CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
7
Yup! Nope!
Debate Score:17
Arguments:10
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yup! (5)
 
 Nope! (5)

Debate Creator

Hellno(17753) pic



Should the U.S. intervene militarily in Libya

Yup!

Side Score: 10
VS.

Nope!

Side Score: 7
2 points

Yes, hit em fast, hit em hard and don't leave anything up to chance!

Side: Yup!
1 point

Yes but it should be a very limited operation... I think we should just bomb the hell out of the Libyan army if they attempt to reach the rebels in the east.

Side: Yup!
1 point

I think we should get in there, get the job done, and get out!

Side: Yup!

Yes, we should air drop sweaty, naked boys all over the country rigged with micro nukes that activate if the sanctity of their buttholes is disturbed.

Good bye Libya!

Onward to Saudi Arabia and the rest of those goat humping dick kissers.

Side: Yup!
1 point

Yes, that seems to me to be the only way we can keep Libya from being an entirely muslim state.

Side: Yup!
2 points

There's enough chaos and turmoil going on in Libya. They're in the midst of civil war. Why should we add in the coal to the fire and make matters worse for them? During the american civil war nobody stuck their nosy noses into their business. So why should the US be GENEROUS enough to give them military aid. Libya does not want their help do they want another ''Iraq situation" to haprpen again? It does not do any good to either sides. The U.S. should not waste their money or resources and time on matters that does not concern them. You people are all so inmature, how would you feel if they bomb and use nuclear on your country?

Side: Nope!

We have two types of warmongers in the U.S., conservative warmongers, and liberal warmongers. Conservative warmongers will go to war when the national interests are served, such as when Reagan went into Granada to free our students. Liberals, who hate our country and think that it is guilty of all kinds of injustices, despise war for national interests. But tell them a war is for humanitarian interests and they want to jump right in. Sort of like Kosovo. Clinton and Blair decided jumping into Kosovo would be a really good thing, even though, and possibly because of, neither nation had any national interest in its outcome, nor did anyone know who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. But that didn't matter; to the liberals this was a humanitarian thing and deserved the full weight of our war machine behind it. Now we have Libya. Which of these groups, liberal or conservative, do you think is behind this?

Side: Nope!

What right do you have to invade that country, im not saying there isnt a scenario where unilateral assistance would be warranted but that definietly isnt the case currently. Why did the US and nato not intervene when King Abdulla used the Suadi Army to brutally crush the rebellion in Bahrain, why did not intervene when the protestors in Yemen were brutally repressed by their US backed leader.

And, why is it that none of those events have been mentioned in Western media, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm???????????????

Anyone who voted for the Libyan assalt is either a hypocrite, or is too ignorant to realise the wider implcations of it and also the true motives behind it.

Side: Nope!
Supporting Evidence: I don't care (www.youtube.com)
Side: Nope!
1 point

OKay,so, even if military force is required, why is it that always the US should be involved. In these cases, consider countries like Russia, India,China.............. they too have a strong military .......

It is just that they are not put into action.........

Side: Nope!