The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheDebatingRabbit
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We Should help the rebels topple Assad if they turn on Al Qaeda and help Assad if they refuse

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 910 times Debate No: 38050
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

The United States is at war with Al Qaeda. Our national security is the most important thing to consider in foreign policy.

In Syria there are two sides, Assad's baathist dictatorship and the rebels.

There are many people among the Syrian rebels who are related to Al Qaeda. Al-Nusrah, Al Qaeda's branch in Syria has been estimated by some sources to be to "the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force."

This creates a national security threat to the United States. Syria could become a new safe haven for terrorism.

Yet Obama is already posturing against Assad and threatening to invade on the side of the rebels over chemical weapons.

This can be twisted to our favor. We may let the rebels know that we've reconsidered it and have decided that while we want to stop chemical weapons protecting our own nation from terrorists is more important and hence we'll agree to help the rebels even if Assad keeps his chemical weapons if the rebels agree to turn on Al Qaeda. They could kill or imprison Al Qaeda members and we should only express a preference for how they take care of Al Qaeda in the case where some members may have valueable information to be used to protect our country.

But if the rebels don't cooperate and they continue to accept Al Qaeda then we should go in and help Assad and tell him not to worry about chemical weapons.

This is clearly the best option for the protection of the national security of the United States.
TheDebatingRabbit

Con

The United States does not, and will never have the power or legitimate backing to issue an ultimatum to a large group of people that can lead to the formation of a country. That sort of ultimatum is not acceptable, and would cause more damage than it would cause help. The Syrian people are trying to escape from the cruelty that has plagued them for many years, not trying to create a "Safe Haven" for terrorism. At the fundamental level they are a group of people struggling to make a better life for themselves and their family. The only thing an ultimatum of that nature would do is cause an even larger gap between us and the people in the Middle East. A culture of people that Americans have neglected and badmouthed for years under falsified information. We can rebuild a relationship with the Middle East and Syria, but it would be more appropriate to address the problem of Al-Qaeda after we help the country rebuild.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

"The United States does not, and will never have the power or legitimate backing to issue an ultimatum to a large group of people that can lead to the formation of a country."

We did. We issued an ultimatum to Saddam and he refused and we went in and now the democratic regime we set up in Iraq is up.

"The only thing an ultimatum of that nature would do is cause an even larger gap between us and the people in the Middle East. A culture of people that Americans have neglected and badmouthed for years under falsified information."

Under falsified information! Yes, and they will keep falsifying no matter what we do. We might as well defend ourselves.

"We can rebuild a relationship with the Middle East and Syria, but it would be more appropriate to address the problem of Al-Qaeda after we help the country rebuild."

We can't wait until the end of the war as Al Qaeda could easily win. If we can turn the rebels against Al Qaeda we will have the upper hand. If they won't turn against Al Qaeda we can prop up Assad and it would serve them right for siding with our enemies.
TheDebatingRabbit

Con

"We did. We issued an ultimatum to Saddam and he refused and we went in and now the democratic regime we set up in Iraq is up"

We used an ultimatum on a dictator that we believed to have a hold of WMD's, suppressing its citizens, and had already invaded another country. Not a group of people liberating themselves from a dictator not much different from Saddam.

"Under falsified information! Yes, and they will keep falsifying no matter what we do. We might as well defend ourselves."

I believe that we had a miscommunication. I was saying that we had "falsified information" about them (I would like to change the term to "Misconceptions") For example it seems quite a few people believe that Islam(as a religion) hates America. This is not true. In the Quran there is a verse "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah(God) and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord."

"We can't wait until the end of the war as Al Qaeda could easily win. If we can turn the rebels against Al Qaeda we will have the upper hand. If they won't turn against Al Qaeda we can prop up Assad and it would serve them right for siding with our enemies."

Al Qaeda is there, and could possibly be helping out the rebels. I'm certain that if Al Qaeda is there they are already integrated. Right now in Syria we are fighting a common enemy, so we can accomplish other things and when they become a threat to us we neutralize them. To answer the second part of your statement, how many American lives did we spend to make Iraq free from the same situation you just suggested supporting.
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

"We used an ultimatum on a dictator that we believed to have a hold of WMD's, suppressing its citizens, and had already invaded another country. Not a group of people liberating themselves from a dictator not much different from Saddam."

But the people 'liberating' themselves include elements of Al Qaeda. National Security first. Spreading democracy second. America needs to protect itself first before pursuing wars based on idealism. Besides that if Al Qaeda wins they won't have a democracy they'll have a theocracy.

"I believe that we had a miscommunication. I was saying that we had "falsified information" about them (I would like to change the term to "Misconceptions") For example it seems quite a few people believe that Islam(as a religion) hates America. This is not true. In the Quran there is a verse "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah(God) and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord.""

I never said I thought all Muslims hated America.

"I'm certain that if Al Qaeda is there they are already integrated."

Integrated how? They're Al Qaeda! They're not going to become integrated and just get along and accept democracy afterwards.

"To answer the second part of your statement, how many American lives did we spend to make Iraq free from the same situation you just suggested supporting."

In this case it isn't primarily about Syria, it's about us. This is about putting America first. Al Qaeda is a threat to our national security so allowing a new regime to take power that could be ruled by them makes no sense. We should do what we can to prevent an Al Qaeda-lead Syria. If we leave it alone the rebels might win and Al Qaeda might rule them. But Assad isn't a good guy so if we can side with the rebels on condition that they purge themselves of Al Qaeda we may be able to get rid of Al Qaeda and Assad. But to protect our national security interests we should support Assad if the rebels refuse. If we don't the rebels might win and institute an Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda-run state in Syria.
TheDebatingRabbit

Con

"But the people 'liberating' themselves include elements of Al Qaeda. National Security first. Spreading democracy second. America needs to protect itself first before pursuing wars based on idealism. Besides that if Al Qaeda wins they won't have a democracy they'll have a theocracy."

Think of it this way, if America was going to throw over the government, gangs like the KKK would join the effort. The people overthrowing the government may not avidly sponsor and endorse KKK members in the revolt, but they are still there. In that scenario, would you think it would be acceptable for another country to tell us we must find and destroy the KKK members that have integrated themselves into the revolution? Also, Al Qaeda could install a theocracy but the people could too. The middle east has a different culture than we do, if a theocracy goes is installed an the people are fine with it and not being oppressed, and we are not being threatened, I respect that countries decision to be a theocracy.

"I never said I thought all Muslims hated America."

I never said you did. It seems to be a common stereotype that surfaces. I didn't mean to direct it towards you, if you felt that way I apologize.

"Integrated how? They're Al Qaeda! They're not going to become integrated and just get along and accept democracy afterwards."

The Al Qaeda's main ideology is Jihad, which literally means Struggle, but the concept includes armed struggle against oppression. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Al Qaeda is feeding off of this revolution, and fights along side the rest of the Syrian people. Al Qaeda can spread their message through this revolution, and does it as much as possible. They appear to be the good guys when they help out with the revolution and play quite a large role in it. They won't accept democracy
afterwards, but for now they stop fighting us to overthrow a dictator and recruit new members while they are doing so.

"In this case it isn't primarily about Syria, it's about us. This is about putting America first. Al Qaeda is a threat to our national security so allowing a new regime to take power that could be ruled by them makes no sense. We should do what we can to prevent an Al Qaeda-lead Syria. If we leave it alone the rebels might win and Al Qaeda might rule them. But Assad isn't a good guy so if we can side with the rebels on condition that they purge themselves of Al Qaeda we may be able to get rid of Al Qaeda and Assad. But to protect our national security interests we should support Assad if the rebels refuse. If we don't the rebels might win and institute an Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda-run state in Syria."

Al Qaeda is not the focus of the revolution, the focus is the people overthrowing the government. Once the dictator is gone it would be a great idea to arrange a plan to hunt down Al Qaeda members. In order to protect our "national security interests" we would form a strong bond with the new Syrian government and help them rebuild with programs like Peace Corps, and ask for help with the Al Qaeda issue. Under no circumstance should we support Assad who slaughters his people with massacres, chemical weapons, and public executions. We started a war with Saddam for reasons that are quite similar.
Debate Round No. 3
MasturDbtor

Pro

Even if Al Qaeda is not the focus of the revolution it is a huge part in the revolution. Al Qaeda is at war with the United States, so supporting Al Qaeda is irresponsible behavior on the part of the United States of America in regards to protecting our national security!

Not supporting Al Qaeda and preventing Al Qaeda from ruling over Syria is more important than ousting Assad.

Rebuttal

"Think of it this way, if America was going to throw over the government, gangs like the KKK would join the effort. The people overthrowing the government may not avidly sponsor and endorse KKK members in the revolt, but they are still there. In that scenario, would you think it would be acceptable for another country to tell us we must find and destroy the KKK members that have integrated themselves into the revolution? Also, Al Qaeda could install a theocracy but the people could too. The middle east has a different culture than we do, if a theocracy goes is installed an the people are fine with it and not being oppressed, and we are not being threatened, I respect that countries decision to be a theocracy."

1. The concern is that the regime installed by Al Qaeda would give them a safe haven. If they create a theocracy then it's fine as long as they don't harbor terrorists that are at war with the United States.

2. Yes, if the KKK is at war with that country.

Rebuttal 2


They appear to be the good guys when they help out with the revolution and play quite a large role in it.

1. I don't care how they appear. Al Qaeda can never be the good guys because they are international terrorists at war with the United States. That they appear like the good guys to the Syrian people shows they pose an even worse threat and getting the rebels to denounce and root out the Al Qaeda terrorists could help change that perception.
TheDebatingRabbit

Con

Al Qaeda is at war with us, but this doesn't give us the right to twist a group of peoples arm, especially the Syrian rebels that are not in a position to combat Al Qaeda and Assad. I agree that we should prevent Al Qaeda from ruling Syria but you approach it in the wrong way.

Rebuttal of your Rebuttal
"1. The concern is that the regime installed by Al Qaeda would give them a safe haven. If they create a theocracy then it's fine as long as they don't harbor terrorists that are at war with the United States."

Al Qaeda is part of the revolution, but the people decide what regime is put in place. Al Qaeda doesn't have complete control, its just another group struggling for power. If Al Qaeda gains the majority power then we can intervene, but until then, we shouldn't intervene. An intervention now would be sloppy and ill-advised.

2. Yes, if the KKK is at war with that country.

But how would you tell the KKK members apart from the rest of the mob? Not all KKK members are going to publicly reveal they are KKK, especially not with a shoot on sight memo.

Rebuttal of your Rebuttal 2

"1. I don't care how they appear. Al Qaeda can never be the good guys because they are international terrorists at war with the United States. That they appear like the good guys to the Syrian people shows they pose an even worse threat and getting the rebels to denounce and root out the Al Qaeda terrorists could help change that perception."

They will never be the good guys to us, but to other groups it can look that way. Even though the Syrian population knows they are terrorists, they are part of the war effort against Assad. For the time being that makes them Brothers-In-Arms to the Syrians.
Debate Round No. 4
MasturDbtor

Pro

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
TheDebatingRabbit

Con

Thanks for the debate. It was fun while it lasted.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheDebatingRabbit 3 years ago
TheDebatingRabbit
@ararmer1919 I'm sorry I know I sounded a little bit scatterbrained. What were you confused about?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
lol!
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
@Con What?????
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I stand by the simple opinion that it's too complex a mess for us to want to be involved in...
No votes have been placed for this debate.