CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:18
Arguments:17
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Obama's U Turn on attack's on Syria (17)

Debate Creator

TheAshman(2299) pic



Obama's U Turn on attack's on Syria

So Obama has put his attack on Syria on hold until after Congress has voted, what do people think?  Is this a good idea or should he have gone ahead with his original plan?  Or should he listen to the rest of the World and not get involved?

Add New Argument
2 points

Meh? Why stop our enemies from killing our enemies... (of course I'm saying the 400+ children that got gassed to death were our enemies)

1 point

Congress voting and such a thing is absurd. Are they going to have access to all the intelligence that you need to be able to make a well-informed decision? No. They're going to go on what's popular like everything else in USA.

Axmeister(4322) Disputed
1 point

Any intelligence should be presented to the United Nations so an international body can decide its legitimacy and the countries of the world can determine an appropriate form of action.

In a humanitarian view, I believe slowing down will only claim more lives. But in the view of a leader, I believe that he has done the right thing. He does not want his people to rebel.

1 point

Everybody needs to chill out. Considering I live in a country so close to yours, we can get dragged into this potential third world war quite easily. America needs to sit in a corner and think about what they are doing. They are not the world police.

1 point

That's pretty much my view, i'm quite pleased the UK have decided not to rush into another war, one of the first times i've agreed with one of our present government's decision's

1 point

We can all agree because nobody wants to get shot or drafted.

1 point

I doubt an attack on Syria will lead to WWIII, the U.S and Great Britain have already been to Afghanistan and Iraq and nothing has happened.

1 point

Maybe he's copying what David Cameron did at putting it to the legislative body to make the final decision. It then removes any implications on him if the war goes terribly.

As I said in another debate, Obama's main concern now is probably his legacy and this war could make it or break it. Britain has just pulled out after Parliament voted against military action which had removed America's closest ally from the conflict, which could have reduced the legitimacy of the justification for war and made the American public very reluctant to go to war.

Additionally according to a recent poll only 9% of US citizens believe they should attack Syria.

Maybe we should figure out where those weapons of mass destruction are, send in a drone and blow them up ;)

1 point

It isn't WMDs this time around, it's "chemical weapons". Also, they've swapped "Threat to the West" to "Threat to Humanity".

Yeah, it's all pretty much the same bull shit ;)

1 point

He should listen to the rest of the world. Violence usually doesn't yield the best results.

Until he gets enough fire power to wipe them all out in a single blow without harming any surrounding areas.

Maybe make a Syria shaped dome that would be properly placed over Syria, that would have bombs attached on every square inch of the...and...idk if you know where I am going with this, but

I really think that we should not attack Syria. They probably were never going to do it in the first place. Probably was just announcing an attack for the publicity.

1 point

The Middle East has always been in a civil war. Our intervention won't stop it.