CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
ISIS is killing it's own people in cruel ways for meaning less crimes based off of the teachings of an ancient warlord. This may not be our war, but can we just sit on the sidelines while those around us commit such unspeakable acts? We live in an ever more globalized society, so it is not unreasonable to consider other nations half a world away our neighbors. Do we really want to live in a neighborhood where theocrats are allowed to kill off their subjects and degrade society? Even just sending unmanned drones would make a difference and we wouldn't have to put troops on the line. Be sure to check out my supporting evidence as it is crucial to my argument. ;)
You are saying that other countries have the right to execute their will and force it upon another country just because the world is more "globalized". So would you be upset if another country decided to attack America because they don't like America attacking others? The same logic would apply. If a country doesn't like the actions of another country they have the right to invade and enforce their "believed to be correct" policies. I'm not sure this justifies America's lust for control. This isn't an argument, but more of a commentary.
A better parallel would be to ask if one would support a foreign military intervention in the US if the nation experienced an internal militant threat that was seriously destabilizing it.
This may not be our war, but can we just sit on the sidelines while those around us commit such unspeakable acts?
Yes. Though we should recognize the manner in which that might come back to hurt us eventually. Notably, military engagement is hardly the only form of action and not engaging in it is not necessarily the same as sitting on the sidelines.
Right. We could get the UN to threaten sanctions against ISIS. Or we could ask them to meet with us and talk about peaceful coexistence. Good luck with that Jace.
The U.N. is an dysfunctional entity with limited utility and ISIS is obviously not going to sit down at the table with us and become peaceful. Which is why I never advocated either.
Just look at our own national history of engagement in the region and you will see there are countless other options that can be pursued - economic sanction, trade embargo, financing opposition, training opposition, arming opposition, providing intelligence and counter-intelligence, etc.
I was also very simply pointing out a technicality, namely that even doing something ineffective or less effective is still different than doing nothing.
economic sanction, trade embargo, financing opposition, training opposition, arming opposition, providing intelligence and counter-intelligence, etc.
We are talking about ISIS right. Sanctions and embargoes will not stop a twisted ideology from spreading. Training and arming the locals has has been a monumental failure when not coupled with our direct military involvement.
Of course the UN is less than useful. I listed them along with other inadequate ways of fighting ISIS.
I was also very simply pointing out a technicality, namely that even doing something ineffective or less effective is still different than doing nothing.
Neither of us imagine that doing nothing is a reasonable course.
We both know that ultimately we must defeat the ideology. We both know that the ideology will take decades to squelch, and never completely disappear. We both know that it will require great military force to stop them in the short term.
We are talking about ISIS right. Sanctions and embargoes will not stop a twisted ideology from spreading. Training and arming the locals has has been a monumental failure when not coupled with our direct military involvement.
Sanctions and embargoes on nations/groups supporting ISIS or other extremist groups can limit their ability to provide that support.
Of course training and arming local forces has met with limited success so far. What else would you expect from a region that has been dominated by foreign military influence for centuries? Training does not happen overnight, and it is illogical to assume that because there has not been immediate success that this approach is inherently flawed.
My list was also by no means exhaustive. Funding medical resources, providing basic amenities, etc. are also opportunities to present a positive, non-military face in the region that makes it harder for groups like ISIS to cast the U.S. in a negative light.
Your dismissal of alternatives seems out of hand, given the historical success of these mechanisms during our history of intervention in the region. The impact may not be so immediate or pronounced as you might like to see, but there also absolutely no guarantee that direct U.S. ground military intervention would not become just as protracted as our similar undertakings (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq). These alternatives come at less cost to us, and are less likely to feed the ideology fueling ISIS. It comes down to perception: on the ground does it look more like ISIS is fighting the U.S. or its own people?
Of course the UN is less than useful. I listed them along with other inadequate ways of fighting ISIS.
I was not making an argument there, merely agreeing with your own preceding assessment.
We both know that ultimately we must defeat the ideology. We both know that the ideology will take decades to squelch, and never completely disappear. We both know that it will require great military force to stop them in the short term.
The differences being, I think: (a) that you think that military force must be ours, whereas I think it is more in our interest to utilize local forces; and (b) that an ideology can be defeated with a military in the long run.
How is it that a region of the world that has been fighting non-stop for centuries, now needs our training to be able to fight ISIS.
These alternatives come at less cost to us AGREE
The differences being, I think: (a) that you think that military force must be ours, whereas I think it is more in our interest to utilize local forces; and (b) that an ideology can be defeated with a military in the long run.
Our military force is required in the short term in order to halt the threat to our own security.
Long term (10 plus years), Iran will continue to destabilize the region with its own plan for dominance. We will again be the leader of stopping Iran, once we get a leader in the WH that understands the problem. The local governments are counting on us to do this or at least lead this effort long-term, because they don't want to.
IMO you are 100% correct in saying that military force will NOT stop an ideology. At the same time (short term) there is no other means to stop ISIS.
Ultimately Islam-Lite will have to emerge as the heavily dominant form of a truly Non-Violent Islam.
The region has not operated independent of significant external military influence for quite some time, nor is any other nation in the world so heavily militarized as the United States. Most nations in the world would stand to benefit significantly from U.S. military training and provision, and that is especially true for nations that have lacked relative stability due to unrest exacerbated by external intervention.
Your justifications for escalated U.S. military intervention strike me as the same ones that this nation has been using to legitimate its interventions for the past hundred plus years in the region. Those very interventions are a significant cause of the problems in the region today, and I hardly see how more of the same is going to resolve the issue. You claim that ISIS poses a threat to the U.S. at present, and while I do not doubt they pose some threat I consider it a relatively minor one in truth and I think you would be challenged to demonstrate otherwise (particularly as there have been no ISIS attacks within our borders). The brunt of our more minimal involvement will be borne by the region itself. Perhaps it is callous of me, but I consider that the cost of their gaining a greater independence from external intervention. They need to reclaim their nations for themselves. If they do not there will always be instability, there will always be another ISIS, and there will always be more people justifying continued U.S. military intervention.
Which is precisely why I never advanced that argument. You asked why it would not follow that we would engage ISIS militarily, and I presented the circumstance under which that would be the case.
It does not follow when doing so exacerbates the situation by fueling the ideology that threatens us.
Hmmm Then what would be an effective action that would not exacerbate the situation. I frankly don't see another effective way to stop an aggressor like ISIS than militarily.
I never said there was another way; I was answering your question in the hypothetical. Ostensibly, however, the U.S. might fight ISIS by supporting the militaries of other nations without having to use its own military.
When they threaten the lives of others around the world, then yes I do believe they need to be stomped down. Their getting very very "nazi-ish" lately, killing women and children, and burning/trashing books and art that is anything ant-muslim, wanting to rid the world of non-muslims. I believe we should snuff them out. If they don't watch out, their going to piss some pretty countries off.
I don't have that much in common with Obama, but I agree with his statement during his state of the union address. Coalition building and diplomatic action is a much more effective way of fighting and it doesn't involve us getting dragged into another land which will (a real shocker) cause more turmoil in the region and create a similar crisis in the future. The United States needs to stop playing police officer and listen to the actual police of the world, the United Nations.
