Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

This is a PF debate. Anyone accepting this debate will be expected to know the rules of PF (including reliability of sources, what a crossfire is etc.). Round 1 will be speech 1, plus any questions my opponent has that need to be answered. Round 2 will be crossfire 1. Round 3 will be speech 2, and round 4 will be crossfire 2. Round 5 will be final focus. ----------------------------------------------------- Contentions: 1. Democracy promotion does not set up a successful democracy 2. The fate of other nations is none of our business 3. We cannot afford another war In this debate intervention will include any military or political/economic intervention. Contention 1: Democracy promotion does not set up a successful democracy In order for a democracy to succeed it must be non-corrupt and have the support of the people over all other forms of government. Corruption is rampant in so called democracies in the Middle East today. For example, Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan and an American citizen, is being accused on endemic corruption because he has a net worth of $12 million. His main business before 2001 was a restaurant in Massachusetts [1]. How does one amass such a massive net worth with a small restaurant? One doesn't, and that means that Karzai had some shady dealings in Afghanistan. This not only hurts the chances of a successful democracy in Afghanistan, but also damages the reputation of the US. The US has no power over the turn of events in other nations, no matter we think it does. In 2009, the US tried to set up a new democratic government in Honduras, "a small country in the US's traditional sphere of influence" [4], after the democratically elected president in Honduras was overthrown. The US had to eventually settle for a less democratic government. Contention 2: The fate of other nations is none of our business Form of government in the Middle East does not affect us in any way. We could care less about whether Karzai was a dictator or a "democratically" elected leader, just as long as he didn't support al Qaeda. Likewise, we could care less about whether Saudi Arabia was under a dictatorship or a democracy, as long as they supply us with cheap oil. Since the form of government in another country is none of our business, there is no reason we should waste our time and resources trying to change it. We do not even have our allies' support. According to Journal of Democracy Volume 22, Number 2, the "Global powers" are "not promoting democracy", but instead "responded with equivocation or silence", while "authoritarians have acted with aggression and self-assurance". Intervening in general creates opposition to the US. When the intervening party has no business in the situation, the opposition only compounds. This concept was clearly demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, where growing amounts of people want the US to get out, and perhaps will be demonstrated in Libya and Syria. If a nation supports democracy and is willing to fight for it, there is no need to intervene. The civilians of Egypt ousted Mubarak by themselves. The civilians of Tunisia ousted Ben Ali by themselves. The French Revolution occurred by itself. There is a saying that the end justifies the means, but everyone agrees that the less involvement on your part required in the means, the better. If people that want democracy can get democracy without US intervention, then why should the US intervene? Contention 3: Intervention is expensive According to President Obama, the Iraq War cost "eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars." The cost of Afghanistan was similar: nine years, tens of thousands of American and Afghan lives, and almost half a trillion dollars [2]. There are 23 countries in the region we like to call the Middle East [3], and if we promote democracy in all of those we can expect to spend at least $13 trillion. The question is: are these expenses worth the promoting democracy. The answer is a resounding no. Not only does the US fail to get any benefit from war in the Middle East and in other developing countries, but it also gets plenty of disgrace and shame for not being able to make progress. The Taliban are stronger than ever and Karzai's impotent security forces are nowhere close to finishing their training [5]. I oppose the resolution because democracy promotion is expensive, none of our business, and very unlikely to succeed. I urge you to vote con. Sources: [1] http://www.npr.org... [2] The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 [3] geography.about.com/od/lists/a/officiallist.htm [4] planet debate [5 past debates