle of a god forsaken desert region, they have at it. Because in the west, we believe in equality (working on it) so peace is actually possible.
Also, again, you have not told be why ISIS is even a threat, they are small, they are poor, they are literally surrounded by enemies. Why are they a threat?
Simple. They are killing Christians. The vast majority of Americans identify as Christians. So they are a threat to our religious brethren.
"Im am referring to your total war. If you do your hisory of the civil war, Sherman's campaign through the south, which I thought you were refrring to, was completely unethical. They hurt bystanders. They burnt down farms that had nothing to do with the war."
The Civil War was much different, although I still want to wage total war in ISIS. In The Civil War, Sherman's March was immoral because not everybody in the CSA supported the CSA. The difference is that in order to live with ISIS, you HAVE to support ISIS. They can ALL be considered threats, unlike in the Civil War.
My personal opinion of what we should do about the Middle East as a whole is China, Russia, and The US could make an agreement to take over and occupy different sections of the Middle East. In Syria, China could take ISIS, Russia could take Syria, and the US could take Kurdistan/Oppositional Government. Then, this plan expands throughout the Middle East. Then, anyone who attacks other ethnoreligious groups could be considered a terrorist, and then whatever government could have them assassinated/executed. Now, I know that this does not sound like the most moral plan in the world. But you said yourself that the Middle East would never have peace. But if we segregate the tribes that are fighting so much, that 30 years or so down the road they have forgotten all about the conflicts that they had, then there can be peace.
Sophicles forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Iamaconfederate 2 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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
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.