intervention in Libya
Thank you for creating this debate.
“Considering the potential outcome of the Libyan rebellion is a government even worse for the United States than the incompetency that dominates Gadhafi’s government now, creating a no fly zone over Libya- and any military intervention for that matter- is potentially counterproductive to long term American national security goals and our interests in the region. Better the revolution play itself out and America be able to make peace with whatever government takes over than we potentially back the losing side and alienate all parties while doing so.
But what’s worse is that some American politicians would have us risk American military lives to support a rebellion which A. might not even be ultimately successful and B. if it is successful, might be just as anti-American and anti-democracy as the demagogue who rules the country now. I’ve argued before that the United States should have a non-interventionist foreign policy generally, but nowhere is this suggestion wiser than in the current instance of Libya.
With oil and gas prices rising as quickly as they are here in America, oil must be a very real aspect of any military or non-military decision we make in the region, but a $1 increase in the price of gas per gallon may not be worth the decades of ill sentiment our government may create if it intervenes in Libya and not in other countries as well. The complexity and unpredictability of the Libyan conflict necessitates that America adopt a non-interventionist policy and permit natural events to take their course there. (1)”
We can clearly see that intervening in Libya is disadvantageous. Now I’d like to clarify: I’m perfectly human. I feel for these people too. But even though people are dying, we need to look before we leap. Intervening in affairs of other countries is what made the Soviet Union and US so hostile towards each other. My opponent must adequately respond to these arguments and show that:
1. More people will die if we don’t intervene (which I already proved the opposite)
2. Americans won’t die (Impossible to prove)
3. Intervening in other countries is fine. (Again, if he says it’s fine it’s a falsehood)
(1) (1) http://thepoliticizer.com...
1. Regardless what Gaddafi says, he will still slaughter thousands, and most will be innocent civilians. This will undoubtedly escale into a legitimate civil war instead of a civil uprising. Gaddafi. Is determined to exterminate anybody that opposes him regardless of the consequences and I will go as far as to say that he is worse than Saddam Hussein, but unlike Hussein, Libya is producing weapons of mass destruction. If anybody sits by and watches this they will regret not intervening sooner when he turns those weapons against his own people.
2. As to American casualties, nothing will prevent that no matter how hard we try no matter what happens their will be blood spilled on any side, we do have troops in the red sea, specifically in the Suez Canal, and to instigate us into joining the war they will attack our naval fleet. The U.S. has already chosen a side which is that of the opposition, all they need is an excuse to go in now, regardless, as I mentioned before sides have been chosen and american lives will be on the line whether we we go in or not.
3. America is the world police, its a reputation that we have had since WWI. And we will always have to live up to that reputation for one reason and one reason only, as you said before, National Security and Interest. No matter what we do America will always be the world's watchdog, its just how it is nothing we do or say will change that. The U.S. is a country that depends on foreign oil, so in order to protect our interest abroad in the middle east we must intervene, wheter it be a military or diplomatic and economic intervention.
I never said it had to be military intervention, it could be an embargo, a ship blockade or what is most likely gonna happen, a no fly zone. But without war there can not be peace in this world, even if it is short lived.
Although, clearly, my opponent knows that my arguments are correct judging by his statement.
Let's move on to address his responses.
1. Yes, I am quite aware he's going to kill people. But as I stated, do you really want to add Americans to his list? Secondly, my opponent said Libya is "producing" WMD's. That means they don't have any now. Since weapons of mass destruction take years to create, this crisis will be long over by that time. My opponent needs to prove that this will actually be a problem. (And anyways my point about americans dying still applies, and even more in this case).
2. This response doesn't even make sense. My opponent is saying that if we do not attack Americans will still die. How does this make sense? Also, Libya doesn't want us to join into this because they know we can crush them. I know that we have chosen the rebellion's side, but we still haven't gone in. As long as we don't go in, no Americans will die. If the Libyans attack our fleet, that means we are officially in the war. If they don't attack, no Americans will die and we're not in the war. Which is my position. I still don't see how American blood will be spilt even if we keep our distance.
3. "America is the world police" I am quite aware of that. "We will always have to live up to that reputation" Nope. We don't. Libya is not a threat to our National Security. So we don't have to go in. Our National Security IS threatened if we DO go in, though. "We are dependant on Foreign oil" My evidence directly refuted that. Just cross-Apply the evidence I read. Remember, Evidence is > than logic. My opponent needs to provide evidence directly refuting mine or else I win this debate.
"Never said it will be military intervention"
A ship blockade. A no fly zone. Sir, that IS military intervention.
"Without war we cannot have peace"
This is not OUR war. It's Libya's war. If Gaddafi was shooting nukes at us it would our war, but it isn't. It has nothing to do with OUR peace.
pbjunkie73 forfeited this round.
Thank you for reading and voting on what turned out to be not much of a debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|