The Instigator
Haks
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mathhelper
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The U.S would not be able to sustain a full out war with Syria.

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: 7/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 919 times Debate No: 35819
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Haks

Pro

The USA's economy wouldn't be able to sustain a war with Syria, it's economy is already on the brink of collapse with an unsustainable amount of debt of $48 Trillion compared to a GDP of $15.7 Trillion. The cost in the Iraq war is estimated to be at least $6 Trillion, not including the US military equipment which has been lost and this also doesn't include the war in Afghanistan which will cost at least another Trillion to exit and supply the army against the insurgents. http://en.wikipedia.org....
The USA also relies heavily on imported crude oil, the USA produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day while it consumes 7.4 million barrels of oil a day, we could predict that if there was to be a war with Syria, this could jump to at least another million or two barrels of consumption. This is a problem because much of the international community would be against a US invasion of Syria, such as Russia/Iran, and the U.S imports 30% of its oil from Russia alone. Also if the U.S were ever to declare war on Syria, it would likely only have the backing of the U.K as other NATO countries such as France, Spain, Italy etc.. are in a bad state economically so they would be reluctant to intervene like they did in Iraq/Afghanistan. This would likely put more strain on U.S resources and manpower, and let's not forget the Syrian military is much stronger than the Iraqi military back in the 90's, so the U.S would have to use much more manpower. My final point would be that with an invasion of Syria, we can't rule out the possibility of a war breaking out with Iran (Or even Russia, but I'd deem that to be more unlikely than a war with Iran.) A war with Iran would be devastating to the U.S economy, the U.S would simply not be able to provide as much manpower and resources like it did in Vietnam or Iraq in the 90's.
Mathhelper

Con

Since there is no definition or anything, I will assume that this "full-out war" will be a war in which the US will fight against the Syrian regime without the rebels, who will have already lost (Assuming). Also there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction involved. So, the situation is that Syrian government, already torn apart in a civil war, with people who are extremely resentful toward their government, will be able to survive a war against the US? Since the Syrian civil war has caused 3 million people to run, as well as over a hundred thousand casualties, UN support in the intervention would be extremely likely, as the US usually doesn't attack without allies, such as Korea in 1950 and in Iraq, the US had gotten support from the UK and its allies. So when you say the US wouldn't be able to sustain a war, you should really be saying US and its allies. However, the topic says the US, so let's compare. The US total debt held by the public is not 48 trillion, but actually 11.959 trillion or about 75% of GDP. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The US armed forces are considered the best in the world, and they are also the lone superpower. You can view this to see how strong we are----http://www.globalfirepower.com.... Comparing the two countries, we can find that Syria only has a GDP of 107 billion, as well as completely failing in military spending. The world's strongest country in economy and military can sustain a war against Syria. US spending in its army is 689 billion.Syria's is 2.5 billion. The US GDP is almost 160 times more than Syria. The US army has almost 300 navy ships, enough to carry hundreds of thousands of troops to Syria, as shown in the Vietnam War. If the US really needed to go to war, it would win.
Debate Round No. 1
Haks

Pro

Haks forfeited this round.
Mathhelper

Con

Mathhelper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Haks

Pro

Haks forfeited this round.
Mathhelper

Con

Mathhelper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ararmer1919 4 years ago
ararmer1919
Couple of things I saw wrong with what you said. First off. 48 trillion???? Where the heck did you get that number cause its actually right around 17.5 trillion which is actually right were our GDP is. Again 48 trillion? What? Second. "30 prevent of our oil comes from Russia"?????? WHAT??? This is even worse then your 48 trillion dollar debt statement. Was that a typo and you meant to day .03% cause we get little to no oil from Russia. In fact Id say with our current political relations with them or would be O%. Just pointing out some rather large flaws with your opening statement. I could get into what you said about the Syrian army compared to the Iraq army but just don't feel like it.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Welcome to the site. Well thought out argument... Getting down to it we could not even afford our war in Iraq, making one in Syria a possibility since politicians are often brain deficient. However getting down to it, if the USA took on a total war state (not seen since WWII), we could be done there inside a month and moved on. Hopefully the USA would never go to such extremes.
Posted by dagwood525 4 years ago
dagwood525
I'm not sure if this is the way you want to frame your debate. If you want to say, "the US should not intervene militarily in Syria," frame it that way. Setting up your debate with this in mind is not the best way to go about it, as you might swiftly lose purely on account of not knowing the full potential of US military strategy and technology. Never underestimate how powerful the US Army, though the US Army must never underestimate the ramifications of its actions. Frame your debate in a better way, and I'm certain someone will discuss the topic with you.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
The US is far from collapse. At only 120% of the Economy, the debt is one of the smallest among first world nations. Japan's debt is WELL above 200%. Great Britain's used to be around 400%
Posted by vbaculum 4 years ago
vbaculum
I think if the U.S. were to go to war with the Assad regime alone, assisting the rebels, it would be reckless. But, to my knowledge, no one in the government (e.g. McCain) is suggesting that. There are a lot of Friends of Syria (European and Middle Eastern forces) that would likely be brought together to overthrow the regime.

Obviously, that's not to say the debate is invalid. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't seem to be relevant to the actual public dialogue concerning U.S. military intervention in Syria.
No votes have been placed for this debate.