The Instigator
trippledubs
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The United States should immediately intervene in Syria

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,302 times Debate No: 20967
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

trippledubs

Pro

Resolved that the United States should immediately use non-nuclear Military forces to crush Syian President al-Assad
imabench

Con

I accept this debate because I believe that the US should not intervene in Syria immediately
(immediately = within this week)

Other than that

Debate Round No. 1
trippledubs

Pro

Thanks for accepting Con. An underlying theme of my argument will be that whatever Government comes, except Assad remaining in power, will probably be better for the Western World, the Middle East, and of course, the World in general. The benefits of this are worth the minimal investment of Blood and Treasure that the United States would be required to invest in such an adventure. I say minimum, because today, we would have a Syrian population that wants its own leaders out. So, our interests and theirs are temporarily aligned in that neither of us want Assad in power.

1. United States Security Interests

Under the current regime, Syria has long been a threat to security in the Middle East, namely, our chosen brothers from another mother, Israel, aka Terrorist Killing Ninja Warriors. Indeed, Israell's Squadron 69 already put the smack down on a likely Nuclear reactor in late 2007 in a little gem of an operation named "Operation Orchard".


In June 2008, a team of IAEA experts visited the destroyed Al Kibar plant. The Syrians had given in to pressure from the weapons inspectors, but they had also done everything possible to dispose of the evidence first. They removed all the debris from the bombed facility and paved over the entire site with concrete. They told the inspectors that it had been a conventional weapons factory, and not a nuclear reactor, which they would have been required to report to the IAEA.

Pasted from <http://www.spiegel.de...;

Obviously, the Middle Eastern Arab Countries do not like to see, publically, Israel open up a can so easily against their pretend brethren, who get caught red handed trying to develop Nukes. "OOPS!". These kind of things raise tensions all the way across the Middle East and do not help us to marginalize our main enemy Iran like we've successfully done to Cuba.

There is some serious evidence I'm viewing in Wikipedia that Syrian President Assad had something to do with the Assassination of Rafic Hariri, Prime Minister of Lebanon. Was it Hezbollah with the assistance of Syria? Obviously, Yes. If you will look at the wiki-evidence, it is easy to click on external sources, read the titles of the articles, and know for a fact that Syrian President Assad is the devil and probably assisted Hezbollah in the assassination of the President of Lebanon. [1]

Syria sent "busloads"[2] of foreign fighters into Iraq to kill Americans. This little treasure trove of information has been analyzed extensively by Palantir and shows how the Syrian coordinators facilitate access into Iraq. [3] This data was originally released to the public by West Point after American Special Forces pretty much dropped on Al Q. from the top rope, AND took their x-box with their little Terrorist files (Even Al Queda has bureaucracy) in what is known as the Sinjar Records. Already Googled it, it's true.

Given this overwhelming digital evidence it is srsly easy to conclude that Syria causes tension in the Middle East through the use of Terrorism, the development of Nuclear Weapons, and assassination.

2. It benefits the economical interests of the United States
    1. Currently we embargo Syria, so any new trade with America benefits America. Gas Grass or Oil.

3. It benefits the interests of America's Allies

    1. I've pretty much already conclusively proven that Israel would benefit from Assad not being in power and Iraq would have less foreign chaos causing influence.

4. It is the morally correct thing to do

    1. Syria is currently cracking down hard on the people who really just want a cup of bountiful Freedom. We should not wait and hope that they win. We should accelerate the process just like we did in Libya.
    2. It will be another Epoch in America's history of support for Freedom. Screw the United Nations, China, Russia, and other would-be oppressive entities from giving the Syrians an opportunity to run their own country. Who wants to be associated with a "Security Council" who is enabling Syrian Government snipers to shoot peaceful protesters in the head?
Sources:

    1. https://www.nytimes.com...=
    2. Don Rummy used the term busloads, but the information is at the Harmony Project @ West Point.
    3. http://tarpley.net...
    4. http://palantir.com...
    5. https://www.youtube.com...
imabench

Con

Counter arguments to the Pro's 3 main points
1) US security interests.
The Pro argues that the US should intervene in Syria because since Syria is a dangerous country, they should be stopped. Syria is a disturbance to the Middle East, but deploying US troops and opening fire on a THIRD country in the Middle East with Iran filling the number four spot along with weariness from US presence in the Middle East already, intervening in Syria may cause more problems than it solves.

If this argument is that the US should invade Syria to keep the peace, then the US NOT invading Syria is the best option for keeping the peace since Middle Eastern countries already protest the very abundant US presence. Invading a country for the third time in about a decade and threatening to take out a fourth (Iran) would make Syria a stepping stone in all out war in the Middle East
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) Economical benefits
Invading Syria wont be economically beneficial for the US as a whole. It would take a lot of money to deploy troops back to the Middle East (we just got them out of Iraq) It will cost money to support them and supply them, the collateral damage will be very abundant, it will be looked down upon by the international community, and all these expenses would come at a time just as the US economy was starting to mend. A third war in the Middle East could bring a grinding halt to the economic progress we've made over the past few months and send us right back into a recession, which would not be able to be alleviated by new oil trade....
http://economics.about.com...
http://www.joshuagoldstein.com...

3) Benefits American allies
- 1 - It only benefits 1 ally, Israel. Iraq is unaffected by any disturbance Syria has because Iraq already has its own problems, Syria is not even close to being a major issue for them. Israel would be the only one benefiting from this (because the US sure wouldnt), and it would only benefit Israel in the short term.
- 2 - A third US-started conflict in the middle east would sufficiently piss off many middle eastern nations and only add more fuel to the anti-west atmosphere in the Middle East. When the Middle East wants to protest the west, they act hostile towards the US, and their closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Invading Syria may benefit Israel on the short term, but the anti-western anger and resentment it would cause would be aimed at Israel in the long term future in addition to the already deep resentment towards Israel.
http://newsblaze.com...


4) Moral Stance
- 1 - When the hell has the US ever intervened in a country based on morality? The Pro wants the US to intervene in a country that is treating protesters poorly. But how hypocritical would the US be for invading a country that is treating protesters poorly when the US right now is fighting the Occupy Wall Street movement with in some cases overwhelming force? If the US wants to become a moral nation, it should start at home not in the Middle East

- 2 - Syria is not comparable to Libya because Libyans were in open arms actually fighting for their freedoms against the government, Syrians are still just protesting their government asking for change instead of fighting for something they truly believe in. Imagine in 1770 when the US protesters were not treated fairly by the British empire, should France have immediately declared war on Britain and get Americans to fight also? of course not.

When it comes to regime change, especially in the modern world, it is the people who have to put everything on the line and fight for what they truly want, they cant just wait around for someone to swoop in and give them these rights, they must fight for it not just protest

What was the last country the US invaded to give freedom to people who wanted it but werent openly fighting for it?
Iraq....................... And we all know how that ended...........
http://security.blogs.cnn.com...

- 3 - Invading Syria would not be "another Epoch in America's history of support for Freedom" it would be more like a clusterf*ck of another Middle Eastern country by an already over-interventionist United States.

- 4 - "Screw the United Nations, China, Russia, etc" - Do you see how pissing off our closest trading partners to invade Syria might hurt us economically?.....

Now my arguments for why the US should not intervene in Syria
1) The US doesnt want to intervene, so why should they?
2) Why should the US suddenly become the morality police?
3) Nothing might happen

- 1 - The US officially does not want to militaristically intervene in Syria because the US wants to use diplomatic and economic pressure to try to influence Syria to reform. What is wrong with that? The US shouldnt be forced to take up arms when diplomatic solutions to this problem are still available, when Americans are already weary of war, and when Syria is still only in the protesting the government phase.
http://www.panarmenian.net...

- 2 - Imagine a country, where people who are campaigning for democratic reforms in a rather oppressive country are suddenly open fired on by government forces, does that mean the US should invade that country and remove that government?

If you answered yes then 10 years ago you would have wanted the US to invade China

Tiananmen Square, 1989. Chinese protesters wanting democratic reform who are peacefully protesting the lack of democracy in the Chinese government, and to solve the problem China used live fire and other extreme crowd control measures to eliminate the protests, in the process killing anywhere from hundreds to a couple thousand civilian deaths, creating a martial law, banning foreign newspapers, controlled media coverage of the event within the country, and earned itself several economic sanctions for its actions.

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

Syria is much the same way, and should the US invade Syria for moral interests after letting China get away with murder, it would make the US the biggest hypocrites in the world since the US has already allowed countries to use force against protests and have only stood by and watched.
Iran kills protesters
North Korea forces protesters into labor camps
Qatar has cracked down on protests violently
Venezuela is no different
Nigeria has had its fair share of brutality
Belarus outlaws both actual protests and "silent" protests
Bahrain banned protests a year ago
Saudi Arabia has banned public demonstrations

Point is, if the US invaded every country that treated protesters with hostility, we would have invaded every country in the world by now except maybe Canada.... The US shouldnt invade Syria by "acting moral" because if we did then we would have to react similarly to every other country that will ever act immoral, which would be the downfall of the US as we end up at war with 20 countries or so....

- 3 - Syria is not the only Arab country going through some political shifts, you may have noticed that Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and other nations have had populations that succeeded in overthrowing their dictators in the name of Democracy, how did those nations turn out?
Egypt: Military still controls everything
http://www.commondreams.org...
Tunisia: Government still is too ineffective and is sparkign another wave of protesting
http://www.dailystar.com.lb...
Libya: On the verge of falling into a Civil War
http://www.nytimes.com...

Ill end here for now
Debate Round No. 2
trippledubs

Pro


https://www.youtube.com...


Con, thank you for your response. I believe this same debate is taking place in multiple places and we can only hope in the Oval Office as well.


I am not going to link to Wikipedia as it is the best encyclopedia in the history of the world and everyone has access to it for fact checking.


Unlike Pro, I would never use about.com as a source as it has been labeled by reliable press as a "content factory".


http://www.wired.com...


I also do not source editorials.


Con has presented a reasoned and well formed argument, but I disagree. Here's why I am #winning:


Con presented several fallacies in the last round:


Straw Man - An intervention in Syria has to be a protracted and long campaign similar to Iraq -- not true. I favor a Libya style intervention, though I would not be opposed to a declared war on Syria, which we should do if we are to go to war in any sense.


Slippery Slope - Intervention in Libya will lead to an all out war in the Middle East. It won't.


Moral Equivalence - Occupy and Syrian Protests. A few instances of excessive (Maybe even reasonble?) force [#occupy]does not equal repeated use of unjustifiable deadly force [Murder going on every day now for almost a year in Syria].


Con was wrong on several key points:


Iraq is affected by Syria. Syria is the highway for foreign influence into Iraq. I've shown evidence of this.


Con asks when the hell has the US Ever intervened in a country based on Moral grounds: I'll provide a few examples that I think will resonate as I should not have to use all my characters, which I could, on this subject:


1917 - World War I


1939 - World War II


1950 - Korean War


...


1986 - Libya


1989 - Panama


1991 - Desert Shield


1992 - Somalia


1992 - Bosnia


1994 - Haiti (Operation Uphold Democracy)


2000 - Sierra Leone


2011 - Libya


Since I have answered Con's question quite thoroughly, I pose the following question to Con: "When has Syria intervened in a country based on moral grounds?"


Should the enmity that Arab Governments feel for the United States Government prevent the United States from stopping an absolutely brutal murdering spree which will happen in the next few weeks if we do not intervene?


Con argues that the "anti-western anger and resentment it would cause would be aimed at Israel in the long term". They already hate Israel. There is no military scenario where any one of them, or combination, or totality of, could win in a fight against Israel. This alone is why they do not fight Israel, because when they do, they get beat down. If you hit a dog in the head every time it tries to bite you, a little harder each time, eventually it will stop trying to bite you.


Con also argues that the Middle Eastern countries protest a very abundant US presence and this is the reason we should not intervene in Syria. Americans love protesting. Protesting is a good thing. American courts protect the right to protest. We're not going to intervene in Syria because of protesting, we're going to intervene in Syria because the protesters are being murdered.


Economical Benefits


Again, I never said we should invade Syria or deploy troops for longer than it takes to cut the head off this snake.


An emergent Syrian Government that is dedicated to peace would need to raise funds for reconstruction. The main peaceful way to raise funds is to sell something valuable, say, oil. We could buy it. Good for them, good for us.


Imagine in 1770 when the US protesters were not treated fairly by the British empire, should France have immediately declared war on Britain and get Americans to fight also? of course not.


I'll assume we're talking about the Boston Tea Party. YES! They should have, but of course what can you expect from the French. They probably debated how to sell weapons to both sides. Luckily for the World, they did eventually make the correct decision.


-2 - Imagine a country, where people who are campaigning for democratic reforms in a rather oppressive country are suddenly open fired on by government forces, does that mean the US should invade that country and remove that government?


If you answered yes then 10 years ago you would have wanted the US to invade China


Tiananmen Square, 1989. Chinese protesters wanting democratic reform who are peacefully protesting the lack of democracy in the Chinese government, and to solve the problem China used live fire and other extreme crowd control measures to eliminate the protests, in the process killing anywhere from hundreds to a couple thousand civilian deaths, creating a martial law, banning foreign newspapers, controlled media coverage of the event within the country, and earned itself several economic sanctions for its actions.



First of all, 1989 is like 23 years ago, not 10. That is just straight math. Second of all, imagine that instead of being defeated at T-square, rebel groups emerged and there became a resistant movement within China. The Chinese Government began mobilizing against them. The rebel group is asking for assistance. I would make the same case I am making here.


Con seems to think we have to be consistently violent in order to not be a hypocrite. I say we only need be consistent. We do not have to be violent in one country because w e choose to utilize violence in another. We do not have to use our Military in N Korea because we use it in Syria.


Con is also claiming to know how the Egyptian, Tunisian, and Libyan rebellions turned out. Common sense tells us it is too soon to tell.


And now, on to more of my constructives:


On April 29th, 2011, the President transmitted the following message to Congress:



the Government of Syria’s] actions and policies, including continuing support for terrorist organizations, damaging the Lebanese government’s ability to function, and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.’.



Pasted from <http://www.govtrack.us...;



‘Syria continue[s] to provide safe-haven as well as political and other support to a number of designated Palestinian terrorist groups, including HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) . . . Pasted from <http://www.govtrack.us...;


The situation in Syria is deteriorating and other countries do not possess the unique military capability that the United States has to offer.


The US uniquely has the tools needed to stop the violence that Assad is committing against his people, through the use of violence, with the least quantity of violence. The goal is not to provide violence for the sake of violence, the goal is to promote peace. Precision strikes, special forces, Predator drones, these tools allow a finer granular control over how much force to use to achieve a desired outcome. We're already in the region and we're already mobilized.



Syria is mobilizing thousands of troops for a ground assault against civilians:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk...





Pasted from <http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;



Arab coalitions have made numerous requests to the world to stop the Syrain Onslaught, but they're too slow. Therefore we should try.


http://www.bbc.co.uk...




China and Russia will not go to war over Syria


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


As much as they might talk, they are not willing to risk confrontation on Syria. It's so cut and dry morality wise, even the leaders of China and Russia would not get support for supporting such an oppressive regime.


imabench

Con

1) Libya style or Iraq style?
"An intervention in Syria has to be a protracted and long campaign similar to Iraq -- not true. I favor a Libya style intervention, though I would not be opposed to a declared war on Syria, which we should do if we are to go to war in any sense."

Of course you would hope for a Libya style intervention, but the situation in Syria is much closer to Iraq then Libya was. We cant just drone bomb Syria, no one is openly fighting the government or taking up arms against them (similar to Iraq and not Libya). Without people in Syria actually fighting their military, US drones would only be able to blow up government buildings and not much else. In Libya there was a lot of coordination with the rebels, NATO, and the US so that Libyan forces were pin pointed and taken care of swiftly, If the US opened fire on Syria though we wouldnt have any information from ground forces (because there are none), we couldnt coordinate with NATO (because they dont want to be involved), it would be like US drone attacks in Pakistan. We might kill 3 armed terrorists or 20 civilians...

2) Middle East relations
" Intervention in Libya will lead to an all out war in the Middle East. It won't."
I never said anything about a Middle Eastern War, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it would further strain relations between the US & Israel with the rest of the Islamic world, the Pro does not address this issue.

3) Morality

"A few instances of excessive (Maybe even reasonble?) force [#occupy]does not equal repeated use of unjustifiable deadly force [Murder going on every day now for almost a year in Syria]."
Im not saying it does, Im just showing how your claim that US should invade countries that abused protesters is a little flawed since ITS HAPPENING HERE IN THE US.

Also let the record show that when the US abuses protesters here in the US, the Pro says they deserve it, but when the ame thing happens in Syria we should immediately overthrow their government..

"Iraq is affected by Syria. Syria is the highway for foreign influence into Iraq. I've shown evidence of this."
You havent shown any evidence of this at all! foreign influence comes in from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Bahrain, Syria has little to do with anything in Iraq.

As for the list the Pro gave about a history of intervening "on moral grounds."
"1917 - World War I - We intervened in WWI to aid our allies in Britain and France, this was a political intervention for the US
1939 - World War II - Pro seems to forget that Pearl Harbor was the reason the US intervened in WWII....
1950 - Korean War - That was because of a fear of communism
1986 - Libya - That was because Libya terrorists attacked us first, we didnt bomb them off of any moral reasons
1989 - Panama - A dictatorship threatened to cut off the Panama Canal
1991 - Desert Shield - Oil interests and a universal hatred for Saddam caused this conflict
1992 - Somalia - Wtf we left Somalia the minute they started killing us and we didnt give a damn when Civil War erupted
1992 - Bosnia - Oh yes the genocide the US knew about but waited three years to intervene, how moral of the US
1994 - Haiti (Operation Uphold Democracy) - Ill give you this one
2000 - Sierra Leone - They were in a Civil War for 10 YEARS before the US intervened, and other countries beat us to it
2011 - Libya - Libya has a massive oil reserve, a universally hated dictator, and supporter of terrorism. We did not go in because people felt bad for Libyans

3) Ramifications of increased enmity towards Israel
"There is no military scenario where any one of them, or combination, or totality of, could win in a fight against Israel. This alone is why they do not fight Israel"
If they dont fight Israel then how come the two were bombing each other a only few days ago?
http://presstv.com...

"Con also argues that the Middle Eastern countries protest a very abundant US presence and this is the reason we should not intervene in Syria.... American courts protect the right to protest. We're not going to intervene in Syria because of protesting, we're going to intervene in Syria because the protesters are being murdered."
Pro COMPLETELY missed the point here. Middle Eastern countries already dont like how the US is so involved in the Middle East that if the US invades a third country it would only increase hatred towards the US by the Middle East.

"Protesting is a good thing"
http://myrtus.typepad.com...
Protesting is not a good thing for US relations with the Middle East if people are protesting US involvement in the Middle East and those protesters want to kill all of us...

4) Economical benefits
"An emergent Syrian Government that is dedicated to peace would need to raise funds for reconstruction. The main peaceful way to raise funds is to sell something valuable, say, oil. We could buy it. Good for them, good for us."
It doesnt work that way Pro, the governments dont own, drill, but, and sell the oil, corporations do. And all the oil in the world wouldnt be able to offset the cost of a long conflict in Syria...

For the record, none of that oil goes to the US, it all goes to Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org...

5) Doesnt make sense
"I'll assume we're talking about the Boston Tea Party. YES! They should have" - Pro's response that the second people in a country protest, that country should be invaded by outside powers.

So then according to you Pro when the government started killing people protesting the Vietnam War all the countries in the world should immediately have overthrown the US?

"imagine that instead of being defeated at T-square, rebel groups emerged... The rebel group is asking for assistance. I would make the same case I am making here."
So the Pro admits that he would not even consider invading a country unless those protesting the country were taking up arms against their government and were organized.....

The People of Syria are currently not taking up arms against their government and arent organized

Also let the record show that the Pro would invade any vital trading partner of the US if people were in revolt.

6) Intervention might not work
"Con is also claiming to know how the Egyptian, Tunisian, and Libyan rebellions turned out. Common sense tells us it is too soon to tell."
Ive already shown sources showing how it isnt working at all right now even though these revolutions have been going on for years now....

"The US uniquely has the tools needed to stop the violence that Assad is committing against his people"
Just because we have the big red button doesnt mean we should use it at every chance we get

"Syria is mobilizing thousands of troops for a ground assault against civilians:"
Read your own source Pro, they dont say anything about preparing for a ground assault against civilians..... This looks like simply a case of preparing for a possible mass uprising, not a mass genocide.

"Arab coalitions have made numerous requests to the world to stop the Syrain Onslaught, but they're too slow. Therefore we should try."
So even though they didnt ask us we should come in, invade the place, piss off just about everyone, and claim we did it for moral reasons.....

Reasons we should not invade Syria
1) Might not work (I've shown evidence why it hasnt worked in other places)
2) It will strain US relations with the Middle East (Pro says it doesnt matter)
3) The cost of the war would be great (Pro thinks we could fix this by buying their oil)
4) Any intervention would be a prolonged conflict since Syrians are not openly trying to overthrow their own government
5) The US is not the moral police of the world, they shouldnt be, and the US isnt moral itself
6) There are many other sites of protesters being abused but the Pro only wants to invade Syria for some reason
7) It would be hypocritical of the US to invade a country to protect protesters

(also I invite people to view the comments to see just how the Pro treats our nations veterans)
Debate Round No. 3
trippledubs

Pro

Con thank you for your response.




Con: Increased enmity towards Israel:

My point is that they already hate Israel. Let's say their hate towards Israel is a level of 100,000, + or - by 100 isn't really worth considering. If Billy is sufficiently mad enough to murder Bob, and Bob flips billy off, why would Bob care if Billy's hostility towards Bob has increased?

Con: We can't intervene in Syria without invading:

It's very easy. Start out by destroying the tanks that Assad has recently put in an offensive formation against Syrian residential neighborhoods.

Con Round 1: "Invading a country for the third time in about a decade and threatening to take out a fourth (Iran) would make Syria a stepping stone in all out war in the Middle East"

Con Round 2: "I never said anything about a Middle Eastern War, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that it would further strain relations between the US & Israel with the rest of the Islamic world, the Pro does not address this issue.

The Islamic world WANTS to help Syria! They asked the UN for help and help was rejected because of China and Russia Vetoes.
King of Saudi Arabia: "Until when will we remain spectators?" he said. The bloodshed in Syria "is a disgrace for us as Muslims and Arabs to accept."
Con: The People of Syria are currently not taking up arms against their government and arent organized

That is simply not true.
http://www.aljazeera.com...

Con: Just because we have the big red button doesnt mean we should use it at every chance we get

This debate is only about Syria

Im not saying it does, Im just showing how your claim that US should invade countries that abused protesters is a little flawed since ITS HAPPENING HERE IN THE US.

Again, Con equates what is happening in Syria with the Occupy movement in the United States using capital letters like that makes it true. It doesn't. I never claimed that we should invade countries that abuse protestors, I'm saying we should intervene in Syria because of all the reasons I've listed.

I never said that any protesters deserved abuse. In the United States or anywhere else, the right to protest should be reasonably protected. If you provide an example of abuse, I will give you my personal judgement. As you were never specific in your allegations of abuse, I could not really tell what you were talking about. There is a clear difference betewen the use of Tear Gas Canisters and Mortar rounds. It revolves around the level of force. The force used in the Occupy Protests was more reasonable than the force used at the Syrian protests. We are talking about the use of excessive force and the use of overwhelming force. Both are wrong. One deserves Police Officers being judged by trial, one deserves an international coalition led by the United States to start dismantling the capability of organized violence.

Middle Eastern countries already dont like how the US is so involved in the Middle East that if the US invades a third country it would only increase hatred towards the US by the Middle East.

Again, vast oversimplification. Was the hatred of the United States by most Middle Easterners increased when we liberated Kuwait? No. Pretty sure the Kuwaitis didn't hate us. Similiarly, they are not going to hate us for destroying the corrupt Government of Assad. They went to the United Nations and asked for help. This help was rejected by China and Russia. Of what benefit is being a superpower if we don't use that power for Good? This is a situation where it is absolutely clear, the people of Syria reject the corrupt Government of Assad. The Government responds with overhwhelming force. We can and should deny them the capability of that overwhelming force.

Syria has little to do with anything in Iraq

They do, I've listed many sources. This is turning into a yes no argument. Palantir analyzed the Sinjar records as well as West Point. These sources provide evidence that Syria is a major highway for Al Queda into Iraq. Syria also supports Hezbollah.

Con then goes on to presume that 10/11 of the war examples I provided were fought by America for purely selfish reasons. Apparently, we did not intervene early enough in Bosnia and Sierra Leone to be considered moral by Con, yet Con is arguing that we not intervene at all in Syria.

It doesnt work that way Pro, the governments dont own, drill, but, and sell the oil, corporations do. And all the oil in the world wouldnt be able to offset the cost of a long conflict in Syria...

For the record, none of that oil goes to the US, it all goes to Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org......

Not surprisingly, we see France as the number three importer of Syrian Oil. If Assad was not in power, we could get some of that black gold.

So then according to you Pro when the government started killing people protesting the Vietnam War all the countries in the world should immediately have overthrown the US?

This is a really good point, but still not even close to what is going on in Syria. The Kent State shootings, made famous by the Song "Ohio" by Crosby Stills and Nash, only involved a "13 second barrage of gunfire, mostly from M-1 rifles, from over 300 feet" into a crowd of student protesters.
http://alancanfora.com...
This website is from a survivor of the shootings who was shot in the wrist.

Can we honestly compare 13 seconds of gunfire from 300ft with the use of tanks? Is using a tank the same as using an M-1 Rifle? I'm using the Kent State shootings because Con makes me guess which protest he is talking about.

Compae that to what is going on Syria:
One doctor at Homs military hospital told Amnesty International he had seen four doctors and more than 20 nurses abusing patients.

”Ahmed” was delivered unconscious to the National Hospital in Tell Kalakh on 22 August after being beaten by security forces. A witness saw him in the emergency room:

"There were around seven or eight security men, some carrying rifles, and nurses wearing white robes crowded around him. He opened his eyes and said: 'Where am I?' They all suddenly jumped on him and started beating him and hitting him."

Patients have also been removed from hospitals. On 7 September, security forces looking for an alleged armed field commander opposed to the government raided al-Birr wa al-Khadamat Hospital in Homs. When they did not find him, they arrested 18 wounded people.
http://www.amnestyusa.org...

They also cut off water and electricty. That did not happen in America. Again, we're talking about two way different levels of force. The Syrian response can not be considered legitimate by anyone.

So the Pro admits that he would not even consider invading a country unless those protesting the country were taking up arms against their government and were organized.....

That is a tough question and I can empathize with any leader struggling with the idea of utilizing the military where self interest is secondary to the primary concern. I can say it would be easier for me personally to utilize violence in a foreign nation if the citizens there had taken up arms and were organized, such as Syria.

Also let the record show that the Pro would invade any vital trading partner of the US if people were in revolt.

If an uprising were sustained for 10 months, my military was orders of magnitude more powerful than theirs, nations similiar in culture to theirs were asking the UN For help, and they were quite regularly violating international law, then yeah pretty much. Again, you are using the word invade which I never did, and they can still be our trading partner after their economy recovers.

Con thanks for a great debate. Also con makes a mistake saying I treat all of our nations veterans harshy just because I did one for having a pity party.
imabench

Con

1) Enmity towards Israel
The Pro admits that there would be increased enmity towards Israel, and then by extension, towards the US, but dismisses that argument as "so what, they hate us already"....

Not a very good argument, but an argument nonetheless...

The problem with increased anger towards the US and Israel is that it would come at a time when peace in the Middle East is becoming a top priority for the US, a priority that can only be successfully handled through diplomacy, not warfare. overrunning a third world country in the Middle East for the third time would set back efforts to restore relations with the Middle East by 20 years, probably more. This would be very bad for US relations and it would all be for a war that might not yield satisfying results, cost billions of dollars to fund, cost troops their lives, and put a nice little dent in our budget....

2) A Syrian intervention would like Libya, not Iraq
This is how the Pro thinks that we can avoid an invasion of Syria
"Start out by destroying the tanks that Assad has recently put in an offensive formation against Syrian residential neighborhoods. "

- 1 - What happens after that Pro, the people wont come out and start singing Kumbaya and form a new government because the old one still is in power, we now just really p*ssed them off by blowing up some (not all, not even a majority, just some) of their military.... What would we do about the rest of the military, we cant just drone all of them out.
- 2 - Hmmmmmmmmm, where else did we see a war start by pre-empted bombings and drone attacks against a middle eastern government that oppressed its people............ Oh yeah, IRAQ.....

3) Arabian World trying to help Syria
"King of Saudi Arabia: "Until when will we remain spectators?" he said. The bloodshed in Syria "is a disgrace for us as Muslims and Arabs to accept.""
- First off, Saudi Arabia is in no position to take a moral stance on anything since women arent even allowed to drive in that country
- Second, if the Arab world really does care about Syria, then let THEM handle it. Just because one of the Middle East governments isnt playing nice doesnt mean they all have to come crying to the US to fix it, let them work out their own problems with Syria if they really are concerned
- Third, if Sauid Arabia really cares about Syria, then why did they pull out of the very league monitoring the situation...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
- Fourth, Saudi Arabia wants the US to fix everything, they even wanted the US to bomb Iran
http://www.theblogismine.com...

The US is not the big daddy of the Middle East, and we shouldnt invade a country every time they ask because if we did, the US would have invaded every country except Saudi Arabia and Israel...

4) Syrian demonstrators are not organized.
The one source that the Pro shows claiming that the Syrian protesters are currently actively fighting their government and are organized is a source showing that some people in the army are leaving..... That is not nearly close to being organized like the Libyan rebels were Pro, during the war they were setting up districts and a government in the territory they actually had control of, that has not happened in Syria.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com...

5) Just because we can invade Syria doesnt mean we shouldnt
Pro dismissed my arguments through wordplay, basically he forfeits how just because the US can overthrow a government, it doesnt mean they should every time the Pro feels like it....

6) US would be hypocritical to invade a country for abusing protesters...
I like how the Pro is such a die hard fan of defending people's rights to protest but the second I point out how the US and other countries dont treat protesters fairly either he says something along the lines of "Well Syria is the worst so we should invade them and ignore everyone else"

But heres the problem, even when Syria is the biggest violators of the right to protest, you cant invade them based on doing something you yourself are doing too. That is the equivalent of 1 student who cheated on 10 questions during a test ratting out another student who cheated on 40 questions on the grounds that "cheating is wrong"

Its just hypocritical for the US to invade Syria because they're treating protesters bad when we are essentially doing the same thing.

7) Middle East countries protest US invasions
The Pro tries to say this isnt true by using a War that took place 20 years ago, when the US liberated Kuwait. Funny though because that did piss off someone, Osama Bin Laden, the guy who brought us back into the Middle East.

During the first Gulf War, is was feared that Saddam might invade Saudi Arabia, so the US stationed troops there. Osama got really ticked about that because "unholy infidels" were stationed in "sacred Arabic Land" which caused him to launch out an all out terrorist war against the US that culminated with 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan. When the US then invaded Afghanistan, fears were also raised about Iraq and they were invaded too.

Moral of the story, one agreeable war can lead to two disagreeable wars and completely f*ck up everything.

8) Syria and Iraq
"They do, I've listed many sources"
You havent listed a single source, therefore you have shown no evidence that Syria has anything to do with Iraq

9) Oil
" If Assad was not in power, we could get some of that black gold."
Oh, a war for oil, because the American public, the Arab world, and anyone else who thinks we are too interventionist would take that well.

An invasion of Syria would not be beneficial to the US economy since Syria cannot actually give us their oil as payment and since we dont get any oil from them in the first place.

10) US doesnt intervene based on morality reasons
Forfeited by the Pro after I showed that almost every war he listed was fought for non-moral reasons

So to summarize
- 1 - Syrian rebels are not organized like Libya so any intervention would invovle deploying troops and take much tim, effort, and money
- 2 - Invading Syria would not be beneficial to our frail economy
- 3 - Invading Syria would severely destabilize relations with other Arab countries
- 4 - Invading Syria would increase much resentment and anger towards the US and Israel
- 5 - It would be hypocritical of the US to invade Syria
- 6 - The US does not invade countries on Moral reasons
- 7 - The US does not have a history of fighting wars for moral reasons and shouldnt start
- 8 - Invading Syria would alienate the US from the UN and its trading partners
- 9 - People will just think we're invading another country for its oil
- 10 - The invasion does not guarantee the next government will be stable
- 11 - Other revolutions have already ended below expectations, Syria would be no different
- 12 - Arab nations want intervention over everything but when we do intervene 3 years later they just denounce us for it
- 13 - Invading Syria would be much like the Iraq War.

I thank the Pro for an interesting debate and the voters for reading

"con makes a mistake saying I treat all of our nations veterans harshy just because I did one for having a pity party."
I never said that, I only asked voters to see for themselves in the comments section how you are happy to send troops back to the Middle East after just getting back to their wives with you saying to them "Suck it up soldier".... Ill let the voters decide for themselves whether or not you actually value their lives and their service...

By the way I dont think that a veteran asking you an honest question is considered a "pity party".....
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
im not saying anything im just telling people to see for themselves how pro-war you are....
Posted by trippledubs 2 years ago
trippledubs
Dude stop alienating me by using cliches to generate anti-trippledubs sentiment. This is supposed to be about Syria.

Duolos, again, I appreciate your service. I'm sorry you miss your wife, however I think our nation would be very well served by our military crushing Assad. I think that your wife would understand if we asked just a little bit more out of you because extreme circumstances and the brotherhood of humanity demand that we not stand by and watch this happen.
Posted by trippledubs 2 years ago
trippledubs
I know a lot about the Military. Ask me a question.
Posted by Doulos1202 2 years ago
Doulos1202
oh how little you know about the military trippledubs....
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
doulos i would like to apologize on behalf of trippledubs d*ckish behavior, as an american I support your actions and the sacrifices you make to this country and I (along with many other americans) respect your decision as do many others
Posted by trippledubs 2 years ago
trippledubs
Also, you could go home faster if you would win faster. Jeesh try winning hearts and minds instead of whining on ddo
Posted by trippledubs 2 years ago
trippledubs
Doulos, go ask your Commander if you can go home. Tell him/her that you can no longer in good conscience call yourself a volunteer and you're willing to talk about discharge options.

They'll probably tell him not to let the door hit him on the way out.

http://www.nlgmltf.org...

Regardless, this is straight appeal to emotion. Also called the Sandy Vagine fallacy. Suck it up soldier and ask the Commander how you can be the first one over the Syrian border.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
you cant just leave the battlefield...... thats called desertion
Posted by trippledubs 2 years ago
trippledubs
Thanks for your Service. I can understand your trepidation, but I think you know that you can go home if you really do not wish to continue serving.
Posted by Doulos1202 2 years ago
Doulos1202
Join up and deploy. Sure are quick to send us back out again when you're not the one fighting Factor in us troops havent seen my wife in a year.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
trippledubsimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was really well debated by both debaters and I have a difficult time voting for one side over the other. Both debaters make reasonable arguments for their side, and in the end, I believe both debaters are correct. However, Pro holds the BOP in this debate and Con does effectively reply to each of Pro's major points. Because of this I will reluctantly give arguments to Con. Kudos to both Pro and Con for an interesting debate.