• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria: Get Involved Or Not?

Should We get involved in Syria


  • Total voters
    29
no nam
no Iraq
no afganistain (besides 3 month as resulting from 9/11)

no defence of europe or any other place

US CITIZENS FIRST

When there are NO HOMELESS
no medical need
no bridges to build

THEN we can help them. And only help with supplies etc.
 
No it does not. It does not have the right to intervene in countries civil wars. That is the job of the United Nations.

And yet the United Nations is incapable of doing so. Nor are nations in the habit of voting to allow the UN to come interfere with their operations, meaning that the UN has no more or less authority in that area than the United States. So effectively your argument is that the slaughter of innocents should be allowed to occur without outside opposition.

So you would argue it is better for us to allow hundreds of thousands of innocents to die rather than interfere in the internal workings of another nation, and that the United States made the morally correct foreign policy decision during the Rwandan Genocide? I just want to make sure I have you nailed down accurately, here.
 
And yet the United Nations is incapable of doing so. Nor are nations in the habit of voting to allow the UN to come interfere with their operations, meaning that the UN has no more or less authority in that area than the United States. So effectively your argument is that the slaughter of innocents should be allowed to occur without outside opposition.
I believe in a civil war such as this, we should not interfere with this situation for several reasons
1.)Its a civil war
2.)The Syrian people are deeply divided
3.)We should not be involved in the Syrians peoples right to self determination
4.)The Syrian opposition is also not the greatest when it comes to "slaughter of civilians"


So you would argue it is better for us to allow hundreds of thousands of innocents to die rather than interfere in the internal workings of another nation, and that the United States made the morally correct foreign policy decision during the Rwandan Genocide? I just want to make sure I have you nailed down accurately, here.
you make it sound like im just ok with this happening. Am i ok? No. I also dont think the Syrian regime will use these chemical weapons. But am i ok? No. I hope it will stop. But do i think its our job as a sovereign nation to get invited with another sovereign nations civil war? No hell no. Because its not our war. Its a civil war amongst people in their own nation!
 
I believe in a civil war such as this, we should not interfere with this situation for several reasons
1.)Its a civil war
2.)The Syrian people are deeply divided
3.)We should not be involved in the Syrians peoples right to self determination
4.)The Syrian opposition is also not the greatest when it comes to "slaughter of civilians"

1. And Rwanda wasn't an internal conflict? Not looking to Godwin a thread, but because I want to make sure you are really saying what it looks like your saying - what is your opinion of outside interference with the Holocaust?
2. The Syrian People are actually united on the desire not to have chemical weapons used on them.
3. The Syrian People do not currently have the ability to engage in self-determination. Though if we were interested in their right to self-determination, opposition to the regime would be a mandatory outflow. 3b) according to the dictates of your theory of non-interference in the human rights atrocities of another state (a position you share with North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran, but not Britain, the US, Australia, or France), you shouldn't care if the Syrian people have self-governance.
4. Intervening to stop the use of chemical weapons on women and children does not constitute green-lighting the opposition to engage in similar acts. It is simply intervening to save lives.

you make it sound like im just ok with this happening. Am i ok? No. I also dont think the Syrian regime will use these chemical weapons. But am i ok? No. I hope it will stop. But do i think its our job as a sovereign nation to get invited with another sovereign nations civil war? No hell no. Because its not our war. Its a civil war amongst people in their own nation!

Goodness. Well I hope I never need you as a good samaritan.
 
Back
Top Bottom