-:Undertaker:-
22-03-2013, 05:33 PM
The west ought to supply weapons to the anti-government forces in Syria. Discuss.
http://www.habboxwiki.com/wiki/images/6/69/Debate1bgSYRIA.png
Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, a number of governments or regimes have fallen across the Middle East with western support. The majority of these governments which have fallen have or were previously western allies, at which when the people rose up in the events of the Arab Spring the western countries have sided with the protesters in toppling regimes in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia. In other conflicts such as the Libyan uprising, the west directly supplied weapons to the anti-government forces who then waged a guerilla war on the Libyan central government which was ultimately successful.
Today, the conflict rages on in Syria. So far the death toll has reached nearly the 100,000 mark (some estimates say) and the Assad regime remains in control of Syrian airspace and most areas of Syrian cities. The Kurdish areas in the north and some districts of mainland Syrian cities have fallen to the rebel fighters/Kurdish protection fighters. As of recently, there has been much talk of western nations arming the rebels in Syria to bring about the demise of the Assad government - much like what happened in Libya.
Those who support or are inclinced to support arming the rebels (David Cameron, William Hague, the EU, Tim Montgomerie, Barack Obama, Hiliary Clinton, John Kerry and other pro-interventionalists) argue that by arming the rebels we allow ourselves to build a friendly Syria in an important part of the world and also that arming the rebels would help to bring about an end to the bloodshed that has destroyed Syrian cities to scenes similar to Berlin in 1945.
On the other side (the likes of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Lew Rockwell and other anti-interventionalists) argue that by arming the rebels, a repeat of the situation in Afghanistan is likely where weapons supplied to the Taliban in the 1970s and 1980s were used against western forces in the future. Another example they point to is the example where weapons supplied to Libyan forces were passed down into Mali and Algeria and destabilised the region there with Al-Qaeda occupying half of Mali.
So should the west arm the Syrian rebels or not? i'll throw this quote out there as a bait.
"It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example." - Ron Paul
A reminder of what can be earnt by taking part in the debate can be viewed below;
There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.
The debate is open to you.
http://www.habboxwiki.com/wiki/images/6/69/Debate1bgSYRIA.png
Since the beginning of the Arab Spring, a number of governments or regimes have fallen across the Middle East with western support. The majority of these governments which have fallen have or were previously western allies, at which when the people rose up in the events of the Arab Spring the western countries have sided with the protesters in toppling regimes in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia. In other conflicts such as the Libyan uprising, the west directly supplied weapons to the anti-government forces who then waged a guerilla war on the Libyan central government which was ultimately successful.
Today, the conflict rages on in Syria. So far the death toll has reached nearly the 100,000 mark (some estimates say) and the Assad regime remains in control of Syrian airspace and most areas of Syrian cities. The Kurdish areas in the north and some districts of mainland Syrian cities have fallen to the rebel fighters/Kurdish protection fighters. As of recently, there has been much talk of western nations arming the rebels in Syria to bring about the demise of the Assad government - much like what happened in Libya.
Those who support or are inclinced to support arming the rebels (David Cameron, William Hague, the EU, Tim Montgomerie, Barack Obama, Hiliary Clinton, John Kerry and other pro-interventionalists) argue that by arming the rebels we allow ourselves to build a friendly Syria in an important part of the world and also that arming the rebels would help to bring about an end to the bloodshed that has destroyed Syrian cities to scenes similar to Berlin in 1945.
On the other side (the likes of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Lew Rockwell and other anti-interventionalists) argue that by arming the rebels, a repeat of the situation in Afghanistan is likely where weapons supplied to the Taliban in the 1970s and 1980s were used against western forces in the future. Another example they point to is the example where weapons supplied to Libyan forces were passed down into Mali and Algeria and destabilised the region there with Al-Qaeda occupying half of Mali.
So should the west arm the Syrian rebels or not? i'll throw this quote out there as a bait.
"It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example." - Ron Paul
A reminder of what can be earnt by taking part in the debate can be viewed below;
There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.
The debate is open to you.