The Instigator
Xer
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points
The Contender
diety
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points

The U.S. should intervene in Darfur.

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: 5/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,534 times Debate No: 8437
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (14)

 

Xer

Con

I am against U.S. intervention in Darfur. My opponent will be in support of U.S. economic, military, or any other kind of intervention in Darfur. To my opponent, please state clearly which kind(s) of intervention you are in support of.

I will allow my opponent to begin the debate. Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate.
diety

Pro

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think that the U.S. should've invaded this place instead of Iraq. I think we should overthrow the government and try to stabalize things to protect all these innocent people from dying. Well, at least once we fix our own problems. I want to hear your arguments before I continue.

:)
Debate Round No. 1
Xer

Con

"I think that the U.S. should've invaded this place instead of Iraq."
-I am not debating about whether or not the U.S. should've invaded Iraq, I am debating intervention in Darfur.

"I think we should overthrow the government and try to stabalize things to protect all these innocent people from dying. Well, at least once we fix our own problems. I want to hear your arguments before I continue."
-Well, it is unfortunate that you said "Well, at least once we fix our own problems" because the resolution is one that takes place immediately, not at a future, unspecified, date. You just created a point for me that is impossible for you to rebuke as you agree with the statement.

We should not intervene in Darfur because:

1) The results of intervention can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it has left the U.S. overextended and in massive debt. America should help itself and its own people before ever thinking to reach out to poor countries around the globe.

2) The U.S. would further damage its image by going into Darfur.

3) The situation in Darfur does not pose a threat to international peace and security.

4) Humanitarian wars are almost never fought for purely humanitarian reasons. National interests and geopolitics are almost always the driving factor in military intervention. For example, in Kosovo, NATO had clear political interests at stake. There were no political interests in Rwanda though, so no major military intervention took place. The nations that were intervened purely for humanitarian reasons, such as in Somalia and Haiti, interest was quickly lost. In Darfur, there are geopolitical reasons to intervene, and that reason is oil. Would the U.S. intervening in Darfur in the name of humanity but instead going for the oil be right? Not at all. If the U.S. intervenes only for humanitarian reasons, will they stay long? Absolutely not. (1)

5) Humanitarian intervention is only a front for 21st century colonialism driven by neo-liberals set on the idea of the "perfect world" where free markets and free trade can exist everywhere. Their theory is that with democratic governments and open markets, countries will not go to war; which is the policy being used in Iraq today. The people of America have voiced their opinions. They do not like the policy in Iraq and it is foolish to think that they would like it in Darfur. Neo-liberalizing third-world countries is a policy destined to fail, and should not be used in Darfur. (2)

6) To intervene in Darfur is to destroy importance of the Treaty or Peace of Westphalia that has successfully governed the world since 1648. The Treaty of Westphalia has been the guiding document on basic principles of state sovereignty for over 450 years. Simply discarding the Treaty sets up a very dangerous precedent on the future of state sovereignty. Is it fair for the U.S. to decide that using military action against Darfur is ok; but also decide that Russia invading Georgia to protect the people of South Ossetia is wrong? Of course it is wrong, and it is incredibly hypocritical. (3)

7) The U.S. is highly hypocritical in another way as well. The situation in Darfur/Sudan is a direct result of European/Western colonialism/imperialism. Starting with Belgium in 1892, and followed by French, Italian, and British domination; the European powers left Darfur/Sudan in the mess that they are in today. It's best that Sudan be undisturbed by Western influence as the past has suggested that it is a bad idea. (4)

8) Humanitarian interventions almost always do more harm than good. Nations often go into humanitarian interventions to stop violations of human rights and international law, but the exact opposite usually happens. The U.S. military will fight to win; they will not fight for peace. And in that process, something terrible will surely happen; something like the Abu Ghraib incident in Iraq could happen; or in Kosovo, where the airstrikes, while successful, caused the Serbs to kill and eradicate the Albanian Kosovars faster.

-----SOURCES-----
(1) http://www.fpif.org...
(2) http://www.globalresearch.ca...
(3) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(4) http://www.ired.com...
diety

Pro

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Xer

Con

My opponent, Diety, logged in 5 hours ago. He clearly knew that it was his turn to debate, but he opted to forfeit. All my points stand. Hopefully Diety shows up next round.
diety

Pro

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Xer

Con

Ditto. Vote Con.
diety

Pro

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Defaulted to CON due to forfeits.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"Didn't we just have this argument? I just proved to you that we could! Please, nags, for the love of Jehovah. But seriously, now you're making absolute statements that have no support"
-No, we didn't have this argument. We've been in Iraq for over 6 years with minimal success against bums with AK-47s and you expect us to take North Korea and Iran at the same time. Yup...

"Fair enough, snugbert."
-Snugbert?

"The same can be said for Iran and North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile capability."
-No, because we still have to worry about them regardless.

"To address the Reuters article:
Just showing me one article doesn't prove anything. I have been following these developments since 2006, dude. They have repeatedly failed at launching missiles and are very far away from completing a fully operational ICBM that could reach us. True, they are closer than most nations of similar economic and regional status, but we could easily overthrow them with our airpower. Even if or when Iran/N. Korea does develop a ballistic missile, it will probably be an IRBM incapable of reaching the continental US."
-The article was published today based on what is happening today. It doesn't matter if you've been following Iran and North Korea for 50 years on the news. The article clearly proves that North Korea and Iran are near-nuclear. Credibility wise--- Reuters vs. 16 year-old in Brooklyn. I got Reuters.

"The United States aircraft carriers (big nuclear-powered ships that carry planes on top) are our main means of force-projection. Based on your extensive debate arguments and often intuitive statements, I figured I wouldn't have to spell it out for you. And I was lazy so I just gave you one link."
-There is a difference between aircraft carriers and "force projection carriers." Seeing as how force projection carriers do not exist. So yes, you were wrong.

"Moqtada?"
-I don't know.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
"The link shows "military force projection." Not "force-projection carriers." So yes, you are wrong. You made something up."

The United States aircraft carriers (big nuclear-powered ships that carry planes on top) are our main means of force-projection. Based on your extensive debate arguments and often intuitive statements, I figured I wouldn't have to spell it out for you. And I was lazy so I just gave you one link. Moqtada?
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
"There is no way we could take North Korea and Iran on at the same time. We'd get crushed. No doubt about it."
Didn't we just have this argument? I just proved to you that we could! Please, nags, for the love of Jehovah. But seriously, now you're making absolute statements that have no support.

"Obviously. But you have to find the ICBM first. And then attack it while the ICBM is being guarded by the whole military. The probability of using a pre-emptive strike to shoot down an ICBM successfully is very slim."
Fair enough, snugbert. But still, neither countries are anywhere near creating both a missile and a warhead to fit upon it.

"If the Patriot missile defense actually worked, we would not have to worry about Iran or North Korea right now. But that is obviously not the case. Patriot is still in its early stages and needs years of development."
The same can be said for Iran and North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile capability.

To address the Reuters article:
Just showing me one article doesn't prove anything. I have been following these developments since 2006, dude. They have repeatedly failed at launching missiles and are very far away from completing a fully operational ICBM that could reach us. True, they are closer than most nations of similar economic and regional status, but we could easily overthrow them with our airpower. Even if or when Iran/N. Korea does develop a ballistic missile, it will probably be an IRBM incapable of reaching the continental US.
Good man, Nags, good man.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Also...

You - If you had any idea of the United States' military capacity, you would know that we would be able to, with our force-projecting carriers and abundant international allies, fight several wars across the world at once."
Me - Force-projecting carriers? What?
You - Just because you don't know what force-projection is doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Me - So what are they then?

You answered by giving me a link to:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The link shows "military force projection." Not "force-projection carriers." So yes, you are wrong. You made something up.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"Does not our ability to easily take on three countries (two of them potentially nuclear) at once demonstrate our lack of overextension? We have thousands of troops in bases all over the world who have never seen combat (i.e. Germany, Okinawa, South Korea). Only 1 in 5 troops is every deployed."
-There is no way we could take North Korea and Iran on at the same time. We'd get crushed. No doubt about it.

"As for a pre-emptive strike:
Yes, if you can shoot down an ICBM upon launch, before it enters the bus stage, you can stop the whole sha-bang."
-Obviously. But you have to find the ICBM first. And then attack it while the ICBM is being guarded by the whole military. The probability of using a pre-emptive strike to shoot down an ICBM successfully is very slim.

"Also, have you no knowledge of Patriot missile defense? Our newest ABMs, when deployed in numbers, could in fact shoot down ICBMs, even before the warhead deployment stage. Especially due to the fact that not only are they deployed in Alaska, but on US warships in the Pacific and on the Japanese coast."
-If the Patriot missile defense actually worked, we would not have to worry about Iran or North Korea right now. But that is obviously not the case. Patriot is still in its early stages and needs years of development.

"By the way, neither Iran or North Korea is anywhere close to possessing ICBM rocket technology, as shown by their recent failures to launch satellites with effective rockets. And even once they obtained both a nuke and a ICBM rocket, they would have to take even more time to develop a nuclear warhead that is able to be fitted upon such a rocket. Basically, none of these mentioned countries pose any kind of ballistic missile (nuclear or non nuclear) threat to our territories."
-Read this:
http://www.reuters.com...
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Does not our ability to easily take on three countries (two of them potentially nuclear) at once demonstrate our lack of overextension? We have thousands of troops in bases all over the world who have never seen combat (i.e. Germany, Okinawa, South Korea). Only 1 in 5 troops is every deployed.
As for a pre-emptive strike:
Yes, if you can shoot down an ICBM upon launch, before it enters the bus stage, you can stop the whole sha-bang.
Also, have you no knowledge of Patriot missile defense? Our newest ABMs, when deployed in numbers, could in fact shoot down ICBMs, even before the warhead deployment stage. Especially due to the fact that not only are they deployed in Alaska, but on US warships in the Pacific and on the Japanese coast.
By the way, neither Iran or North Korea is anywhere close to possessing ICBM rocket technology, as shown by their recent failures to launch satellites with effective rockets. And even once they obtained both a nuke and a ICBM rocket, they would have to take even more time to develop a nuclear warhead that is able to be fitted upon such a rocket.
Basically, none of these mentioned countries pose any kind of ballistic missile (nuclear or non nuclear) threat to our territories.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"Don't you understand that I was merely making an example. I was saying that we do, in fact, have the capability to topple all three governments simultaneously. I said that to demonstrate the power of our military. It's not a question of 'should' at all. And as for your 3rd point; I assure you, we could destroy them, and "after they get nukes," as you say, that doesn't mean it's a nuclear armageddon. We could easily take out both of their nuclear facilities and any threat of an IRBM or ICBM attack would be easily repelled by either a) a pre-emptive strike or b) Patriot missiles."
-Yes, the U.S. is the strongest military in the world, doesn't prove anything.
-A pre-emptive strike wouldn't stop nukes.
-Patriot missiles have only a chance of stopping 1 nuke, but if there are 2 nukes, no chance.

"Our argument wasn't whether we "should" attack three random unfriendly countries at once. I used those examples to demonstrate that we are NOT overextended. That's where our debate originated. I used those countries as examples because they are commonly perceived to be the next most likely target of American military operations."
-Yes, we could topple them, I am not debating you on that. The fact that the U.S. can topple countries does not prove that the U.S. is not overextended.

You proved nothing. You only proved that the U.S. has the strongest military in the world. You did not prove that the U.S. is not overextended.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Get some Nags.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
"1) That doesn't pertain to intervention in Darfur.
2) There is no point in attacking either country.
3) They both have good militaries. North Korea is near nuclear capability. After they get nukes, they are going to sell them to Iran. They are both crazy enough to use them for any reason."
Don't you understand that I was merely making an example. I was saying that we do, in fact, have the capability to topple all three governments simultaneously. I said that to demonstrate the power of our military. It's not a question of 'should' at all. And as for your 3rd point; I assure you, we could destroy them, and "after they get nukes," as you say, that doesn't mean it's a nuclear armageddon. We could easily take out both of their nuclear facilities and any threat of an IRBM or ICBM attack would be easily repelled by either a) a pre-emptive strike or b) Patriot missiles.

" Since we have bigger guns, we should go around beating up weak countries?"
Our argument wasn't whether we "should" attack three random unfriendly countries at once. I used those examples to demonstrate that we are NOT overextended. That's where our debate originated. I used those countries as examples because they are commonly perceived to be the next most likely target of American military operations.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
XerdietyTied
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 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
XerdietyTied
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 
Vote Placed by EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
XerdietyTied
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 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
XerdietyTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
XerdietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
XerdietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
XerdietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
XerdietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
XerdietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
XerdietyTied
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:70