Resolved: The US Ought to Aid Ukraine Militarily

This shall be the last round to bring up any new points, then I ask that R5 just be centered around key voting issues and refutations of points already brought up. In response to my opponent's attack on my first contention: My opponent fails to fully comprehend my first contention, as it is centered around the fact that aiding Ukraine would indeed pose a minimal burden on the United States if we did it in the way I suggested. My opponent also distorts figures to work to his advantage. The US does indeed have a high deficit, but if you put it in to perspective with a more accurate measurement, the US deficit is not all that bad, for lack of a better word. To look at it from a more balanced perspective, I will use a Debt-to-GDP ratio chart. Japan, Canada, Egypt, France, the UK, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, and Singapore all have a higher Debt-to-GDP ratio than the United States. Basically, half of the developed, industrialized world has a higher debt in comparison to their GDP than the USA. To top it off, none of what my opponent says here really refutes my First Contention because it doesn't prove that doing the things I mentioned in my First Contention would impose a heavy burden on the USA. . http://upload.wikimedia.org... Defending C2: The US is still the lead hegemon, not even my opponent denies this, although he does say it is 'seriously being challenged'. Manpower at this point, and pretty much since the Cold War is but a small, insignificant indicator of military might, especially for the US since it's main competitors (China, Russia) are overseas. China could have a standing army of 100 million men, but due to superior US naval and Air Force strength, I doubt they'll ever land even 10,000 of those soldiers on our coasts to actually invade us before the aircraft and naval units transporting them are destroyed by our far superior navy and airforce. Under the MAD theory, Nuclear Weapons exist more as a deterrent than something any nation would most likely use in combat. Nations build nuclear weapons to ensure other nations don't fire their nuclear weapons at them, not to use them unless they are first used against them. Putin may be an arse, but he isn't insane and won't start a nuclear war that could destroy half the world, and probably most of his country over Ukraine. Sure there are nations ahead of us in certain areas of prosperity, but most of these nations have significantly lower populations to sustain. Let's actually analyze Jeff Daniel's speech on The Newsroom, because it's actually garbage. Most of the statistics are slanted or distorted, or from unreliable sources, including the infant mortality rate and education statistics. . http://www.forbes.com... . http://nypost.com... . http://joemiller.us... . http://www.politifactbias.com... (Four articles all refuting most of Sorkin's 'facts' in his speech). Response to Other Rebuttals: Simply saying we supported the Muhjahedeen is intellectually dishonest and, while it's the truth, isn't telling the full story. We (as I stated in R3) supported the Afghan Muhjahedeen, not the arab/foreign Muhjahedeen that is responsible for 9/11. A large part of the Muhjahedeen did go on to become the Taliban, but not the Muhjahedeen that was starkly anti western and responsible for 9/11. The Muhjahedeen that was responsible for 9/11 already had sufficient, significant funding from Saudi Arabia and many other wealthy arab nations. I need not source these claims as they were already sourced in R3. I am aware of Pol Pot and his atrocities, and I am aware that the USA aided the Khmer Rouge regime, and while what their regime did to their people is unacceptable and a blemish on the history of Cambodia, and a very unfortunate incident, the US was not the only nation to aid the Khmer Rouge regime. The UK, China, and a wealth of other foreign countries supported their regime, if you condemn the US in this case you must condemn many other nations. . http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu... . http://www.historyplace.com... Both nations did bad things, in one case the 'bad thing' that occurred (9/11) was not as a result of, or even partially a result of US aid, as I've proven. In the other case (The Khmer Rouge Genocide), all ASEAN nations, China, and the UK were also responsible. In response to your critique on my hegemonic stability theory: I believe that pacifism or non-intervention is idealistic and misses out on the political nature of humans and nations. The fact is that violence will always exist as a means to an end, and the only way to deter violence is by possessing the means to retaliate against this violence. We can both agree that the Roman Empire under Julius Caesar was corrupt and brutal. I do not even deny that this contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire, but corruption and brutality existed throughout the Empire after the Republic fell. The leading reason (as evidenced by historians) for the collapse, though, is actually the lack of fortifications that would have prevented the empire from outside attack by barbarians and vikings. My opponent also does not deny the fact that instability followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. The proof of Russia trying to rise again is this very scenario, and as I've shown it's very similar to pre-WWII conditions. My opponent says that no nation can just go "traipsing around Europe", why not? I highly doubt any nation is going to use their nuclear weapons to deter an invasion (although it cannot be proven or disproven with certainty which direction a nation would take), and the EU and NATO are comparable to the League of Nations before WWII, NATO was effective as a deterrent and rallying force during the Cold War, but the idea of intervening in a foreign nation to defend an ally is lost upon most nations because most people have a mentality similar to yours. When a nation threatens world stability (or a group of nations), it is the responsibility of the world hegemon and any strong nation capable to stop it, as it effects the stability of the world. Even most modern pacifists do not deny that it was necessary for the US to intervene in WWII on both fronts, or at least morally justifiable. Con, isolationism is a failed policy as evidenced by history over and over again, we cannot just have a strong military and stay within our borders and watch the stability of the world collapse around us and hope it doesn't come to our shores, this mentality is what has caused is to come to our shores. I suppose the Canadian anecdote was a bit poor, but that doesn't take away from the Mexican anecdote, the fact of the matter is that Mexicans: -Originally owned the states I mentioned - In some places make up an ethnic majority So I ask again, would it be justifiable if Mexico invaded these territories and held their own elections where they didn't allow international monitors? Democracy is good when it's transparent and doesn't involve violating a nation's sovereignty. Does my opponent think it was okay for the US southern states to secede in the civil war if the majority supported it? I am guessing not. We shouldn't go back with our tail between our legs if we want to stay the world hegemon. I await con's response, good debate so far.