The Instigator
theaceb
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
tmac15689
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The U.S. should not invade Sudan to stop the genocide 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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/26/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,337 times Debate No: 1015
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

theaceb

Pro

While I am currently undecided as to whether the U.S. should send aid to the people being killed in Darfur, I am adamantly opposed to a U.S. invasion to stop the genocide.

I believe that an invasion would result in a disaster similar to Iraq, with the invasion of a foreign military causing more chaos and instability in the region.

I do not think it is the U.S.'s place or business to forcibly rectify the conflict, because it is a region and culture that we do not understand or have jurisdiction over.

The invasion would be a costly weight on the taxpayers and would be another interventionalist war that does more to generate anti-American sentiment around the world.
tmac15689

Con

There are the arguments my opponent is proposing:

1. Similar to Iraq disaster
2. Invading would create instability in Darfur
3. The US doesn't have jurisdiction over Darfur
4. It would cost a lot of money to the US
5. The world won't like us

1. These are two completely different conflicts. We can win in Darfur because we have no enemy except instability and people who are massacring innocent people. No matter what, we will leave Darfur better than when we enter. It will create world awareness, and more counties would get involved. The US military has the capacity to control the situation and save thousands of lives.
2. There is no way instability would result in Darfur more so than there is now.
3. The US set a precedent to intervene in large violations of human rights when we helped institute the declaration of human rights in the UN charter. Also, the US has troops in 83 countries at the moment. So, I'm pretty sure that we have jurisdiction to stop genocide if we already have troops in half of the world's countries.
4. it will gain the United States world respect which will increase the power of the dollar which could do more than putting a little bit of money into Darfur. At least we will be then spending our money on important things instead of earmarking, large subsidies in unneeded industries, or meaningless bureaucracies.
5. We will gain only more international respect for standing for something. Everyone in the world sort of knows what is going on. They will follow us or applaud us.

Now that I have proved my opponents arguments wrong, let me, for the fun of it, elaborate to convince further.

After the Rwanda incidents, we all bitched that we should have done something. NOW, we have a chance to stop genocide. Let's invade to stop it. I truly believe that there are numerous things that we need to fix about America. HOWEVER, we can't use those as excuses to stop doing what is right and moral. If we are truly a moral nation, then lets do something about it. The concern i have is if we are spending our troops to thin. however, this can be remedied by getting out of iraq within the next couple of years or by simply devoting more money to troops to give more incentives. Money, to me, is not a problem. When the US people see that the US is doing something noble and good, then they will respond positively
Debate Round No. 1
theaceb

Pro

Thankyou for accepting the challenge

1. I understand the Iraq war and a hypothetical invasion of Sudan are very different conflicts. However they have one outstanding similarity: the U.S. is invading a foreign country. This means in a sustained war there is a possibility for further war profiteering as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is the greatest blow to the efficiency of the wars and the taxpayer's money. Recently the U.S. has proved to be inefficient in handling it's foreign invasions, and should not be granted an opportunity to mount another one of similar characteristics.

Also a very important common factor is the primary enemy in both wars is the fact that the primary enemy are radical guerilla insurgents, with few large targets for us to bomb. The U.S. would run into the same problems they have in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan: high civilian casualties and difficulty making progress in subduing the enemy because they practice guerilla warfare (a difficult form of warfare for a unified military to face) and do not travel in large groups.

2. To fully stop the genocide the U.S. would most likely depose the Sudanese government, which is funding the Janjaweed police group, which is committing the genocide. This action would be reflecting recent U.S. war strategy, in Afghanistan the U.S. deposed of the current Taliban government, which wasn't actually committing terrorist acts but funding and harboring Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Therefore the U.S. would likely be required to depose the Sudanese government, and there is no way more stability can result from deposing the current government of a nation. Could you also clarify your position on the U.S. deposing the Sudanese government? I realize there are many varying strategies about how the invasion should be handled.

Bottom line on this point, is that I do not trust the U.S. government to handle the situation in a beneficial and proper way.

3. "The US set a precedent to intervene in large violations of human rights when we helped institute the declaration of human rights in the UN charter."

I personally disagree with the U.S. being so heavily involved in the UN, I'm not saying the U.S. should withdraw, I'm just saying we should consider our own interests to be paramount to what the UN wants us to do.

"Also, the US has troops in 83 countries at the moment."

I also disagree with many of the extended occupations of foreign nations that the U.S. currently employs, I believe we should withdraw troops from most of these nations.

4. The nation and its' people simply do not need another foreign war to suck up the vast majority of their money. Especially, as I said before, when there is a possibility of extensive war profiteering.

"At least we will be then spending our money on important things instead of earmarking, large subsidies in unneeded industries, or meaningless bureaucracies."

I wholeheartedly agree that money should not be spent on these things, however I do not believe an invasion of Sudan is worthy action that the majority of the American people would support because of the high price and soldier casualties. I believe more money needs to be retained by the people who earned it.

5. Referring back to point 2, if the U.S. deposes the Sudanese government, it would do the same thing it did in Afghanistan and Iraq: set up a western U.S. backed republic. This is a cultural invasion that the U.S. should not undertake, as it would generate more anti-American sentiment in Africa, just as the democratic U.S. backed states of Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan have generated even more intense hatred of the U.S. and West. There is an increasing wave of anti-American sentiment sweeping through Africa, the last thing we need is more intervention in that area. If African nations were to get angrier at the U.S., there could be an increased tide of African nations funding terrorists. You forget that one of the primary reasons that Africa and the Middle East are in such bad conditions and have such hatred of the West, is because of U.S. and other western intervention and regulation of their affairs.

Essentially the foundation of my opponent's argument is that because it is a good moral thing to do, the U.S. should do it. While it sounds great in theory, it is simply an unrealistic and naive approach to foreign policy. There are terrible things happening all the time around the world. The purpose of the U.S. military is not to intervene and stop these things, it is to defend this country, and attack those who pose an imminent to the U.S., it has no place being a world police force. Sudan and the Janjaweed pose absolutely no direct threat to the U.S.

Conflicts like this should be handled by those live in Africa who know the area and culture. The Janjaweed and Sudan do not have many friends in Africa, Chad has recently been fighting the Janjaweed, because the conflict directly affects them. The African Union has also made attempts to resolve the conflict. These are the people who should be actively involved with this event, not a large superpower thousands of miles away from it.
tmac15689

Con

"However they have one outstanding similarity: the U.S. is invading a foreign country."

This similarity cannot simply be compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. The Us has invaded Germany, Japanese islands, Spain, Mexico, much of Latin America, and others. The point is that you cannot make huge generalizations that any invasion is a bad one because Iraq and Afghanistan are going astray.

"Recently the U.S. has proved to be inefficient in handling it's foreign invasions, and should not be granted an opportunity to mount another one of similar characteristics."

First of all, we handled Afghanistan pretty well. However, most of the terrorists fled to Iraq, so we followed them. While popular liberal media had us all believing the Iraq war is the biggest disaster in US foreign policy, they haven't said anything for a while, even during election campaigns. WONDER WHY. WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ. Casualties had dropped tremendously in Baghdad; we are handing over lots more power to the Iraqi military. There has been a huge increase in the amount of people joining the Iraqi military. John McCain is right when he said,

"I have no doubt that we are succeeding militarily over there [iraq], I know too many people who are fighting over there, three star generals, captains, who have told me that there have been huge successes in Iraq in the past 7 months. Are there problems, yes, there are areas where Iran leaders are getting IEDs to the terrorists in Iraq."

He goes on to elaborate on the few problems yet to finish. He has numerous times came out in public along with many generals who are trying to let the American people know that we are making huge progress in Iraq. So, please don't just blandly say that Iraq proves the US can't handle war. People need to start paying attention to the Iraq war, more so than ever, instead of just righting it off like the democrats want everyone to think.

Because they are guerilla insurgents- "The U.S. would run into the same problems they have in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan: high civilian casualties"

Ok, come on. High civilian casualties? Why don't we just look at Sudan right now! You think there aren't huge amount of innocent people dying? You don't think that civilians are being gunned down in the streets and targeted for murder? Yes, there are problems with fighting guerilla warfare. But, don't tell me that we are going to stop fighting guerilla insurgents because we might kill a few innocent bystanders when thousands are murdered ever week.

2. On creating stability in Sudan. "The Sudanese government…is funding the Janjaweed police group, which is committing the genocide" if this is true, then we should 100% take down the Sudanese government. First of all, I believe that we could get unilateral support for this invasion. But even if we didn't, we should still invade and take down an evil country who is fighting proxy wars within their own country.

"there is no way more stability can result from deposing the current government of a nation."

This is quite a bold assumption, my dear friend. First of all, many countries like Sudan don't have a very stable government in the first place. It is usually run through few leaders who only want power. You take them down, their government falls. You put new people in charge. It would be very easy to do this is Sudan, as long as we took down the leaders of the Janjaweed police as well. I do trust the US government to handle the situation effectively. I believe an international conflict like this would be similar to the way we handled Kuwait and Iraq back in the day.. 1989. Numerous other nations would get involved, and help us set us stability both militarily and diplomatically. I do believe that this time around, it would almost be necessary to get international support. I am referring to Iraq. But I believe that it would be infinitely easier to get help in stopping a genocide that it is in going after a few terrorists in an arbitrary country.

3. "I personally disagree with the U.S. being so heavily involved in the UN, I'm not saying the U.S. should withdraw, I'm just saying we should consider our own interests to be paramount to what the UN wants us to do. I also disagree with many of the extended occupations of foreign nations that the U.S. currently employs, I believe we should withdraw troops from most of these nations."

The UN is the best tool for international cooperation through information trading, conflict resolution through peace talks, and international awareness. We have troops in other countries so that we can move troops easily around and also so that we have reserve troops ready if necessary that are actively on duty.

Whatever, the point here was that your opinion doesn't matter on jurisdiction, and neither does mine. The US has jurisdiction to do what we feel is necessary based on precedent, and the international status quo. The US also has the duty and obligation to uphold the UN dec. of human rights, because we had such a big hand in it in the first place. I believe it shows hypocrisy to not step in to Darfur.

4. OK, so we agree that people should keep their money. I get the feeling you are fiscally conservative. I am pretty much too. But I believe that upholding our obligations and duty is a necessary cost that most of the country WOULD agree to. At least a whole lot more than Iraq. Maybe now is a good time to address your concerns of the tax payers money. Yes, there are problems with the budget and taxes. First, I believe this topic is much more important than that. But, there are many things to deal with that could make room for this invasion to occur. Like I said before, we can cut frivolous subsidies, increase taxes alcohol or detrimental substances, delete meaningless bureaucracies like NASA, and many others, but most of all, but all earmarking. That stuff is such a waste of our money that is done through the most diabolical ways possible. So, regarding the cost of such an invasion, my plan would involve finding money through the eradication of such programs and activities, and pay more to the troops. Get unilateral support, find money, and go full force to stop genocide.

"I do not believe an invasion of Sudan is worthy action"

What can be more worthy morally than stopping an unjust genocide? You will say that it doesn't matter to the US. THIS IS THE SAME ATTITUDE THAT LET THE HOLOCAUST AND HITLER'S REIGN GO ON FOR WAY LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE. We wouldn't have even gotten into the war had it not been for Japan. How many deaths do we let happen until we decide that maybe it is the right thing to do. How many Jews, gays, dissenters, innocent civilians does it take for my opponent to decide whether the US should take an interest in this. Any affront to the human life is an affront to human life in the US. When MAJOR massacres or genocides occur, the US should help stop it to their highest power. These people who degrade human life; how long until they decide American's lives aren't important either, and do something stupid in the US.
5. "This is a cultural invasion that the U.S. should not undertake"
"There is an increasing wave of anti-American sentiment sweeping through Africa, the last thing we need is more intervention in that area"
"there could be an increased tide of African nations funding terrorists."

I do not think that protecting a group of Africans will raise anti-American sentiment. I do not think that the people of Africa will look bad upon the US if they try to help a minority stand up to the government who is murdering their people. I do not think that African nations will look at this incident and decide the US should die. There will be a clear and resounding message sent across Africa, and the rest of the world. NO LONGER will governments be allowed to kill their people. NO LONGER is it alright to kill whoever they feel like. NO LONGER will it be tolerated. I believe that this will
Debate Round No. 2
theaceb

Pro

theaceb forfeited this round.
tmac15689

Con

tmac15689 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Statesman 9 years ago
Statesman
I think pro is right. Strictly because of the fact that the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction over there. I agree with the con though that we are winning in Iraq. Also con, the U.N. is one of the most futile and foolish things ever created. The U.S. should leave it immediately. Also con, just because "the U.S. has troops in 83 countries at the moment" doesn't mean we have the right to.
Posted by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
Ok WTF, I was finishing my argument and the timer said 53 minutes left, then like 20 minutes later when I post it says I forfeited. So anyway here's my argument for round 3, in several comments, sorry about this.

"This similarity cannot simply be compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. The Us has invaded Germany, Japanese islands, Spain, Mexico, much of Latin America, and others. The point is that you cannot make huge generalizations that any invasion is a bad one because Iraq and Afghanistan are going astray."

This is true, however the reason Iraq and Afghanistan hold much more significance in this situation, is because they are recent wars, within the last 8 years, and under the same administration. Therefore any upcoming wars would be highly comparable to these two invasions. My statement refers to U.S. in relatively recent history, not the entire lifespan of the U.S., which of course involved many successful and unsuccessful invasions.

"First of all, we handled Afghanistan pretty well. However, most of the terrorists fled to Iraq, so we followed them."

Most of the terrorists we were fighting in Afghanistan moved to Pakistan, not Iraq. Terrorists entered Iraq AFTER the U.S. invasion, so they could attack U.S. troops. They followed us into Iraq.

"WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ. Casualties had dropped tremendously in Baghdad; we are handing over lots more power to the Iraqi military. There has been a huge increase in the amount of people joining the Iraqi military."

Not to get too far off topic, but when the goals are as such as they are in Iraq, you cannot win. Even if we are winning, it is irrelevant, I disagree with the war's reasons in the first place, I don't want us to win, I want us to come home immediately. It is more the reasons and aims of the war that are flawed, rather than the handling.
Posted by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
"Why don't we just look at Sudan right now! You think there aren't huge amount of innocent people dying? You don't think that civilians are being gunned down in the streets and targeted for murder? Yes, there are problems with fighting guerilla warfare. But, don't tell me that we are going to stop fighting guerilla insurgents because we might kill a few innocent bystanders when thousands are murdered ever week."

I know all these terrible things are happening. I didn't say we should never fight a difficult war with guerrilla insurgents just because it is difficult, I am merely saying that U.S. involvement in such a war should be justified. It is not a core reason against invasion, but is a contributing factor making the invasion even more difficult and unrealistic.
Posted by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
"But even if we didn't, we should still invade and take down an evil country who is fighting proxy wars within their own country."

That opens up a huge can of worms, the precedent that we should take down evil governments that fight or fund internal wars. These events happen all the time, and they are INTERNAL wars. What business does some foreign superpower have in intervening? That principle allows the U.S. to tromp around the world, destroying governments and sticking our wang where it doesn't belong.

"many countries like Sudan don't have a very stable government in the first place. It is usually run through few leaders who only want power. You take them down, their government falls. You put new people in charge. It would be very easy to do this is Sudan"

I agree Sudan does not have a very stable government right now, but once again I point to Iraq. In theory, deposing an oppressive dictator and setting up a Western modeled republic would work well and give more stability to the nation. Instead our presence has caused civil war making the nation very unstable. I'm not saying it's more favorable to be under an oppressive dictator than embroiled in a civil war, I am simply saying that their government provides more stability than a civil war situation.

"The UN is the best tool for international cooperation through information trading, conflict resolution through peace talks, and international awareness."

I agree, and I agree with U.S. participation, I am simply saying that our constitution and interests should be considered above that of any UN charter, when dealing with foreign affairs.
Posted by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
"We have troops in other countries so that we can move troops easily around and also so that we have reserve troops ready if necessary that are actively on duty."

Yes I'm not talking about foreign bases and embassies where the nation allows us to be there. I'm talking about forceful occupations or nations that do not want us, such as our presence in Korea.

"The US has jurisdiction to do what we feel is necessary based on precedent, and the international status quo."

I would ask what precedent authorizes the U.S. to intervene to stop genocide? When has the U.S. intervened for this reason? People sometimes point to WWII as an example of this precedent, but the U.S., nor any Allied nation joined WWII to stop the Holocaust. Europeans did so because Germany was a military threat and the U.S. did for financial and alliance reasons.

Yes your right I am fiscally conservative, my page says I'm very libertarian. I would agree totally with cutting useless buerocracies, but I would still say that the money should go to more worthy causes than militarily intervening to stop the Darfur genocide.

"When MAJOR massacres or genocides occur, the US should help stop it to their highest power."

I never said the U.S. should do absolutely nothing about the genocide, I said I am undecided about giving aid to Darfur, but this debate is about whether or not the U.S. should invade Sudan. I am opposed to this particular method in aiding to stop the genocide, I agree these things are atrocious and it is an afront to all human life. However we cannot let that blind us into saying we should help stop the genocide to the highest power, because as we've shown the issue becomes much more complex.
Posted by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
"These people who degrade human life; how long until they decide American's lives aren't important either, and do something stupid in the US."

Precisely, when they do something stupid to the U.S. then of course it is our concern and jurisdiction, and we should militarily do everything in our power to stop it. However as it stands currently the Janjaweed and Sudanese government pose no threat to us, and therefore our military, who's duty is to protect the nation, has no place to be involved.

"I do not think that protecting a group of Africans will raise anti-American sentiment. I do not think that the people of Africa will look bad upon the US if they try to help a minority stand up to the government who is murdering their people. I do not think that African nations will look at this incident and decide the US should die."

Perhaps the nations of Africa would not be mad because the U.S. stopped the genocide, but there are so many more factors involved when actually deploying troops to a foreign nation. There could be unforeseen consequences that could damage the area, upsetting surrounding nations.

Overall the situation in Darfur is a very complex one. The things going on there, are no doubt terrible, but we just can't let this take us away. There are possibly other methods of resolving this conflict that I may support. However invasion is an extremely costly and tricky thing to do, and would be a very unwise decision for the government to make.
Posted by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
I wasn't asking for a large number of people in the U.S. to disagree with me, I was just asking for an opponent, which I got pretty quickly.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
I'm pretty sure 99% of the people in the United States would agree with you in saying that we should not invade Sudan. While we should obviously send aid and work to end the genoicide, no sane person believes that we should invade.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Statesman 9 years ago
Statesman
theacebtmac15689Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
theacebtmac15689Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RMK 9 years ago
RMK
theacebtmac15689Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
theacebtmac15689Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30