The Instigator
thejoeyk
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zennie5000
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

should obama send ground troops to isis

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: 1/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 326 times Debate No: 84686
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Zennie5000

Con

Ground troops should not be sent to combat ISIS for any other world opponent in the region. As seen by both gulf wars and the invasion of Afghanistan, both supporting rebel groups and directly fighting Middle Eastern opposition causes extreme imbalance in the region. The countries that we would be supporting would grow to dependent on American forces and when the troops on the ground left, the host country would be too weak and incapable of fighting their own war, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Another issue with toppling ISIS immediately is that there is no plan presented on who to give ISIS controlled territory to. If the territory is given to Assad, we are allowing a ruthless dictator to gain ground on rebel forces. If the land is given to rebel forces, the rebels could change their governing style. When the US funded Al-Qaeda in the 1980's during the final stint of the Soviet Union, Al-Qaeda was able to use conquered lands, money, and supplies given to them by the US to eventually terrorize both the region and the world. There is no need to choose the lesser of two evils. The solution would be to just not make a decision at all.
A coalition should be led by the US and other world powers with the Kurds and allied Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia, to lead coordinated airstrikes to cripple the ISIS infrastructure. Recruitment and training stations should be the first targeted. And eventually power stations in the region to entirely cripple the ease of access ISIS has on the region. Communication and travel would be far harder to accomplish. Countries who are supplying ISIS with money, troops, or supplies should be met by heavy UN-based sanctions. Saudi Arabia must stop supplying oil to the Syrian region and an attempt to limit the supply of Iranian oil to the region as well should be put into practice.
The US, under any administration, should not send ground troops to the middle east no matter the enemy. Regional and economical instability are far to likely. Do we not learn from the past? Three times since 1970 the US has destabilized a region. It is time to put together an organized coalition that can tackle the issue without US ground force involvement.
Debate Round No. 1
thejoeyk

Pro

They are killing innocent Christians just because they won't convert to Islam. If we don't do something now they will be a threat to America for years to come. They are a terrorist group that hates America and if not stopped will take over Iraq and then they will have the resources to attack America. All that America has to do now is send some drones to help the Iraqi army but if we don't we will have to sent troops in the future. Acting now will save lives in Iraq now and American troops in the future.
Zennie5000

Con

Although Christians are definitely dying in the Middle East, they are by no means being targeted by the ISIS terrorist group. ISIS has killed far more Shiites then they have Christians. Shiites are openly fighting back and are being persecuted for it.
Secondly, if ISIS was to somehow conquer Iraq, the resources that they would receive in return would not be a threat at all to America. ISIS would receive an economy that has very little infrastructure, an incredibly high global debt, and a population that does not want them there. Attempting to take over Iraq would mean that they now reign a country almost completely full of Shiites. Why would they want that? They would not kill of the whole population. The Iraqi people would be likely to rebel very hard if this invasion were to occur.
Arming the Iraqi army is going back to the mistakes made during the 1990's and the 2000's. We would be arming and assisting a military that has proven to be unstable and unable to make up their minds on which sides to take in that region. Arming an unstable and uncooperative military could prove to be an even bigger problem in the future.
Debate Round No. 2
thejoeyk

Pro

thejoeyk forfeited this round.
Zennie5000

Con

Zennie5000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RngrsLeadDaWay 1 year ago
RngrsLeadDaWay
Zennie brings up very enlightening points. Bravo to you good sir
Posted by RngrsLeadDaWay 1 year ago
RngrsLeadDaWay
I agree with zennie, ground troops in Iraq and Syria would only lead to further chaos in an already chaotic region.
No votes have been placed for this debate.