American Military Intervention is wrong
Debate Rounds (3)
Third Round-Rebuttal and closing statements.
I look forward to an interesting debate, and hope for a worthy challenger.
Before we start, I agree we should set what we mutually agree on.
-the united states does not have evil intentions when intervening in foreign territories
-without the united states' intervention in the middle east, Israel would not exist
I am heading off to seattle for a few days tomorrow, I will try my best to find access to a computer to debate! If I don't respond, I am truly sorry:(
Ever since the days of the second world war, the Unites States has been engaged in what it calls "peacekeeping operations" in various parts of the world. While i would be the first to agree that intervention in the two World Wars was vital to world security, I maintain that the recent military operations have been unjustified.
Let us take the most famous example, the Vietnam War. People were horrified at the so-called 'atrocities' perpetrated by the Viet Minh, which supposedly 'forced' the U.S. to enter the war. That, however, is not how the war started. It started with the Indochina war between France and Vietnam, which was really a revolution against the french colonialists, who were oppressing the vietnamese. It may be well to add that the Viet Minh, led by the infamous Ho Chi Minh, had won majorities in DEMOCRATIC elections all over the country, but the french did not want to lose their colonies, and with british help invaded vietnam. It was when the french started losing that the U.S. decided to intevene. The viet minh, later the viet cong, were able to recruit so many people because they were fighting for rights and independence.
Or take the Korean War. It's history stretches back to 1945, when Korea war divided into North and South(without consulting the Koreans). Kim-Il-Sung, leader of North Korea, wanted unification and called for elections all over Korea, and sent diplomats to South Korea. They were promptly arrested. The day after this, skirmishes between KPA and ROK troops. The United States,worried about Soviet Influence, decided to intervene, and the rest is history.
Both these , plus many others i shall not go into detail of, like the failed invasion of Cuba, were simply motivated by the "Red Scare" the so-called communist threat. Both these were simply the result of paranoia and fear that the governments could be replaced by others that would not bow to the U.S.'s every word.
I await my opponents argument. I have tried not to sound accusatory, but if i did, please forgive me.
The United States' intervention in world issues is vital to maintaining a safe world. The United States currently has bases in over 90 countries throughout the world. Many countries depend on the defense of the United States for their security. After World War II, being defeating by the US, Japan has never had a significant military. The United States has provided it with defense for nearly seven decades. Polls find that the Japanese support American intervention is about 70%, which is very high. American military intervention in Japan was the best thing to ever happen to it, and I suspect other future intervention to provide the same results. The United States military budget is around 420 billion dollars per year, or about 42% of world military spending. The United States is in a unique situation being a world superpower. It has the power to influence the world to a great deal. It is the power to push out military dictators, help deprived citizens, or halt a bloody civil war. It has made it clear it is capable of this. Bad things happen when America does "nothing." The lack of involvement from the United States in the Cambodian Genocide directly caused the deaths of 250,000 men, women, and children. It could have easily stopped this, they were up against around a force of a few thousand men with guns. They could have stopped it, and did nothing. This is only one example of the "lack of involvement" by the United States and the implications that can have.
Pertaining the the Vietnam war, the United States was perfectly justified in its involvement. Communism has been shown, without fail, to cause misery wherever it has spread. It was not just ideological differences the United States was concerned with when it intervened. It was for human rights. Vietnam would be better off today if the United States had successfully installed a democracy in its society. The world would have been better off.
America intervening in oil-rich countries to try to stabilize and implement democracies is no less of a world peace keeping than any other issue. The United States is dependent on oil and so is most of the world. Of course it's for oil, and that is a shame. The United states should implement democracies wherever it can. It is extremely naive to think the United States is not justified in intervening in those countries. The world economy would collapse without that oil, people throughout the world would become impoverished, many would go without health care, and many would die. If the world was cut-off from oil, many would die as a result. This reason for intervention is as good as another.
Without the United States' involvement in world affairs, evil people are allowed to do evil things. The United Nations is useless, and most of the world is unwilling in aiding countries in need.
We start to see a pattern in all this. The U.S. cares not for democracy, nor for the lives of civilians. It only wants to create regimes that it can control, it only seeks to increase it's power no matter the cost.
With this I end my argument. I await my opponent's rebuttal, and urge voters to be unbiased if they live in the U.S.
dylancatlow forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.