The us should use military strikes in Syria
Debate Rounds (5)
First round acceptance
I accept this debate and I will defend the position that the majority of US citizens, in the legitimate use of their sovereignty, should not let their government to start a war of aggresion agaisnt Syria, for moral, ethical and geopolitical reasons, maybe among others.
Syria has without doubt used such weapons on its own citizens men , women and perhaps most disturbingly on children, people, humans younger than ourselves have had their lives taken from them. Not because they have done something wrong but a murderous dictator conducted a chemical strike to crush people who originally tried to protest against his rule. How can any civilized society not react? To such a moral injustice.
A strike is not about revenge it is to neutralize and deter the threat of chemical weapons being used again. Against innocent civilians.
I have posted so links that contain disturbing images please don"t view if you don"t want to.
Did Assad launch the last chemical attack?
Who launched the chemical weapons attack? This is an important point since it's the excuse Obama is using for the Syrian invasion. If the White House's accusation happened to be false, we should, at least, wonder why they are so eager to attack Syria even without the back of its European allies nor the UN*, as it would be a reason they don't want the public, the people, the true sovereigns by rule, to know.
To start, we only have to Google for a couple of minutes to realise that there are accusations against both the Syrian government and the media. Assad himself says the accusations agaisnt him are illogical*, as he does not intend to hurt innocent population, but the rebels.
But there is a bigger reason about why he shouldn't have launched any chemical attack: Barack Obama*. The US has already invaded other countries, many of them Arab (Iraq, Lybia), and they didn't even have any serious reason for the attack against Iraq. Obama had explicitely warned him to not to use chemical weapons, so If there were serious suspects that he did, Assad himself would be 'justifying' an intervention, to some people's eyes. And Assad, whatever he says, does NOT want an invasion*.
Turkey at the north, Israel and the south, the lesser known loyal to US country of Arabia Saudi not too far, and tons of American military bases all over the place. Organized terrorists well supplied. And the claim of Iran that they would help Syria in the event of an invasion can't really be backed, since Russia did already say they won't interfere in the conflict*. Iraq was destroyed. Syria has no chance of survival.
If Assad did it he would just be stupid, and he doesn't have the looks.
Lesser known facts about the rebels
What would American people of the so called 'War on Terror' If they knew that the US is actually supporting Al-Qaeda? In fact, the Syrian rebels have an enomous amount of Al-Qaeda afilliates *, and they DID use chemical weapons*, and DID receive support from Western countries*.
Someone may argue that the rebel chemical attack happened after the rebels announced they had financial support from the West. It's true (according to my sources). But Obama has never said anything about this, you'd have to be blind to not to see the double standarts!
So far, we know that Al Assad had no interest in launching the last chemical attack, but the terrorist have already done it. In fact, as I'll explain later, the US government (not to be confused with the American people) has interest in having an excuse to intervene, which would be Al Assad being found guilty of launching a chemical attack.
Can the US bring democracy to Syria?
One argument I've read a lot lately is that, since the Syrian deserve freedom, the US should give it to them. However, this is quite questionable since there is less people who think the US is a democracy instead of a plutocracy each day. I won't get into that matter though. My argument in this point is that no country of NATO can succesfully bring more civil or legal rights (de facto) to Syria through a military intervention.
To start, most Syrian people support Al Assad**, so putting someone else in charge by the force will just bring even more violence. This is just common sense.
And even If he didnt have popular support, NATO would have to put the rebels in charge If they don't want to be MORE hated by the non-Western countries. Remember: the rebels, who have terrorists in their lines. I remember a very recent case in which a supposed rebellion for democracy ended up bringing the Sharia Law to a country: Lybia*. Now the Lybian can vote, but they can't choose any secular party nor president. I guess NATO is not as concerned for democracy is it is for natural resources.
Lastly, I want to remind you that a militar invasion has a quite obvious result: deaths*. Is this how we should export a political system (assuming that we should, which I don't think)? Won't the Syrian people grow to hate Occident instead?
The interests behind the scenes
Pitifully, If someone thinks the USA goes to war to bring someone democracy or freedom, this person is naive. The only reasonable causes why the USA goes to war is either to protect itself, or to get natural resources. To invade the US today is almost unthinkable today, so the only thing they should 'defend' agaisnt is terrorism (which is also arguable). And yet, in almost 30 years not even 4000 people have been killed by terrorism in the US, 3000 of them in an unrepeteable event*.
In the other hand, more than 100.000 people died in the War of Iraq. It's stupid to think that at least half of them were actual or potential terrorists. They won't be terrorists anymore, but they have given a really strong reason for their children to become it: hate.
So the 'defense' excuse is a really lame one.
The only fitting reason why the US government wages war so much is not for an idealistic view of the world, not even to protect their citizens (they don't need to), it's just for loot.
Coming back to the start of the round, this is why Obama doesn't says the real reason he has to invade Syria. That is why Bush had to fake his claims of Iraq having nuclear weapons. That is why the US government designs an external policy of invading several countries in the Middle East and apparently there are reasons to invade them all.
This explanation makes sense. It's logical. It fits with facts and reality.
Neither the European nor the American citizens can allow our governments to lie us and commit genocides around the world just to get more money. It could be us any day. Our economies may weaken and become not so untouchable anymore, or we could even be fomenting the appearing of terrorist groups in the countries we are invading.
We can't allow our governments to violate - to rape the human rights. To invade other countries. To loot their natural resources.
What is the difference between the nazi policies and the US' ones now? The nazis had to take social policies to get the support from population. Maybe the West has grown worse than Hitler.
And If we don't stop it, it will be our fault.
You suggest the rebels launched the chemical weapons on their own supporters yet you have provided no evidence, (links not working ). Furthermore how would the rebels have the infrastructure and capability to carry out such attacks?.[ http://theweek.com...]
My opponent then goes on to argue an us intervention cannot bring democracy to Syria. This point is irrelevant as pointed out in the previous round an intervention is not about altering the course of a civil war but deterring the regime to use chemical weapons in the future.
I think the following statement by my opponent sums up his argument "" What is the difference between the nazi policies and the US' ones now? The nazis had to take social policies to get the support from population. Maybe the West has grown worse than Hitler."" . laughable with very little serious consideration.
---Note about my previous sources---
I hate to bother you readers, but I have been reported that some people can't see some my sources (apparently the Telegraph's ones). However, the articles can still be found If you search for the very titular from each link. To add 'Telegraph' in the search will may be of help.
---Thank you for the bother---
International Community's position about Syria
Pro claims that 'there is little doubt in the international community that pro government forces are responsible for the attacks that unleashed chemical weapons on innocent men, women and children all in rebel held areas surrounding Damascus'. This is false.
Most of the British Parliament voted against military intervention.
Spain has decided to wait for the UN's report to decide.
Uruguay's president position is quite inusual: instead of bombing them, we should send them food.
Evo Morales (that guy whose plane was forced to land, showing a lot of respect from part of Europe) acusses USA of acting as the 'owner of the world':
Rafael Correa denounces US is only seeking Syrian oil:
Venezuelan president has asked USA to not to wage war (I recommend reading the letter):
As everyone knows, Russia keeps refusing Al Assad's involvement. China has joined Putin now:
Iran's position is obvious
India doesn't want a military intervention either:
In the end, it seems that only US' allies support it in this genocidal campaign:
And some of them are not that sure about it either.
And I have only talked about governments. As you should know, there is a lot of people in the US protesting and asking the government to not to wage war in Syria. Good for them by the way.
Evidence on the chemical attack
Indeed, I provided no evidence that the rebels were behind the last attack. Just like the US hasn't shown any evidence to the UN. In the other hand, I explained why Al Assad isn't interested in launching a chemical attack.
You ask how the rebels would be able to do such a thing. That is an interesting question. If you search for the data, you will see most sources agree that the Syrian Civil War has killed more than 100.000 people. If the rebels can extend the conflict this much, they NEED some kind of financiation. Which is interesting, because the only countries in the region that doesn't support the government is US an its allies (Turkey, Israel and Arabia Saudi).
While it doesn't makes sense that Al Assad wanted chemical attacks to happen (you will have to refute my explanation somehow, or you will be giving up this point), BUT according to my explanation that the US is only behind the natural resources, they would have a wonderful claim to send its troops If they could have made the rebels to launch a chemical attack and then blame the government.
In fact, there are sources that indicate this may have happened:
If you support the Syrian government made the chemical attack basing on the US government sources, you will have to explain why they haven't showed their evidence to the UN commission. This behaviour can only be described as illogical, when not suspicious.
Invading Syria as a future warning?
"My opponent then goes on to argue an us intervention cannot bring democracy to Syria. This point is irrelevant as pointed out in the previous round an intervention is not about altering the course of a civil war but deterring the regime to use chemical weapons in the future."
As I explained, a US warning was more than enough to not to use such weapons: it has showed no considerations in invading other countries in the region and using chemical weapons would just give them the perfect excuse. I would thank my opponent that he read and understood my arguments before he press on the same points when making no advance at all.
US foreign policy
"I think the following statement by my opponent sums up his argument "" What is the difference between the nazi policies and the US' ones now? The nazis had to take social policies to get the support from population. Maybe the West has grown worse than Hitler."" . laughable with very little serious consideration."
Actually it's only laughable when you have made not considerations in the topic, at all.
I apologize the readers, as I'm going to use Wikipedia, but it's the only way of showing half a century of evidence:
Note that many of these countries were democracies when intervened. Also notice that the list is missing names.
Have a nice move. Or at least not a too tiring one.
And also tell your Congressman to vote against the intervention in Syria.
G131994 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.