The Instigator
doubled6
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

US Involvement, Georgian-Russian conflict

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,798 times Debate No: 5007
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (9)

 

doubled6

Pro

Russian officials attempt to corner the US into a ‘With us or against us' line of reasoning in the statement, "We understand that this current Georgian leadership is a special project of the United States, but one day the United States will have to choose between defending its prestige over a virtual project or real partnership which requires joint action,"[1]. I intend to show that the correct response for Washington should be full backing for Georgia.

Since it's declaration of independence in 1991 from the Soviet Union, the U.S. has remained very much involved in Georgia. "Evolving U.S.-Georgia partnerships include the Georgia Train and Equip Program, intended to enhance Georgia's military capability and stimulate military reform, …"[2]. This flirting with Georgian security has lead both parties down a path of strong understanding and trust. In recent years, Georgia has maintained their stance as a strong US ally and has been intensely lobbying to enter the US headed NATO.

As a state fully recognized by the U.N. Georgia has the right to autonomy. This includes, the right to self-govern and to move freely within and defend their established boarders. Both of which are threatened by Russian involvement. As a sitting U.N. member, the United States, and all other member states for that matter, have a responsibility to enforce these laws. Inaction will discredit the U.N. Security Council and world laws in general.

Washington is even more obligated towards backing Georgia as, "Promoting freedom and democracy and protecting human rights around the world are central to U.S. foreign policy."[3]. As the self-proclaimed leader in these affairs, not taking the appropriate steps would weaken U.S. influence worldwide and thusly U.S. security in general. Many also speculate turning a blind-eye would atrophy a centuries long push towards universal democracy.

Ultimately, the United States have a personal interest in the stability of the caucuses. Georgia is home to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, "which transports 1% of the world's oil needs". Even before it's creation Moscow has seen the pipeline as a threat to their own monopoly on Black Sea crude, no doubt fueling Russia interests in the region. Highlighting the issue, "Russian jets targeted a key oil pipeline in Georgia yesterday with more than 50 missiles in a raid" hinting at a motive for intense Russian aggression. "I have no doubt they wanted to target the pipeline, there is nothing else here,"[4] local police report. These and several other reports indicate an agenda by Russia to disrupt neighboring economies and governments so that it may itself capitalize on higher gas prices and expand it‘s borders.

Georgians are the final victims of Russian Imperialism, and have been so since before and after its own independence from them. Russia itself helped to fuel a civil war after Georgian succession in 1991 by, "providing armored personnel carriers, tanks, other military equipment, fuel, and training by Russian army officers … allowing up to 1,000 Russian mercenaries"[5], and even charged with ethnic cleansing; forcing many Georgian families to relocate in the now breakaway regions of South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. "Russia's extensive involvement in the Abkhazia conflict brought with it certain responsibilities for the human rights and humanitarian law violations that occurred there. Russia was in various ways responsible for escalating human rights abuse: members of its armed forces made available weapons to groups or individuals known or likely to use them to commit atrocities, and members of its forces indeed carried out a large number of attacks against Georgian targets, which resulted in civilian Casualties" [6]. No doubt; how the U.S. will weigh in will be a determining factor in whether Georgia will have justice or the start of a new cold war.

[1]-http://abcnews.go.com...
[2]-http://www.globalsecurity.org...
[3]-http://www.state.gov...
[4]-http://www.nysun.com...
[5]-http://unpan1.un.org...
[6]-http://www.hrw.org...
dairygirl4u2c

Con

Russians may have a with us or against us attitude, but that doesn't mean we should do the same. That's exactly the attitude, by the way, of Bush and Mccain.

The bottomline is that it's a complicated situation, and "us or them" is exactly the attitude, and "full backing" is exactly the attitude we should not take.

Your whole essay shows, that we are friends with Georgia. That's pretty much the extent of it. If your friend does something wrong, beats someone up,, that doesn't mean you stick up for your friend. Not that Georgia was beating anyone up,,, both sides claim the other fired the first shot. If your friend is in a fight, and you don't know how it started etc, then you just go into damage control. So, the initial fight itself, no sides should be taken.
The broader issue of whether Georigia has rights to that country, is complicated, too. It's like the Israel sitaution. Most by far of the citizens are Russian citizens. There's no rights necessarily to Georgia, and to insist there are,,, is simply taking an arbitrary stance just cause they've bene friendly to you.

Just because Georgia deserves autonomy, doesn't mean anything. Russia has autonomy too, to protect its interests, in that fought country. It's like if someone attacked Peurto Rico, or a quasi state in the US. The US would be up and arms.

You have no point in pointing out the pipeline in Georiga, other than to say that we have an interest in it. If Georgia is otherwise unjustified in what they do, then the pipeline issues are their fault, not Russia's.

That Russia supply or helped its allies with weopons etc doesn't mean anything. The US did the same thing, supplying taht stuff to Bin Laden in the nineties etc. You help your friend when they are in war.

You've not shown how Russia has done anything wrong. They didn't out invade Georgia for example, or something similar. Had you shown that, you'd have a case. As of now, you have no case. You're probably just trying to give ratioanlizations to the Bush administration etc, who are continuing with their shooting from their hip, cowboy mentalities, alienating everyone with double standards.
Debate Round No. 1
doubled6

Pro

"Russians may have a with us or against us attitude, but that doesn't mean we should do the same. That's exactly the attitude, by the way, of Bush and Mccain." Never had I suggested the U.S. taking on a "with us or against us attitude", but rather the Russians have! I will then agree with my opponent that; Russia is taking a dangerously simplistic attitude towards "a complicated situation".

I will show that full backing for Georgia is the correct answer towards U.S. involvement in this conflict. Not because of the politics of McCain or Bush, but because it is in the best interest of The United States. According to my opponent the best interest of the U.S. has "no point"(Who would have thought). Yet Russia hasn't "done anything wrong" because it has used its "autonomy too, to protect its interests". Reader, is it moral for Russia to act in it's own best interest, and immoral for The United States to do the same? This seems hypocritical, but maybe I'm "just trying to give rationalization to the Bush administration".*Yawn*

My opponent give a metaphor in which, an individual, The United States, turns around whistling whilst their friend is being stomped into the pavement. She also intends the reader to accept massive Russian aggression as acceptable. Fire bombing buildings, that Russia occupied, not even located within the contested border regions. Acceptable? Defending democratic nations is necessary to ensure the security, economy, and society of the United States. I've made this clear in my earlier argument.

"The broader issue of whether Georigia has rights to that country, is complicated, too. It's like the Israel situation. Most by far of the citizens are Russian citizens." Wrong. The majority of citizens in South Ossetia are Georgian. In fact, all of them are! What your referring to, just to inform you, is that Russia has granted citizenship to South Ossetians[1]. I wonder, if Russia granted all New Yorkers citizenship do they get that city too?

"That Russia supply or helped its allies with weopons etc doesn't mean anything. The US did the same thing, supplying taht stuff to Bin Laden in the nineties etc." Which is it: The U.S. was justified in supping Bin Laden or are the Russians unjust in doing the same thing? I'm pretty sure, the latter proves my point.

Every one of my earlier points remain unchallenged, and reinforced with my opponents own words: "We are friends with Georgia" and "You help your friend when they are in war."

[1]-http://www.today.az...
dairygirl4u2c

Con

"Reader, is it moral for Russia to act in it's own best interest, and immoral for The United States to do the same? This seems hypocritical, but maybe I'm "just trying to give rationalization to the Bush administration".*Yawn*"

You say soverignty should be respected, Georgia's, is why Russia should leave. If sovereignty should be respected,,,, then the US would be doing exactly what you're telling Russia not to do.. thus your hypocricy.
In fact, the US would be sticking its nose in a situation that doesn't concern it. At least Russia has an arguable claim. It appears you are the true hypocrite.

You didn't even address who is right or wrong other than to continue assiting one blindly help their friends no matter what.

"stand by while your friend is getting stomped to the pavement"
Your argument has never been that we fight to prevent them from being stomped into the pavement, per se. Your argument has been that we take sides.
If the battle becomes them being stomped, then and only them would we intervene, as a humanitarian purpose. Not because of the purposes you say,,, ie, they are are friend and that's reason alone.

So you're not only hypocritical, you're also inconsistent.

"They are Georgian citizenship"

You never used this as your reason to assist them. You merely asserted they are our friend. At least now you're getting to a significant point.
But, still not enough.
They may be of Georgian citizenship, but they dispute their status as part of that country. It wouldn't be analogous to some random state claiming they are independant off the wall.... their reasons are more complex and arguable. So your point is not analogous about Russia giving a state citizenship. It's not good faith disputed. There's a huge difference.
Iran can claim that it owns iraq,,, doesn't mean it does. That could be how they view their status relationed to Georgia.

""That Russia supply or helped its allies with weopons etc doesn't mean anything. The US did the same thing, supplying taht stuff to Bin Laden in the nineties etc." Which is it: The U.S. was justified in supping Bin Laden or are the Russians unjust in doing the same thing? I'm pretty sure, the latter proves my point."
No,, my point is that what Russia did in the past is history. If Georgia is attacking a country, what it did in the past doesn't have anything to do with the current problem.
And more importantly,,, it was defending its soveriengty,, in a good faith dispute.
It'd be like if Maine was in good faith disputing its status... and got in a heat with the US. And then China came and bombed the US cause it was picking on Maine and supplying efforts to thrwart them. How much sense does that make? none.

I think you're just getting hung up on the fact that it's easy for Russia to beat up on Georgia, and you're blinded a lot by the fact that they are the little guy,,, not too concerned about good reasoning behind helping them.

Your argument essentially boils down to they are our friends so we help them no matter what, practically. That's blind ideology if I ever saw it.
Debate Round No. 2
doubled6

Pro

My opponents final statement was, "Your argument essentially boils down to they are our friends so we help them no matter what, practically. That's blind ideology if I ever saw it." This is an outright lie. To recap, it is in the best interests of the United States to provide full back socially, economically, and militarily to Georgia because:

-Despite what my opponent wants you to believe in her statement, "… the US would be sticking its nose in a situation that doesn't concern it. At least Russia has an arguable claim." She fails to realize that since its inception, Georgia, has been a concern of the U.S., as are all democratic nations for that matter. Not to mention the lives being disrupted and lost. I clearly pointed this out in my opening statement, and leads me into my next point.

-It is the policy of the United States not to be divided and conquered by aggressor nations. My opponent is ignorant to the fact that the majority of this conflict is located within greater Georgia and not disputed regions[1]. Which is highly speculated as a move to disintegrate the Georgian government in an attempt to acquire more Georgian land[2]. Inaction threatens the security of all democratic nations. This point was also elaborated and not refuted by my opponent in my opening statements.

-Finally it is important not to overlook the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Currently one of two pipelines supplying Europe's energy needs, the other owned by Russia; it threatens Russia current strangle hold on Europe. It is of most importance to liberate all of Europe, most specifically France[3], economically so that they will then be capable of assisting us in combating injustice and providing security to the world community.

My opponent also states, "You say [sovereignty] should be respected, Georgia's, is why Russia should leave. If sovereignty should be respected,,,, then the US would be doing exactly what you're telling Russia not to do.. thus your [hypocrisy]." I would like the reader to review my earlier arguments and note that nowhere have I dictated what Russia should or should not do, but rather what the U.S. should do in response. Any allegation of hypocrisy should be dismissed as they were incompetent or malicious assumptions made by my opponent. Russia will do what it wants even if it risks the sovereignty and lives of other nations, but the U.S. is obligated to counteract these forces (See Above).

"It'd be like if Maine was in good faith disputing its status... and got in a heat with the US. And then China came and bombed the US cause it was picking on Maine and supplying efforts to [thwart] them. How much sense does that make? " Wrong. It's more like if China killed or displaced all Non-Chinese in Maine, granted the remaining population citizenship, and in turn claimed territorial integrity of the region. I made clear of the ethnic genocide committed in disputed regions in my opening statement, but I'm beginning to believe my opponent hadn't bothered to read it.

My opponents argument lack any substance, yet is riddled with nothing but inaccuracies and Anti-American sentiment. Of which is literate, my opponents argument blatantly disregards what would be in the best interests of the United States. The torrent of evidence suggesting full backing for Georgia in face of--nothing, leads to a obvious conclusion. Pro.

[1]-http://online.wsj.com...
[2]-http://www.eurasianet.org...
[3]-http://www.heritage.org...
dairygirl4u2c

Con

""Your argument essentially boils down to they are our friends so we help them no matter what, practically. That's blind ideology if I ever saw it." This is an outright lie."

well, i can see why you say that's what i said. what i meant was,,, by them being our friend, they have things that are beneficial to us. in international relations, friends are only those who help you, mostly. i mean, we can say we're friends with some random poor country in africa, but it's not truly friends.... my point is that i understood your argument to include that, and i did indeed address it, even if you misunderstood my point in that one recap.

also... even your new claim that it's undisputed that Goeriga own it, is unsubstnatiated. you cited a link to it, but it's a link that doesn't take you anywhere and is only about claims of one side, nothing authorititve. she couldn't provide authrity on this, cause there is none, to make her new position what she says.
even if you had authority on the point, you shoulda hve argued it to begin with though, and that you didn't means it's not fair for me to lose this debate when your argument was essentially. "they're our friends, an have good things there or us, so we should help them regardless". look at my opponents links... she had to provide new ones than compared to her first post, that didn't even make her point. so, not only hypocritical, also inconsistent, and lying...
also, that my opponent simply asserts georgia owns it, then links somewhere without explaining the details, is telling.

"My opponent also states, "You say [sovereignty] should be respected, Georgia's, is why Russia should leave. If sovereignty should be respected,,,, then the US would be doing exactly what you're telling Russia not to do.. thus your [hypocrisy]." I would like the reader to review my earlier arguments and note that nowhere have I dictated what Russia should or should not do, but rather what the U.S. should do in response. "

i never said you were saying that russia should simply comply with the US's wishes, as if you were saying Russia can't be a soverign. if you will read what was said... and think about it... "Russia shouldn't invade Georgia even though Georgia in invading the small South O, because we have to respect Georgia's soverenty.": is what your argument is. Then, you go on to not care about the US no respecting the sovernty of Russia, ie, it's attacking a country just as much as georgia is. that's how you're a hypocrite, not what you claimed I said. Think about it like a big fish eating a little fish. it's like you're saying "that cat fish should'nt eat that gold fish. let's go eat the cat fish."
You would have been logical... if you at least made the distinction about South O belonging to Russia were not included in the reasoning itself about whether the US would be hypocritical to attack. Your argument was an incidental point only, about a reason for us to invade Russia etc, you didn't make the distinction.

My opponent simply makes assertions, no facts. Her opening statement is telling,,, simply help your friends cause they are your firends and can help you, regardless of whether they are right or not. My stance is based on the fact that there's a good faith dispute about the country, not just that I have antiamerican sentiment,,, it's a strawman my opponent creates. (I want to USA to kick as much @$$ as the next american does when it's in the right)
my oponnent had to change her argument, cause it was obvious her initial response was blatantly wrong,,, and even still her response was unexplained, and her source didn't say what she claimed it did. My opponent's response reeks of blind patriotism, and nationalism, for the USA's interests and rationalizing its stances with reasons as fleeting as building a house on sand.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Here's the problem, con. Southern Ossetia is NOT a part of Russia. It's a province of Georgia that has operated autonomously for some time with Russia as an ally. It's the same as if Texas decided it no longer wanted to be a state in the U.S. and relied on Mexico for help."

Uhh... actually the history says your hypothetical is backwards. What DID happen is Texas decided it didn't want to be part of Mexico and relied on the US for help. That's how Texas joined us. :D
Posted by cooljpk 9 years ago
cooljpk
I am kind of invading here, but i have a close friend who has spent the last 2 years in the region and he just got home several weeks ago. According to him the media is not explaining the truth.
here is the story. . . "over the past several years russia has been making promises and giving a lot of money to a group of separatist, which has seen enormous growth in the past year, this separatist group has agents undercover in Georgia politics and military to help break down the government and start conflicts.". . . Russia just cant get over they are losing their power in the world.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Here's the problem, con. Southern Ossetia is NOT a part of Russia. It's a province of Georgia that has operated autonomously for some time with Russia as an ally. It's the same as if Texas decided it no longer wanted to be a state in the U.S. and relied on Mexico for help.
Posted by doubled6 9 years ago
doubled6
I never changed my argument, and "Russia shouldn't invade Georgia even though Georgia in invading the small South O, because we have to respect Georgia's soverenty." is not a quote by me~
Posted by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
I would have taken the debate but... Eh, im for pro :)
Posted by doubled6 9 years ago
doubled6
Yes anyone can throw-up an argument.
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
I may take Con if Pro doesn't mind a non-American, such as myself, taking on the debate?
Posted by doubled6 9 years ago
doubled6
And to be even more clear, "Full Backing" doesn't mean "Full attacking" but rather using the US military to defend Georgia. That might include incursions into Russia should that further the goal of defense (IE: Bombing bordering radar towers), but not necessarily full blow war.
Posted by doubled6 9 years ago
doubled6
I suppose to be clear, "Full Backing" is in reference towards military aid.
Posted by doubled6 9 years ago
doubled6
Perhaps, you should challenge my wording by accepting. :P
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Chestertonian 8 years ago
Chestertonian
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 9 years ago
matthewleebrown14
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by doubled6 9 years ago
doubled6
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
doubled6dairygirl4u2cTied
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