The Instigator
Rollbearandtide
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The United States should intervene in the Syrian Civil War

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 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,932 times Debate No: 26384
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Rollbearandtide

Pro

I chose this topic because the Syrian Civil War is an ongoing conflict that is currently affecting foreign relations in many countries including the US and Middle Eastern neighbors of Syria.

Rules
1. Round one is for acceptance
2. Dropping arguments are counted as concessions
3. No new arguments in Round 4
imabench

Con

Accepted. You may state your case young Earthling....
Debate Round No. 1
Rollbearandtide

Pro

With thousands of innocent civilians being killed in Syria, now is the time for the United States to launch a peacekeeping humanitarian mission to Syria. Everyday people wake up and are under attack by artillery bombardment, tanks, air force bombings, and snipers. The United States needs to launch a peacekeeping mission first to establish a ceasefire for both sides, the government and the rebels, to negotiate an end to the conflict. After peace has been established, the United States can allow such health organizations as the Red Cross to enter and treat the injuries of the civilians and provide medical supplies to hospitals and clinics. The United States can remain neutral in this conflict if they would like. We need to prevent a possible repeat of conflicts such as the 1993 Bosnian War and the 1994 Rwanda conflict. The United States is a beacon of freedom and peace. The US is the perfect country for establishing a peace agreement in Syria while remaining neutral.
imabench

Con

Sorry it took so long for me to post, I had to handle a Calculus Midterm.

Ill be arguing why the US should not intervene militaristically in the Syrian Civil War, but first let me examine the Pro's statements.

"With thousands of innocent civilians being killed in Syria, now is the time for the United States to launch a peacekeeping humanitarian mission to Syria. Everyday people wake up and are under attack by artillery bombardment, tanks, air force bombings, and snipers."

That happens in nearly every country in the Middle East with a corrupted leadership at some point. Just this year there were civilian protests and killings in Qatar, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Bahrain, Lebanon, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia. Some of those countries have civilian deaths in hundreds, but the US doesnt have to intervene in countries just because of humanitarian crisis's, otherwise the US would be fighting all over the world. Human rights violations are
something to be concerned about but by itself it certainly isnt enough to warrant a declaration of war by the US.

"The United States needs to launch a peacekeeping mission first to establish a ceasefire for both sides, the government and the rebels, to negotiate an end to the conflict."

You cant negotiate the end to this conflict, you have rebels who want to overthrow their leader going up against a leader who wants to cling to power, there is no negotiation that can settle this conflict because both sides want something that the other would never give up through negotiation. The only way the US could bring about peace in Syria is to either kill the leader and his army or to help kill all the rebels, there is no middle road.

"After peace has been established,"

Whoa whoa timeout, you cant just say that the US should negotiate peace and then jump right to the point where peace has been settled, you have to look at this realistically. If there is some possible wya to end this conflict through negotiations, it would take YEARS for peace to be settled, and by then thousands of civilians would die, and the country could be embroiled in chaos with no hope that negotiation would even fix anything. Negotiation takes forever to bring about change in a country like Syria, look how long its already taken to get to where we are even with negotiations ongoing.

"the United States can allow such health organizations as the Red Cross to enter and treat the injuries of the civilians and provide medical supplies to hospitals and clinics."

The US isnt preventing them from doing so, the Red Cross is based out of Switzerland so they can go in whenever they want and help people, they dont need to wait for the US to 'solve the conflict' through 'peaceful negotiaion'.

"The United States can remain neutral in this conflict if they would like."

How do you remain neutral when dealing with two groups of people who only wish for the destruction of the other side? There is no forseeable way to end the conflict through negotiation, which means the only way the US could settle the conflict is to either intervene militaristically, or to not deploy troops and just do whatever else can be doen to at least help protect civilians.

"We need to prevent a possible repeat of conflicts such as the 1993 Bosnian War and the 1994 Rwanda conflict."

What do you mean 'we'? why does the US have to come in and fix every mistake another country makes? why Cant we let someone else handle things for once in forever?

" The United States is a beacon of freedom and peace."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA- Oh sh*t youre serious.

The United States is most certainly not the beacon for either peace or freedom. This country has been at war almost non-stop since the country was founded, the US has violated the soverignty of nations to depose governments they dont approve of numerous times, the US has fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Grenada without even declaring them, and the list goes on and on. Point is, the US is most certainly NOT the beacon of peace. If you want a beacon of peace, then the European Union is who you are looking for since they won the Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.thejakartapost.com...

As for the US being a beacon of Freedom; Gay Marriage, Marijuana, and Prostitution are still illegal throughout almost the whole country, so if your looking for a country that has the most freedom, look at Somalia, because people can do whatever the hell they want to do there since there is no government to tell them otherwise.

"The US is the perfect country for establishing a peace agreement in Syria while remaining neutral."

Based on what exactly? The US has one of the worst reputations for intervening in Middle Eastern affairs, and the fact that the US currently has multiple economic sanctions AGAINST Syria seems to make the US the worst candidate to negotiate peace in Syria while remain neutral because the US has clearly already taken sides with the rebels.

http://damascus.usembassy.gov...

The US cannot remain neutral because the US has already chosen sides, the US cannot simply negotiate the end to the conflict because the two sides in the Syrian conflict only want the destruction of the other side, and this doesnt have to be the problem of the US since the US isnt the only country or government body that can intervene to handle this problem.

============================================================================

Now for my arguments for why the US should not intervene in Syria

1) If the US intervenes militaristically in Syria, it would take several years and several billion dollars to fix the country which is something that Americans or the economy dont want or can even afford.

2) If the US intervenes militaristically in another country in the Middle East, it will only further upset countries within the Middle East and sufficiently piss off a lot more people and countries within the region, which would be disastrous to foreign policy relations. If all these countries get on their knees and beg for the US to help, thats different, but that isnt happening so any intervention would spur the wrath of these countries

3) The US isnt the only body of power that can end this. NATO, the EU, maybe even Israel or some coalition of Middle Eastern nations can also handle this conflict, and they should be the ones to handle it because it is much more of their problem then it is to the US. Can you name a single way the US would benefit if Syria was suddenly at peace tomorrow? I cant either since Syria doesnt play a large role in deciding policy in the Middle East, whether that policy be economic or diplomatic.

4) Human rights violations are not good enough to warrant a declaration of war. If it were then the US would be at war with 75% of the world.

5) If the US intervenes militaristically in Syria, the US would likely fall into another instance of nation-building in a country that has no large number of resources and deals with crippling unemployment and lack of social services that would drain billions of dollars out of the budget.

6) The country is still going to be very unstable years from now no matter what the US does. Nations like Egypt and Libya are still in turmoil despite being free from their dictators for over a year now, so any action taken in Syria would not purge chaos and unrest from the small nation for months.

7) Syria has a high population density, so any military intervention done on behalf of the US would likely result in more civilian casualties, and then at that point the US would just be adding to the problem of human rights violations that it set out to fight against in the first place.

Ill end here for now
Debate Round No. 2
Rollbearandtide

Pro

The United States simply needs to stop the massive loss of life in Syria. Wouldn't if you lived in Syria want someone to stop this horrible killing? I know a lot of people agree with me on this topic and I'm sure they would want it to stop too.
imabench

Con

"The United States simply needs to stop the massive loss of life in Syria."

1) Why does the US HAVE to be the one who stops the massive loss of life in Syria?
2) For that matter, why does the US have to stop EVERY loss of life anywhere in the world? We are not the police of the world, nor are we the designated lifeboat for the world either. The US isnt obligated to stop every world conflict, nor should the US be required to fix the worlds mistakes when they happen.

"Wouldn't if you lived in Syria want someone to stop this horrible killing?"

Yeah but I wouldnt ask only for the US to intervene, Id ask for ANYONE to intervene, which is what I am arguing. Why does it HAVE to be the US who intervenes and not anyone else?

"I know a lot of people agree with me on this topic and I'm sure they would want it to stop too."

A lot of people agree with me that the US doesnt have to be the only one who should intervene on this either, but ive given actual arguments why they shouldnt have to (many of them uncontested too). Point is, you cant just say that people agree with you and use that as an argument, you need to use actual arguments and reasons to make your case.
Debate Round No. 3
Rollbearandtide

Pro

Rollbearandtide forfeited this round.
imabench

Con

Pro drops all arguments. Vote Con :D
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
RollbearandtideimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, Pro really never refutted any of Con's arguements.
Vote Placed by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
RollbearandtideimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
RollbearandtideimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Derp. Forfeit + dropping of all arguments.