The United Nations should intervene militarily in Syria
Debate Rounds (3)
I believe that the United Nations (UN) should intervene militarily in Syria for various reasons. Primarily in that regardless of the knowledge that Assad has agreed to and I believe completed the handover of chemical weapons. Assad has used these chemical weapons, which is a breach of "Chemical Weapons Convention" (CWC) which came into force in 1997. Worse than this, Assad used these chemical weapons on civilians of his own nation, in the war against them. I would state that this is a crime against humanity, and in itself, means that Assad cannot remain in power.
Secondly, the use of chemical weapons provokes an even more worrying issue. I feel that the use of chemical weapons is an often understated and underestimated. I believe that any use of chemical or biological weapons should be met with serious repercussions, more than simply demanding the return of such weapons. I would like to point out, that the bombs dropped upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War 2, killed and wounded an absolute maximum of 25,000. The Black Death killed an estimate of 75-200 million people. I believe that this represents the incredible potential for destruction from chemical and biological weapons, colossally more so than nuclear. It is worrying to think what the development of such weapons could create, and reminds us of the reason they were banned in the first place in the initial Geneva Protocol. Due to this destructive power, I feel that the use of chemical weapons should be punished far more than we have done thus far.
Finally, in a rather more idealistic point, I would like to think that any attempt to go against the majority consensus of the world, which I think doubtlessly considers the war upon Syria by Assad to be wrong, should be punished. Even if I knew that military intervention in Syria in any form would cause only destruction within it, and cause more deaths than it saved, I would still promote it. This is because it must be symbolic, that any action against the majority consensus will not go unpunished, for otherwise leaders in other Arab countries or anywhere around the world will feel there are no repercussions for such actions. I believe that in the long term, a better world would be one where there is such strong knowledge that a country that attempted to inflict death and destruction upon anyone would know that doing so would cause thousands of times such upon themselves, and would be warded from doing so as a result. In this world I believe there would be no destruction, simply from the unspoken threat of the worlds opinion.
Thank you for considering my argument, and again good luck.
In reply to this first point, I do not find it clear whether you refer to the UN countries involved in intervention or Syria, so I will discuss both here. In terms of the UN countries involved I would initially like to point out the clear incongruity of suggesting that another war would cause major "economic instability" despite the "perpetual war" that has occurred in this generation. Surely this suggests that the economic effect would be no more major than that we have already seen from previous military engagements in this "generation," which have been mild at worst. Furthermore, the present withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is causing funds to become available, meaning that the economic strain would not be significant. For the UN countries at least, loss of life is irrelevant, as military intervention could easily take the form of drone strikes or missile strikes, rather than direct boots on the ground.
In terms of the Syrian economy, I believe that it is hardly in a state that you could call it such at the present time, the civil war having had such a drastic effect upon the country that our own intervention would cause very little difference in the overall quality of life in Syria, specifically since our owns strikes would be more surgical than the present combat, and as such have less effect upon the economy. As to loss of life in Syria, of course military action will have unwanted civilian casualties, this is unavoidable, however even the slightest potential of shutting down the military regime through surgical strikes that could save thousands more, is in my opinion certainly worthwhile. I have also addressed the loss of life in my third point, regarding their overall value in the longer term.
As to your second point, that this war would be "artificial" and "never end," I find it extremely odd and irrelevant that you refer to "terrorism" in this regard, as despite the part terrorists now play in the rebel forces, this civil war did not begin through terrorism, and our potential intervention does not involve it (at least for the motives I have put forward.)Furthermore, I find it extremely unlikely that this war will "never end," unless perhaps you refer to the overall war on terror, which this intervention is again, not technically a part of. Therefore I found this point at best peculiar and at worst irrelevant, and would like to remind the Opposition that this debate is exclusive to Syrian intervention.
In regard to your final, and seemingly key point discussing American imperialism, I would like to once more point out that this is a joint UN intervention, as shown in the title of the debate. Furthermore, it would of course be established that control of the country would not be taken by UN forces, and therefore no physical gain, either for the UN or for America would be taken. Dollar imperialism is also irrelevant as no form of economic ties would be necessary or included in this process, therefore I am dubious as to how the expansion of a "world power" would occur in this sense. Furthermore, attempting to assist these Syrians in their plight if anything raises them to a similar social level, rather than as you state, subordinating Syria and the "rest of the people on this planet."
I would also like to remind the Opposition that the repeated mentions of America becoming "increasingly year by year" similar or "parallel to Nazi Germany" is irrelevant in this particular debate unless you can apply it to the title at hand. I would also like to remind you that you have technically neither answered or rebutted any of my three points made in my original argument - I assume this will be rectified in your next reply.
Thank you for considering my argument.
It would seem as though I am in need to defend my points and adjust them more clearly. First off the UN forces is a joke of a term. The UN strategic goals are world peace and energy preservation. Thus it falls under the first goal for the UN to act upon. I will use the last join military force that composed of the last offensive by the U.N. (the Iraq War) as a key reference here to make my plight. The percentage of troops from other countries was a vast majority of U.S. troops. When people now say the U.N. is invading, in America we (the intelligentsia) refer to this as our invasion being assisted by other countries. Counting the U.K. is of course vital as a main ally as you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org...
The main force beyond the "Coalition of the willing" was in fact the U.S. a quick glanceover will tell you that every other country in the world (including the U.K.) adds to 2/3 of our forces. This is where i make my ground on the American spearheaded invasion, whether it be through the U.N. or our own military.
As for economic consequences of this war, they are plentiful. When we invaded nowadays its a two part venture. First blow the country to the stone age (about completed in the Syrian conflict), Second rebuild the country. Once again billions of taxpayers dollars begin to pour into frankly another world then our own, without even close to a consensus of the country.
War is a racket, its an amazing novel the ideas of it should be known by every human who dares to look down the road of war or into the prospect of discussion around it. Though the idea that im about to say is indeed radical its more than true. War is the largest form of profiteering this world has ever known, War is away to turn lives into money pure and simple if you want a basis for this you can look up tons of novels on it, personally i think Noam Chomsky speaks amazingly on the topic. Though in all seriousness, it has taken both family and friends, sparing not one soul who signs the doted line from psychological stress (including PTSD, Panic disorders, and even retardation from experimental drugs), Disembodiment, and even death. Military contractors are a very scary and real part of our lives and arguably some of the post profitable man alive and yet never step foot into a combat theater. If you think you or I are getting a piece of this pie you are very mistaken the strain of warfare is a rather sickly phenomena that is omnipotent. From the family's destroyed, to the workers now overseas unable to continue there normal jobs, to the economies that suffer through and through because of those reasons. As far as war and money goes i can't think of a single war that was fought for the sake of anything but money/land (arguably a commodity in and of itself) in the last century and a half.
Point two, Terrorism is a never ending war. Though i have no direct citation for it besides the definition itself which is as follows; "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." (Another great rip from wikipedia). The point i am making in this is that anyone can be labeled a terrorist, just look at the whole alqaeda (which debate.org doesn't seem to like the spelling) the figure that is the main target keeps rolling back further and further, from Osama, to Saddam, to Al Zawarhii... and there will surely be a next one. I have friends that are labeled in the same categories as these guys for being apart of the 99 percent protest 2 years ago in San Diego, they were standing for the common mans rights and now they can't get jobs because of it. The word terrorism has gotten beyond out of hand.
Point Three, American Imperialism... where do i start. 150+ military bases with the second largest air force base in the world in Saudi Arabia. Its safe to say there is but a handful of countries in the world that do not have U.S. interest in mind. It is also safe to say that they are considered enemies. Know that while the U.S. lets other countries fly there own flags, they are by no means an independent country. Neo-imperialism is the future of the world under U.S. leadership, and as an American it scares me very much to know this to be. English is now the predominant language in the world, all scientific advancement surely speaks the same tongue as you or I. Its also safe to say that U.S. interest guide world affairs, This all starts with the founding fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Washington) and spiraled out of control with Roosevelt and Reagan. Roosevelts quote rule softly with a big stick is now the mantra that sets the stage for 21st century events, 1 trillion dollars annually on US military spending has made American the most powerful force ever known in history. If you think for a second that American doesn't have a strategy for world domination then you have let your guard down. Also as for dollar imperialism, i believe i have shown that war is all about money therefore to separate the two is a falsehood that simply does not exist.
Now in regards to your first post to start this debate (which i am very sorry to not have talked about earlier), as a Chemist/ Premedical student I know that biological and chemical warfare is morally unjust and wrong in every sense of the word to use against any citizen of any part of this world. Science is a tool to bring prosperity to the people not kill them. But also a full blown invasion will further deteriorate my generation, Already so many of us have had our lives stop at seemingly random times to mourn the death of someone I used to play sports with, used to study together, or even used to kick it and drink beers with, and come to realization that never again will I get to continue my duel existence with that individual. With that Ill leave the personal sentiment out of it. Again i will return the chemical weapons disbute, if Assad is willing to use chemical weapons in a city like Damascus (truly one of if not thee holiest place in Syria) then his write to rule is over, but It should not be US, UN or any other western power stepping foot into that country. Drones will not be used to usurp Assad's rule, it simply is not profitable to end the war in minutes. Vietnam and Iraq are both wars that took roughly ten years to finish and surely for that reason alone.
As far as the Nazi Germany comment, there is no sure fire proof as the book burning have not started yet. Know this though, in 1934 one year after Hindenburg appointed Hitler to power, the German parliament (Reichstag) was set on fire. Hitler blamed it on Jews and Russian Bolsheviks roughly using the word (or meaning in this case) terrorist and furthering his own agenda by removing rights of the German people. This is a history's warning of the patriot act, as the twin towers burned to the ground.
Once again thank you for this debate and if you got this far i commend you on reading through this haphazard of a mess, I am currently working on Calc homework while doing this so im sorry if this argument is not a masterpiece, though i must say you have a way with words that i envy.
Firstly, this is not an invasion. I would like to make this as clear as possible, military intervention in this sense, as I have previously stated (as the proposition has the right to) would "take the form of drone strikes or missile strikes." This makes the invasion of Iraq void and irrelevant, and I feel a closer comparison would be Libya, in which the United Kingdom committed more funds than the US. The UK spent up to $1500 million in the Libyan intervention and $1570 million was spent by the other four most major countries involved (Italy, France, Turkey and Denmark) as opposed to only up to $1100 million by the US. Similar to this conflict, in Syria military action would be organised by the UN but made up of the major countries within it, not the US alone, or even most significantly. Not only this, but there was no land or territory claimed by the UN in Libya, and nor would there be in Syria. Making this point about "American spearheaded invasion" simply deluded.
Secondly, the if the country is, as you claim already almost entirely in ruins, then there would be no major destructive impact of a military strike, reducing this negative effect. Furthermore, the funding for rebuilding of these countries would be included within the individual countries foreign affairs budget, included within the countries taxing, which is part of the policy which the population will have voted in within any one country. Any other aid will be provided by charity organisations. This aid is also worthwhile, as it encourages more unity between countries, and reduces the suffering of civilians.
Thirdly, unless you explain how money for the US will be made during this engagement, which you have not yet done, this point is invalid. Furthermore, I fail to see how money could be gained during this at all, as admittedly private companies may make gains through selling missiles etc. the overall countries involved, as shown in the Libya engagement, commit large amounts of money (which is worthwhile due to my original three points in my first argument) to it, meaning that there is no feasible gain from this scenario.
Fourthly, that the "war on terrorism" is "endless." This point is irrelevant, as the motives for engaging in Syria have been stated in my first argument, and terrorism has nothing to do with it, as the engagement would be against the Syrian state and Assad.
Fifthly that "American Imperialism" will lead to the domination of the world by America. I restate that there is no invasion in this military intervention, therefore America itself stands no territory or economic allegiance to gain. Regardless of American imperialism in other fields, I would remind the opposition that this argument regards "Syria" and nothing else. This makes this point entirely irrelevant in the present debate.
Sixthly that lives would be lost from UN countries. The only key difference between the Libya intervention and the one I propose, is that there would be no manned air strikes, making this even safer for UN military forces. One person died in the Libyan intervention from UN forces. On the 20th of July 2011, a British airman was killed in Italy as part of a logistical convoy as a result of a traffic accident. I cannot make my point any more clear than this, that there is essentially no risk to UN forces.
Finally, regardless of fascism or increasing likeness to Hitler's Germany in America, this bears literally no relevance in the present debate to do with intervention in Syria. Unless you can make this relevant to the present title, then there it carries no weight for you argument.
Overall, due to the fact that out of the seven key points I could draw from your argument, three (4,5,7) were irrelevant, and four (1,2,3,6) were unsound, I determine that your argument carries little weight regarding the debate's title. Furthermore, your rebuttal to my point initial on chemical weapons, other than UN losses (which I have proven would not occur to great extent) essentially agreed with my argument, stating that "Assad" has lost his "[right] to rule" and that chemical warfare is "Morally unjust and wrong in every sense of the world. Not only this, but I would remind the opposition that my second (danger of further development in chemical/biological weapons) and third (the long term aim of world peace) initial points still remain unmentioned in his argument, and that his next statement is the last chance to rebut these points.
Therefore, due to the three major points I presented initially in my argument, and the fact that none of these have been refuted to great avail, and that no significantly damaging counter argument has yet been presented, I urge all reading this to agree with the proposition, that "the United Nations should intervene military in Syria." Thank you for reading my arguments, and I appreciate the opposition's time and effort in this debate.
Biochemistry92 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: the last round forfeit really hurt con, as it allowed all of pro's counter arguments to go uncontested and therefore were conceded. Also the comparison of UN intervention in Syria to supporting a Hitler-like sate was a hugely idiotic claim to make.
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.