The Instigator
DebateWonder
Con (against)
The Contender
Joshua1996
Pro (for)

The US should fund rebels to defeat ISIS.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
DebateWonder has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 124 times Debate No: 96955
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

DebateWonder

Con

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Opening Statements
Third Round: Rebuttals
Fourth Round: Closing Statements
I will take the con side of this argument. I hope to have an interesting discussion with my opponent.
Joshua1996

Pro

I believe it is within the best interest of the United States of America to fund and support rebels in the fight against ISIS. When you look at the modern geopolitical map of the world we are seeing a loss in the USA's power grip on the world. ISIS is a threat that must not be allowed to further weaken our geopolitical holdings around our sphere of influence. If that means that we must wipe our hands of this conflict to escape the growing fear we face is simply a negative. The more one denies the growing truth of the problem the more serious the problem becomes, and ISIS represents only one truth, the USA is losing power. ISIS must be destroyed for the USA to retain it's political standing in the world, and regaining our power through the means of using rebel forces and not direct force. The USA is seeing the reemergence of a new cold war that may evolve out the next few decades, and we need to use these rebels like we used them during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Except this time we must select the rebels and have them take the stance of eliminating not only ISIS but the whole state of Syria and Iraq, with the goal of forming a future vassal like governing body. My primary target would be with the creation of Kurdistan towards the North of Syria and Iraq. If we can use the Kurdish forces to shoot down Russian jets in the local area of operations that is an added bonus. But direct force by the USA is not an option, as this may lead to more conflict with Russia and Iranian forces.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateWonder

Con

I affirm that the United States should not fund rebels to defeat ISIS because:

A. Funding rebels has never worked according to history
Funding rebels hasn"t worked out before if you are familiar with U.S. History. In Vietnam, there was a Vietnamization policy where the United States withdrew its own troops while training Vietnamese. A few months later, North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and renamed its capital Ho Chi Minn City. The United States also tried this policy in Afghanistan, where soldiers were trained by the U.S. Army to fight the Taliban. Later, the Taliban took Kunduz, a provincial capital. ISIS is well funded and it would need to take more than inferior forces to defeat it.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com...
B. The United States is funding ISIS
The United States has funded ISIS and allowed it to rise. In a recent news story, an ISIS leader admits that they are getting funds from the United States! The United States pays $600 per terrorist rebel using our tax payer money. After ISIS is destroyed, these rebels can turn their backs on the United States. Once ISIS is destroyed, another terrorist group could take its place.
Source: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com...
Joshua1996

Pro

The question is not whether these attempts have provided positive feed back over the years, there are two questions that need to be asked. The first question is whether supporting rebels is successful, and secondly is whether or not this will bring peace to the middle east. Let us first start with my first question, is supporting rebels successful ? I will begin by having you look at the CCP or the Chinese Communist Party's victory in China over the standing Chinese government at the time. Basic info https://www.marxists.org... if you want to look into it, but part of the victory for the CCP was aid from the USSR, a superior power supporting a rebel group. And the consequences from this support is clear to this day, even after the soviet collapse China remains strong. Was this attempt at supporting rebels good greatly depends on whether or not you look at it through the views of communism or other ideological views, but was it successful the answer is yes. Next we shall look at the Spanish civil war, when you look at the victor of this conflict which was the Nationalists, the nationalist forces won partly due to the support from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Portugal. This was another success on the support of rebel forces winning due to support from superior powers and the consequences were once more favorable for the nations that supported nationalist Spain. Next we are going to look at the American Revolutionary War, the American forces received aid from the Kingdom of Spain, France and trade with the Dutch Republic ( Modern day Netherlands). The consequences of the aid received during the revolutionary war were great, so great it lead to the modern nation and institutions we have to this day within our republic. This support of rebel forces by a superior nation was once more proved to be a great success, whether good or bad depends once more on an individual perspective. Then we also have a personal favorite the support of the NLF or National Liberation Front during the war in Vietnam by the Soviet Union, Communist China ( another success story ), North Korea, and Cuba. Which lead to victory over the Americans and South Vietnamese forces, and the consequences were therefore a success for the communist ideology. Now let us look at the American success during the Greek Civil War, where we have Communist forces aided by Yugoslavia and Albania in the conflict and the Greek government being supported by the USA, and England. From the year 1946 to 1949 the Greek Civil War went on and the outcome was a victory for the Greek government by the Americans and English, providing a buffer zone against the spread of communism within Europe. But sadly this list goes on and on throughout human history. Whether the support of rebel forces is a successful mean to spread one's influence and make alliances is therefore a proved fact to be positive. When looking at the retreat of Soviet forces from Afghanistan it was a success, and the destabilization of the governments in the area provided an even greater success. Because of a weak middle east it allows for us to have greater influence in this region of the world, and our view of stopping terrorism while supporting terrorism allows for us to not only use these terrorist groups, but also create connections to the black market and information dealing which is needed for us to strengthen both our allies and ourselves. Now let us move on to the peace question, at this point I will simply say no.. plain as day, peace in the middle east is possible only under the means of social reformation on a grand scale. The middle east is not China, it is not Vietnam, it is not Greece nor Spain. The middle east is at the cross roads of the old world, it has had to fight for it's social identity against the Mongols, Greeks, Romans, and Christians. They have fought for their own culture's survival, and as it was a defensive war they are conservative in their views and hostile towards outside influences in matters of ideology, religion, and law. The USA does not want a peaceful middle east, nor should we want a peaceful middle east which allows them to regain geopolitical power having Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and others to consolidate their power and threaten world geopolitical stability on natural resources, and power politics. If the middle east were to have peace we would have more events in terms of the six-day war, which briefly showed that Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria were all too eager to join arms and murder people instead of choosing peace. Land is a priceless resource, but humans are the greatest resource humanity has, if peace was what they wanted they would not have waged war on Israel. When dealing with people with aggressive beliefs whether it is communism, capitalism, fascism, and now the aggressiveness towards westernization of the middle east by means of radical Islam, we need to combat it. Peace within the middle is possible, but not profitable, peace within the middle under westernization is possible but costly. Therefore moving forward we must keep the middle east unstable until we gain the necessary monetary amount to not only overthrown dictatorial governments within the middle east, but also westernize them in the process. Melding western beliefs in the art of democracy, government, and human rights with elements from their culture over time. State evolution by means war is a simple concept, support a coup that wants voting only for men, and have them overthrow the governing body. Next support a coup which supports women's rights and religious freedom either by means of war or peace at this point, until we form not only an ally but also stability in the process. Freedom, peace, and ignorance all have to be fought for over time and on many fronts, not only by soldiers and intellectuals, but also by people like you and me in this debate right here. We the civilized of this world have an obligation to make war on this modern barbarianism that exists on our world only for the progress of a greater peace. Sorry for I was really busy today and I can't really afford Hillary Clinton fact checking 24/7, I am sure mistakes exist somewhere in here, at this point I encourage my opponent to strike back and allow for clarity and progress to take place. Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.