CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
3
Yes No
Debate Score:6
Arguments:14
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (3)
 
 No (3)

Debate Creator

Lucius(23) pic



Is the West Justified in using Military Action in Syria?

In light of the claims that Assad has been using chemical weapons on his own people in Syria, France, Britain and the US have coordinated joint attacks on "strategic positions" in Syria.  Are they justified in doing so? 


Yes

Side Score: 3
VS.

No

Side Score: 3
1 point

Even though Putin and Assad have killed 100s of 1000s of civilians using conventional weapons they needed a slap on the back of the head to remind them that the use of chemicals is totally unacceptable and contravenes international law.

Putin's response to Britain condemning Russia for the use of a nerve agent in the attempted murder of an ex Russian spy and his daughter was akin to the rascality of a mischievous little schoolboy.

In a scoffing and deliberately provocative manner Putin and his Mafia mouthpieces tried to blame Britain for the murder attempt on Skripal and his daughter.

This time he was up against Uncle Sam and he didn't feel much like bantering.

Alfonso Putin and his side-kick Assad would be well advised to be mindful that the U.S, is keeping a wary eye on you and is:-LOCKED & READY.

Side: Yes
1 point

We shouldn't stand by while people are slaughtered. What we are NOT justified in is having a President who said: The President shouldn't attack without the consent of Congress; who said: We shouldn't telegraph when we are going to pull our troops out; who said: The President plays too much golf; Who said: The President is raising the deficit too high; Who said: The President uses Air Force One too often for personal business; Who said; The President takes too many vacations; .... and then turns around and does the same.

Can you say ... hypocrite? :-(

Side: Yes
WinstonC(1115) Clarified
1 point

"We shouldn't stand by while people are slaughtered."

Do you think that our intervention worked out well in Iraq?

Side: Yes
AlofRI(1866) Clarified
1 point

I think Iraq was the dumbest thing (of many) that Dubya did. He should have stuck with Afghanistan and "Accomplished THAT mission"! There are other ways to punish for genocide.

Side: Yes
0 points

Obama was the king of coordinating attacks without congress. You're a hypocrite. Of course you're regularly a hypocrite and an emotional drama queen who lies alot provably.

No one can molest a position with love and then call anyone that supports the same position a Nazi better than you. Of course you say Nazi alot because you dream about zhitler. Point of fact, libs would follow Hitler right now. He supported almost all of the new liberal taking points.

Side: No
AlofRI(1866) Clarified
1 point

The statements I made were statements made BY TRUMP when Obama was President! Yes, Obama struck sometimes without an act of Congress, but then, when he WENT to Congress (the Republican one), for back-up after he "drew a line in the sand", THEY wouldn't back him! So, he couldn't follow through without being the fall guy. Smart. They REALLY wanted him to bend over and smile. He was too smart. :-)

Side: Yes
1 point

We are justified in using a limited attack on Assad to keep him in check. With that said, the USA should NOT attempt to remove him from power. He is a secular leader who has stood with and protected the large Christian population in Syria. The region will turn into a blood bath like Iraq and Libya if he is ousted.

Side: Yes
1 point

There is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons. Further, it simply makes no sense that Assad would do this when the civil war was already won and doing so would bring western intervention.

If we ask who benefits from the chemical attack, the answer is ISIS, the rebels and the western powers that want regime change in Syria. As such, it makes more sense, lacking evidence, to believe that one of the beneficiaries were responsible.

Side: No
AlofRI(1866) Clarified
1 point

Funny, the State Department and DED says there IS evidence that Assad (and the Russians) used chemical weapons. Do you have reliable info otherwise?? Has much of anything Assad did or said "made sense"? I think we are more concerned with Russia gaining warm water ports than we are with regime change, but, that's just one step in preventing that. Russia has its own problems with ISIS, so why would they do something that benefits them?

Assad wants rid of "opposition". The civil war may be won, but there is STILL opposition, and he wants rid of it as quickly (and completely), as possible.

Side: Yes
WinstonC(1115) Clarified
1 point

"Funny, the State Department and DED says there IS evidence that Assad (and the Russians) used chemical weapons."

What evidence? How would they know? Further, note that similar statements were made about Saddam and later found to be deliberate lies.

"Do you have reliable info otherwise??"

Let's go back to the 2013 sarin gas attack that was blamed on Assad, it recently came out that there was no evidence Assad was responsible (Source 1). In fact, one of the UN reps leading the inquiry into the attack claimed there was evidence the rebels were responsible (Source 2).

"Russia has its own problems with ISIS, so why would they do something that benefits them?"

What has Russia done that benefited ISIS?

"Assad wants rid of "opposition". The civil war may be won, but there is STILL opposition, and he wants rid of it as quickly (and completely), as possible."

Douma was the last bastion of resistance after the rest of Ghouta surrendered (Source 3). Does it make sense that in fighting the last rebel stronghold, you take an action guaranteed to bring western intervention? The chemical weapons attack wasn't even that effective; it killed under a hundred people. It simply makes no strategical sense.

Sources:

(1) http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

(3) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/22/syrian-rebels-families-begin-leave-besieged-eastern-ghouta-deal/

Side: Yes