The Instigator
theHomelessPanda
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Neoteric
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United States Should Not Intervene in Syria

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  
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: 9/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,275 times Debate No: 37379
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

theHomelessPanda

Pro

The United states should not supply, aide or intervene in the Syrian conflict in any way.

For the purposes of this debate, I am referring to Government intervention, not private humanitarian aide to the refugees, etc.
Neoteric

Con

Glad to be debating on this subject. I'll be taking the stance that the United States should intervene in Syria.
Debate Round No. 1
theHomelessPanda

Pro

These to me are some of the most critical aspects of my argument against intervention, in no real order.

----Syrian Rebels (FSA)-----
Arming/Supporting the rebels is dangerous ground to say the least. It has been reported that the rebel faction is affiliated with militant Islamic Extremists.

http://www.cbsnews.com...

There are multiple allegations of war crimes, civilian kidnappings, murders thefts from Turkish merchants, prisoner executions, body mutilation and torture. Much of this has been confirmed by HRW (Human Rights Watch)

http://www.hrw.org...

So do we have any sort of confidence that FSA(Free Syrian Army) will provide a regime superior to the current one? And who is the U.S to choose one Human Rights abuser over another?

The FSA is NOT a credible force worthy of American support.

-----Iran and Russia------
This entire situation is reminiscent of the Cold War, although it isn't as blatant as the proxy wars between the U.S.S.R, and America, the correlation exists. Iran openly supplies and backs the Assad regime, and have recently deployed 4,000 soldiers to support the Assad Regime. It is not in American interests to increase tensions with a budding nuclear power that is already at odds with the west.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Putin and Obama are now butting heads again thanks to Syria. Russia has come out in support of the Assad regime and has supplied them in the past, and now opposes intervention . Russia is locking out the Security Council and blocking the U.S"s request for the use of force in Syria. The use of force in Syria would be a breach of international law and protocol. I find it ironic that America breaks international law and protocol in order to enforce it.

http://www.slate.com...

Breaching international law does nothing but devalue the U.N and proliferate the colloquial idea of America as World Police. Straining already tense international relations is not something that we need either.

----Post Conflict-----
If America intervenes in the Syrian conflict, we are partly culpable for whatever the outcome may be. If the Assad regime is overthrown, Syria is presented with the monumental task of state building. Although the FSA proclaims it has ideals of equality and democracy at heart, there is no guarantee that the following regime will be any different. The same cycle of liberator to dictator to civil war has been happening in Africa for decades. If America intervenes, we assume some responsibility for the product of our intervention, we cannot(shouldn"t) simply hit and run.

Peace-building and state-building are some of the most complex and difficult processes in the political spectrum. Are we really ready to assume another one of those responsibilities? Especially after seeing how miserably unsuccessful our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. I don"t believe that our incursions into those communities have bettered those countries. I don"t think many people do. A Syrian intervention would produce a very similar situation, likely much worse. How do we now that the instigation of liberal state building would be beneficial or even realistically possible in Syria? The placement of liberal institutions in Iraq/Afghanistan has been largely unsuccessful.

----Conclusion----
In the last 10 years, America has already gone through grueling, and largely unsuccessful democratization efforts. We do not need the financial responsibility of upholding a mock democracy while being forced to rule a post-conflict society with martial law.

Why here? Why now? Genocide, murder and other mass human rights violations have been and are taking place in Somalia, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Mali, and Korea, many of which are comparable or worse than the Syrian Civil war. Where is the standard for Intervention? How can we justify saving Syrians over Kenyans?

How can we afford another war? The national deficit is still skyrocketing. Does being world police supersede our duties to our own country?

Finally, being the pacifist that I am, I believe that violence begets violence. The use of force to pacify a nation has many secondary consequences.

I will leave you with the words of our own President, Barack Obama.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." 2007
Neoteric

Con

Neoteric forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
theHomelessPanda

Pro

Well shoot.
Neoteric

Con

I'm very sorry. I couldn't create a rebuttal to your post nor solid arguments supporting an intervention in Syria. I forfeit this argument and thank my opponent for giving me the oppurtunity to learn a lot more about Syria.
Debate Round No. 3
theHomelessPanda

Pro

No worries. I appreciate you being gracious. Knowledge is power my friend :)
Neoteric

Con

Neoteric forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
theHomelessPanda

Pro

As a single footstep will not make a path on the earth, so a single thought will not make a pathway in the mind. To make a deep physical path, we walk again and again. To make a deep mental path, we must think over and over the kind of thoughts we wish to dominate our lives.
Henry David Thoreau
Neoteric

Con

Neoteric forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
http://www.cnn.com...

Very relevant to this discussion.
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
So were you just wanting to play Devil's Advocate?

If so I understand your struggle haha.
Posted by Neoteric 3 years ago
Neoteric
This debate is *really* tough to argue for without stretching the truth. Now I know how the Obama administration feels trying to figure out a way to convince the people to back a Syrian intervention, hah.
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
Putin has stated that if there is conclusive evidence that proves the Assad regime indeed did use Chemical weapons, he would support "punitive" missile strikes as a deterrent against future chemical attacks. The proposed missile strikes are supposedly "pinpointed" against chemical weapons targets. I question the effectiveness of dropping bombs where we think there may be weapons. Anyways, I seriously doubt Putin would favor intervention anywhere past these missile strikes, which is what we are discussing. He has called Kerry a liar, and issued Ominous threats to the U.S if we proceed to intervene. Sounds like he doesn't like it to me.

The "U.S interests", specifically militarily, exist to protect our own sovereign nation. We are not a peacekeeper. That's the United Nations, who is a PEACEKEEPING organization. I would like to remind you that it is ESTIMATED that 70,000 people have died in Darfur during there civil conflict. Some experts estimate that upwards of 300,000 have died there. Since 1991 between 300,000 and 1,000,000 have died due to the Somali civil war. In 100 days, more than 500,000 died in the Rwandan genocide.

So I ask you, where is Americas standard for intervention? If we exist to to protect human rights, then why hasn't there been military intervention there?

Because we are a sovereign nation. we don't exist to police and protect the entire world. We already are the largest funder and supplyer of the U.N and NATO. Where are those organizations? If we are going to police the world we might as well use the mechanisms designed to do it.
Posted by Naveedfb 3 years ago
Naveedfb
On to Pro Side:

Russia (Putin) has said that if the UN proves that Chemical Weapons were used by the Assad Regime which will and should be proved shortly by a defector of the Regime who has clear evidence of this then Russia will support U.S and Coalition interests in cruise missile strikes on the Regime.

Just because U.S interests exist to keep the peace does not mean the Police State of the World can stand by watching 100,000 Civilians die and a further 1,400 died painfully by military grade slightly diluted sarin gas missiles and launchers. Humanitarian and Civil Liberties of the Public against their oppressive totalitarian, authoritarian government should be respected and thus a course of action between major Super powers should and must take some form of military intervention.
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
Just so you know my friend, I can be a little scattered and disorganized when I debate, but I will do my best to make my arguments intelligible and logically presented. They all make sense in my head, but writing them persuasively is another animal. :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.