US should intervene in Libya

Resolved: The US should intervene in Libya Ob. 1 – We are already intervening so the resolution should correctly read: "The US should be intervening in Libya." Ob. 2 – Presumption for pro. When it comes to sending aid to help people in danger, then presumption should go to the side which seeks to aid. Thus, you presume a Pro ballot. This is true because the opposing sides needs to show clear outweighing harms as to why one shouldn't act to help a friend, ally, or someone in need. For example, if I said Joe was drowning and Steven was right next to the river, then we would presume Steven should assist Joe. It would be up to the opposition to show why Steven shouldn't help, e.g. Steven can't swim. The impact of this is two-fold: (1) if Con hasn't done enough work in his speeches you vote Pro and (2) this requires that Con present his own case and can't simply refute. Ob. 3 – The word "should" in the resolution asks us to provide a sound reason to do X. Nowhere in the resolution does it imply what context should refers to. Thus, as long as I prove that there is an obligation to act, then you affirm. ==Contentions== C1: Protection of Human Rights The U.S. has an obligation to step in where they can as a way to protect human rights abroad. Since the US has this ability, seeing as it is the most powerful nation on earth, then US should step in. Humans are equal, and thus deserve equal protection, even if others do not see this as an obligation. (1) Borders are arbitrary. One cannot make a moral claim based on arbitrary factors. As such, the US has an obligation to act to protect others because not doing so would make moral obligations dependent upon arbitrary and non-chosen factors. Thus, people don't deserve to be punished simply for being born in the wrong area of the globe, such as in Libya. (2) Equality. Humans are equal due to their equal capacity for rationality. As such nothing fundamentally distinguishes human beings. Therefore, nations or people with the ability to protect human rights need to because it is what everyone is equally deserving of. C2: Democratic Promotion is Advantageous A) The Democratic Peace Theory [1]. In short the democratic peace theory states that democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other. Two internal links are isolated: (1) Ideological. Democracies have ideological ties to one another which make them more willing to enter into agreements and alliances. Liberal ideologies which pervade democracies make these nations more susceptible to negotiations, alliances and agreements which make it very difficult to go to war. (2) Structural. The structure of governments within democracies make it difficult to go to war. For example, public opinion would be a main hindering factor for war. The majority of a public wouldn't be open to war as easily unless clear evidence was given for its need. Thus, by promoting democracies abroad, the US will be heavily reducing the probability of war within volatile areas and hot spots around the world. According to Muller, an analysis of history does empirically prove that democracies do not go to war with one another, except in a few isolated circumstances. The DPT does not endorse Kants view of perpetual peace but it does show that war will ultimately be reduced which protects a larger amount of people globally. B) Reduction of State Violence. Professor Rummel finds that democracies between 1900 and 1987 saw only .14% of their populations die annually in internal violence, whereas authoritarian regimes was .59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%. Rummel also finds that citizens of democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century. [2] C) Free Trade. Mancur Olson tells us that democracies are much more likely to have free trade agreements and policies especially with the help of the US. This is true because democracies have a vested interest in exporting and importing goods more freely as a way to increase the flow of capital within society. [3] And free trade is good. James tells us that free trade is advantageous for the Us specifically and for people abroad because it reduces the risk of great recessions, spurs innovation, expands capital flow, creates lower prices, increasing the variety of goods and increases productivity. Thus, free trade is good for the people of Libya. Olson goes on to further point out that democracies have the most stable of economies throughout the world including the Middle East – Israel and Turkey. [3] C3: Intervention in the Middle East and securing hegemony in the Middle East solves multiple problematic scenarios for the US. Brzezinski writes, "The combination of oil and volatility gives the United States no choice. America faces an awesome challenge in helping to sustain some degree of stability among precarious states inhabited by increasingly politically restless, socially aroused, and religiously inflamed peoples. It must undertake an even more daunting enterprise than it did in Europe more than half a century ago, given a terrain that is culturally alien, politically turbulent, and ethnically complex. In the past, this remote region could have been left to its own devices. Until the middle of the last century, most of it was dominated by imperial and colonial powers. Today, to ignore its problems and underestimate its potential for global disruption would be tantamount declaring an open season for intensifying regional violence, region-wide contamination by terrorist groups, and the competitive proliferation of weaponry of mass destruction." [4] Thus, the US needs to intervene in Libya as a way to promote stability in the North African region, secure an ally in the war on terror, prevent tragedies, such as the violence against the Libyan people, and as a way to signal strength to Middle Eastern and North African countries which might try and act independently of US hegemony. ==Sources== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Rummel, Democratic Peace: Reevaluating China's Democides to be 73,000,000 [3] Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups [4] The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership" p 59-61