The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

intervention in Libya

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 15257
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




We should get involved because the Libyian government is killing their own citizens and forcing a government upon an unwilling country, thus raising threat and concern of genocide


Thank you for creating this debate.

Let's get started:

My argument is obviously that America should NOT intervene in Libya. I have several reasons why.

1. Gaddafi threatened to kill more people if we intervene. That means by us intervening, more people will die. It might finish faster, but more will die. Secondly, he's almost finished. A lot of people are deserting him. A couple of pilots ordered to bomb citizens ejected out of their planes and did not do as told. His cousin is leaving him.

Gaddafi is practically insane now. He will soon lose control of the situation and it will be over. So basically by intervening we will kill more people.

2. Americans will die. Simple as that. Hundreds, probably thousands of american soldiers would die if we sent them. Even though it's not our problem. This is clearly a disadvantage to intervening in Libya.

3. We can't be the world's policeman. America is America. We can't go around fixing everyone's problems for them. Sure, it's sad that people are dying, but it's not our duty to fix Libya's problems.

Now I will quote an article talking about this subject, and how we shouldn't intervene.

“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.

Furthermore, there is something to be said about America contemplating military intervention in Libya but not in the multiplicity of other nations that are undergoing potential revolutions such as Yemen. In Yemen, protesters are being fired on by government soldiers just like in Libya, except in Libya, we’ve already seen hesitation and outright refusal by certain military officials to follow Gadhafi’s orders and fire on the people. What makes the Libyan people so much better than the Yemeni that we should protect them and not the latter? Oil of course.

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)

Debate Round No. 1


Oh wow nice arguments I have a feeling I should conceide but I'll give my rebuttal regardless let's see how this goes.

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.


Thank you for responding and not conceding.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


pbjunkie73 forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited the round. That shows that he conceded all my points and by default I win.

Thank you for reading and voting on what turned out to be not much of a debate.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by pbjunkie73 7 years ago
It doesn't have to be ethnicity it can also be politcal challengers or rebels
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
Libyian? You're already losing grammar point. :P

And Gadafi is ludicrous, but genocide is unlikely. He could massacre parts of the population, but to be true genocide, he'd have to seek to kill an entire ethnicity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 7 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.