United States in other countries
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 2: Debate starts
Round 4: Conclusion
The United States should not be able to to other countries without a declaration of war, whether it is to help or harm.
PRO does not know that African leaders show many signs of confusion, weakness, and lack of direction. As the United States pours money into their economy, the continents leaders have no clue what to do with it and are wasting all of it.
The website above contradicts PRO's claim of the Unites States and them helping other countries.
PRO did not mention anything about what happens in Syria. In this country the United States has decided to stick its nose in another conflict that had next to nothing to do with them. There are enough reasons to stay out of both Africa and Syria, but the U.S. still feels the need to put troops and money into things like this. We have no goal in Syria beside trying to kill the people of ISIS, also there are atrocities happening everywhere, why pour resources into Syria? AMERICA CAN'T AFFORD IT!! If we continue down this road... THIS COULD CAUSE WWIII!!Syria is a strong ally with Iran. Iran and Syria have support from Russia and China, and that support could extend beyond just their votes on the UN Security Council. The chain of events leading to WWI began with a lone gunman assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Will WWIII start by "limited" U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war?
Also U.S engagement has also fallen than what it used be. With that being said the public thinks that the nation does to much to try and save the world's problems and they want instead they want the U.S. to pay more attention to what is happening here. Yet this retire is not an expression of across the board isolation. Even as the doubts grow about the United States geopolitical role, most Americans say the benefits from from U.S. participation in the global economy outweighs the risks. Along with supports for closer trade and business ties with other nations, standing at its highest point in more than a decade.
Now, If we decide to get any more involved in Syria, it could have some serious blowback. U.S. involvement is likely to be used as a recruitment tool for extremists on both sides of the fight in Syria. And the very allies we are claiming we must act to protect could find themselves square in the center of a target. A limited strike on Syria could result in a retaliatory chemical weapons attack on Israel if Assad actually carried out the initial chemical strike. How many American lives " or those of allies " will we lose in the future so the President can "save face" by striking Syria?
The civil war in Syria has been going on for years, why choose to act now? No one denies it is a travesty that the Syrian civil war has cost over 100,000 lives in the past few years. So why does the United States feel it must act now, when over 1,400 Syrians have been killed in a chemical weapons attack, but not when 100,000 Syrians were killed by conventional weapons? This makes no sense. Are the deaths caused by bullets and bombs any less horrible, senseless, and tragic?
The American people are against any military action in Syria. According to a recent Reuters poll, just 9 percent of Americans believe the United States should take military action in Syria. That makes military intervention in Syria less popular than Congress (10 percent approval), and North Korea (12 percent favorability). With support like that, it is no wonder President Obama doesn't want to bring it to a vote in Congress.
A man claiming to be the rebel group fighting in Syria made an appeal to Israel and the Untied States for help in stopping the regime on Bashar Assad following an alleged attack near Damascus. You still wondering why the U.S. is butting with Syria now? Well then part of the forces in the Syria war that is happening now has people who were associated with 9/11 attacks and other well known terrorist attacks that have happened in the U.S.
Wheat_Bread 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.