Basically I have noticed a lot of people's opinions about this topic being voiced in sb so why not make it a thread. Before we begin to discuss this topic there are a few rules that must be followed. This is a debate stay professional, if people go off and start cussing and so on it is no longer a debate and the player will not be allowed to contribute to the thread since they would be determined unable to have a civilised debate. That is about the most important rule. Now debate.
I live in America, and I say that we should not take action to other countries problems, unless it affects our own country in some way. But seriously if another country decides to harm their own civilization, then by all means leave them to it. We shouldn't of have stepped in for any reason.
I see your point and the merit to your idea, but given the world we live in, I think tending to yourself first and foremost is just postponing the issue. If the situation in Syria worsens, more refugees will flood over Europe, which is already developing a more commonly accepted xenophobia (far as I can tell) by the day. And from there, it'll either grow to or at the very least affect America. Point being, the ideal situation is, that the problems in Syria and the Middle East in general be fixed ASAP. Admittedly, 'Murica bombing Syria is probably counterproductive, but from my point of view, doing nothing at this point would be among the worst decisions the US could make. Everything is slowly spiraling out of hand already. Case in point: terror attacks in Europe have become frequent enough to border being "common" (I think we're averaging around one a month, if not more. And that's just here.) Honestly, I don't know how bad things really are in Syria. But if we only get a fraction of the extremists, I shudder to think what might be happening there. I may or may not have gotten slightly derailed, but my main point is: this is going to affect the US, regardless of intervention. In light of that, would it not be better to try and stem the tide? I think it would. Again, I don't think military intervention is the way to go about it, it'll just cause more conflict. But the same applies to no intervention. Then again, I'm not a politician so my thoughts and opinions aren't gonna make a difference ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TL;DR: We don't need the coppers nor the millers, but we sure as heck don't need the terrors.
There has been reports that one of the reasons we launched Tomahawk missiles towards the Syrian military was because President Trump's daughter felt bad about the chemical attacks on civilians. Of course, the chemical attack was something that violates our U.S. laws of armed conflict and was a tragedy. However, I don't believe our attack on the military base had any effect on the efforts of the Assad regime. Luckily it didn't seem to throw us into the next World War, but it's definitely a risky maneuver. The Syrian conflict is something that has been going on for years and has no sign of stopping with both sides of the conflict being supported by some of the most powerful countries in the world. I cannot see how further action could be taken by either side's supporters without pushing us further into an all-out war. Given all of the information that I know about the Syrian conflict and considering the potential risks/benefits of getting more involved, I have to say I cannot support U.S. involvement. Terrible things would continue to happen one way or the other and it has a huge potential to become worse with our involvement.
Something I noticed in what you said is the terror bombings in Europe are increasing. Just shows how insignificant the deaths of Arabs to the same bombings that terrorise Europe. Middle East is ravaged with power hungry people seeking personal self gain over others, and I can tell you this first hand as a Middle Easterner myself. They will not blink an eye while the people they are supposed to lead just get killed. But you never hear news coverage of that in Europe or America. Only things that you hear about is what happened in Europe and everyone immediately acts like they have lived in the middle east and experienced dictatorship first hand. That is one of the problems I find when speaking about the west in general.
@Siddo,I see your point, but I feel that we (America) should have taken action later. Like @STONEY said, it isn't our problem, and I feel that we shouldn't intervene until it threatens our allies or us. This has caused so much tension and controversy, I wonder if it was worth it.
Spoiler: Reply to Amr I'm aware that as a European, I'm gonna be more "apathetic" to suffering elsewhere, as I'm inclined to see that which surrounds me first. As I also said in my post, seeing as how we have comparatively few people that would enact terrorism here, I can only imagine that it'd be many times worse in the Middle East and Syria. Regarding the point about them not batting an eyelid when they kill the people they're claiming to lead/work for. I've already noticed this in the terror attacks here. Very often, the attacks hit Arabs/refugees almost equally to Westerners. And in the first place, I can't agree with wanton taking of innocent lives under any circumstance. I don't see any meaning to carnage wrought in whatever holy name. As far as I'm concerned, any and all "religiously motivated" mass murders are just cruel, heartless disregard for human life, be that the crusades, the inquisitions, or jihad. I fail to see how on one hand you can praise a deity for his creation, then turn around and tear it apart. Seems to me like thinly-veiled cruelty and selfishness. I've been brought up to cherish where I was born and where I live, and I do. Compared to what life could be, life here in Europe (Denmark) is pretty good. And I wouldn't make a claim as silly as having experienced dictatorship or having been under it. But when the fallout of the situation in the Middle East affects me, I'm going to see how it affects me, not how it has affected everyone else. That's (unfortunately) just how we operate, like any other living thing. We recognize danger to ourselves before danger to another. (Slight side note, that is probably also why we laud people who overcome that inherent instinct of self-preservation for the sake of others. We label them heroes. Because it takes a lot more courage to save another than it does to save yourself.) What I was originally getting at is, I'm not blind to your people's suffering. But the suffering that is here, where I am, is gonna be much more clear to me than the suffering of others that live thousands of miles away. But, being of the mindset that everyone from the West is completely self-absorbed isn't healthy (sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here), I'd like to think we're not that bad as far as people go. Some charity might be in order here. Spoiler: Reply to Good Noodle I disagree with military intervention. But waiting for C4 to explode rather than try to disarm it/limit the damage it can do seems like a bad idea to me. That was an analogy; if we just wait until it actively hurts us, we might end up hurting more than if we had been proactive. The global political scene with US and Russia being divided on the topic of Syria and the Middle East is a mess, and it seems to be hindering meaningful action which could mitigate damage, both locally and on a more global scale. Including but not limited to: not having people flee their home and travel a long distance only to be treated with mild contempt and distrust; avoid the loss of innocent lives for no better reason than "wrong place, wrong time."
If we want to get into this debate, first we must go back to the beginning and first figure out why Syria is in a Civil War... Spoiler: In the Beginning... The Syrian Civil War is an ongoing armed conflict in Syria between the government of President Bashar al-Assad and his allies on one side and various forces opposing him. The unrest in Syria, part of a wider wave of 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with the Assad's government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for his removal were violently suppressed.The protests began on 15 March 2011, when protesters marched in the capital of Damascus, demanding democratic reforms and the release of political prisoners. Security forces retaliated by opening fire on the protesters,and according to witnesses who spoke to the BBC, the government forces detained six. The protest was triggered by the arrest of a boy and his friends by the government for writing in graffiti, "The people want the fall of the government", in the city of Daraa. The 13-year old boy, Hamza al-Khateeb, was tortured and killed. It is because of this that the people of Syria rose up to fight the Assad regime. For those of you who think the Syrian Civil War has something to do with Islamic State, you're not wrong, but you're also not 100% correct: Spoiler: The Rise of IS The rise of Islamic State began in Iraq (here is a great interactive video to explain this part http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28116033 as I can't be bothered to type it all out ) It is because of these two events that the world has intervened, the US-led coalition is there to help topple the dictator-ous Assad regime, and the Russians are there to help Assad remain in power. I am a supporter of the US-led coalition as I am completely against what Assad did in 2011 against the group of children for having an opinion that went against what Assad wanted. Now to fast-forward to more recent events such as Trump ordering 59 Tomahawk missiles be fired at a Syrian airbase. I understand that Trump had a very strong opinion on what the Assad regime allegedly did (as there wasn't proof at the time, although I do not dispute it was the Assad regime(for those of you that don't know what happened, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947)). However, I do not agree with what Trump did, his action was (as far as I'm aware and I'm 100% certain) an act of war, he attacked another sovereign nation which will escalate the tension, greatly, in Syria. In fact, at the G7 conference my own country (the UK) wanted to further sanction Russia, which again will only further escalate the tension. This act could also lead to a whole new cold war between the US and Russia, with the Syrian Civil War being a proxy war. If this does escalate to a new cold war, this will only further increase tension in the world, this will not help solve the problem in Syria, and will not help to deal with the predicament in the Korean peninsula. To conclude, I do not think what Trump did was the right decision, however I don't think countries like the US should completely withdraw support to the Syrian rebels.
I would like to say that I dont believe this is the best place to Debate such a critical topic like this one. And dont get me wrong, I dont have anything against Dialogue and Debate. In fact I am a Delegate in big UN Models in my country and debate topics like these very frequently, and love to do so. I find debate healthy and effective, but it has to be moderated well, and I fear its gonna get outta control here. I hope it doesnt, and that people can continue to share thoughts with one another in a moderate manner, but I sadly doubt it´ll happen.
Trump & Ivanka are hypocrites and need to be out of the office. Trump tries to be a white knight and enforce the Geneva Protocol in Syria, he claims that things are terrible over there and that they are in need of action being taken. Wanna know what's terrible Mr. Trump? The things that happen to American Children when they have no medical insurance. Trump is trigger happy and wanted to test out his new missiles he got with his fathers money.
Half a million people dead, and millions more are now refugees and you wanted later action? There should have been some sort of intervention beforehand like they did in libya. If there was such an intervention there would be NO refugees and they would still be in their countries. As someone who has lived in Syria for a bit they are a very intelligent people, lost of them are doctors and engineers. Lets be honest alot of the instability in the middle east is caused by the united states and other countries who have created these organizations. Starting with Taliban to fight the Russians.
Hes clearly trying to get attention by being a "troll" and "edgy". Its easy to make "humor" when you havent lost your fucking limbs due to decisions a guy made drinking a margarita in his yacht. Dont fuel him man, let him be what he wants to be.
Please take this debate seriously. You do know that everything that happens in other countries does affect the USA.
Not just that, but have some consideration and dont be so selfish. Even if it didnt affect you in any way, if you have a bit of decency and humanity in you, you should take it as a serious issue.
