The Instigator
LieutenantCrunch
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jonathan11
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

U.S. Involvement 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: 9/1/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 37238
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

LieutenantCrunch

Con

People say that the United States should intervene in the Syrian civil war, but on whose behalf? There are two sides:

1. The Syrian Arab Army (Assad regime).
2. The Free Syrian Army (the rebels)

In my opinion, both sides are equally evil, and getting involved in this conflict would endanger our national security even more than it already is by stirring up more hatred against the United States' interventionist, imperialist foreign policy and causing more people to join anti-American terrorist groups (Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc). We should not get involved.

I can't wait to get started discussing this with you.
Jonathan11

Pro

From what I heard you belief that the rebels are evil, that is outrageous that you belief citizens living under al-assad reign of terror are evil for fighting back and toiling to try and make Syria a country where its people will not be scared of its government. Now to talk about your statement claiming that America should not get involved in with fighting terrorism. Why not? They attacked us, they killed thousands and they are willing to kill more unless something is done. If the US didn't take action who knows what terrorist organizations could of done from September 11th 2001 to present day.
Debate Round No. 1
LieutenantCrunch

Con

Assad may be a dictator and very evil, he isn't trying to create a fundamentalist theocracy like the rebels are. If the rebels were fighting against Assad based on freedom, then it would be a different story, and I would support it.

The fact of the matter is that most of the members of the rebels are not Syrians at all; they are Al-Qaeda fighters from Iraq. I should have been more clear in my original argument, but the Free Syrian Army is only the 2nd largest group of rebels that are fighting against Assad. The largest group is called Al-Nusra Front: the Syrian wing of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. As of December of last year, the U.S. government designated Al-Nusra Front as a terrorist organization and rightfully so. The Guardian has even come out and reported that Al-Nusra is the best financed, best equipped, and most motivated and powerful sect of rebels fighting Assad, and that's beside the fact that they are already the largest (1).

These people are ruthless, violent, satanic, and anti-American beyond reason. Syria's Assad regime did not attack us on 9/11, so why should we attack them? We were attacked by Al-Qaeda on 9/11, and getting involved in the conflict and backing up the rebels will only enable Al-Qaeda operatives and enhance their ability to commit jihad against U.S. targets. Is that what you want? I don't think any reasonable American does.

Even with all the blatant evidence and warning signs that these rebels hate us, we still ignore them. I have a few examples:

"We destroyed America with a civilian plane. The World Trade Center was turned into a pile of rubble. Just wait you Alawites. Our terrorism is a blessed divine call. Just wait you Nusayri, you Alawite police. We have brought slaughter upon you, there will be no compromise." - A rebel child signing an anti-American song the rebels taught him after taking over a city in Syria (2)

A Syrian rebel cut out and ate the heart of a Syrian Arab Army soldier and viciously threatened the regime. This is one of the lowest forms of savagery (3).

A group of Syrian rebels were caught on tape beheading a Christian just for his own religious beliefs. So much for freedom of religion, right? (4)

[1] http://www.theguardian.com...
[2]
[3]
[4] http://www.military.com...

I must warn you, links 3 and 4 are extremely graphic and highly disturbing.
Jonathan11

Pro

Now I have to say you are a terribly wrong, you stated that citizens being suppressed under the iron fist of a tyrant are satanic and evil, you are getting personal by bringing up that as an American (which I'm not) I should be reasonable, do you think I want something similar to 911 to happen, of course not. You're point on 911 and Al-Qaeda is IRRELEVANT, this as nothing to do with Syria, because if you remember this debate is about the USA get involved in Syria. Now on to the facts the reason the U.S is contemplating on whether to go in or not is because Russia is allies with Syria and Russia is a world power, but you're forgetting something here, Al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own citizens, may I say it again CHEMICAL WEAPONS. The US, UK and Canada should all get involved, Al-Assad's methods are cruel and inhumane, so that is a pretty good reason to go attack, don't you think?
Debate Round No. 2
LieutenantCrunch

Con

LieutenantCrunch forfeited this round.
Jonathan11

Pro

Now Russia is demanding that Syria hand over the chemical and nuclear weapons so Syria's allies are now backing off, so now the evidence is stacking up and the U.S will have to get involved.
Debate Round No. 3
LieutenantCrunch

Con

LieutenantCrunch forfeited this round.
Jonathan11

Pro

Jonathan11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
LieutenantCrunch

Con

LieutenantCrunch forfeited this round.
Jonathan11

Pro

Jonathan11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
The thing I've noticed is, this whole political debate about a military strike, but all of these make it sounds like we should or shouldn't support a side or go to war.

They broke international law, we should show them why that was wrong, then leave. Why does everyone think that this is some sort of dichotomy? It really isn't. Like punishing a child. You're not helping the other child by clapping the first round the head.

(Not to self: Political clap = up to 200 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles - don't annoy US government.)
No votes have been placed for this debate.