Governments must consider the moral implications of their actions when formulating foreign policy

========== Contention A ========== My opponent says we are getting too tangled in specific examples here, and that we are losing the origins of the argument. I really don't see how the original argument has any bearings without supporting examples, but I will grant my opponent's request and drop the examples. Voters, please decide for yourselves given the arguments your verdict on my opponent's argument: "I contend that if we try to follow a moral code, it will lead to national security impacts of large proportions, because any time you take into account factors other than military capability and absolute necessity for national survival, you run the risk of over extending your military and being inefficient at achieving your goals. Is it possible to achieve national policy goals AND be moral? It seems like an easy "yes," but please decide for yourselves. ========== Contention B ========== Please do not take my statistics the wrong way, I am not putting blood on your hands. My opponent clearly was not the one who sanctioned Iraq. However, the sanctioning policies were immoral. First of all, let me remind you that this death toll consists of the deaths thought to have been caused by the sanctions, and do not include the normal death rate. Secondly, the sanctions killed the Iraqis BECAUSE Saddam is a "Genocidal maniac" who horded the remaining supplies. Due to the US cutting off supplies, the little remaining resources were kept for the dictator, and thus hundreds of thousands died. This does not seem to achieve morality OR national policy. (Of saving face in the global realm) In addition, the annihilation of the Iraqi army was not the cause of the economic collapse. If anything, it aided the economy. Thousands of paychecks did not have to be paid, and food rations were kept for the home front. Clearly it was the sanctions that acted immorally. No connection to Al Qaeda? The last time I checked, housing insurgents counts as a connection. Some of the main terrorist camps were in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Truman Doctrine-World Police? While my opponent does not agree with our status as policeman, he concedes that we are. I see the need to further clarify the "agent of its members" idea. A just government is made of the members of its society, and represents said society. (Thus, an agent of its members) The government must act according to its members' wishes, or it ceases to be just. Therefore, a just government's actions are in the national interest, and thus uphold national policy and morality. ========== Contention C ========== My opponent throws up a few straw men during his defense here. Noting the resolution, the affirmative is not arguing that a government must act according to morally, but simply that it must consider morality in its actions. I am not advocating a policy where we "free the women" of Saudi Arabia. My opponent still fails to realize the moral implications of our dealings with Stalin. Practical or not, we supported morality by ending the killing sooner. Had we gone against Stalin, more soldiers on both sides would have died, AND he would have kept slaying his own citizens. This route is less moral than the first because while we would be rebuking Stalin's actions, the real-world effects would be more devastating and immoral. Wrapping up, I would like to point our attention back to the resolution. The affirmative advocates for moral responsibility in foreign policy actions. The negative advocates practicality. Note that the affirmative still acts practically, but CONSIDERS the moral implications of its actions. Seeing as morality when practical seems the better option than practicality regardless of morality, I urge an affirmative vote. Thank you. http://www.weeklystandard.com...