Resolved: The US Ought to Aid Ukraine Militarily

I will first defend my contentions and argument and then attack my opponent's. My opponent does not really attempt to refute my first contention; that aiding Ukraine militarily would impose a minimal burden on the US, so this point flows through the round and I hope he attempts to refute it on R4. Defending C2: My opponent attacks my second contention primarily by attacking my value criterion; the hegemonic stability theory, he also attacks my value some, let's take a look: My opponent brings up the fact that I probably would not like it if I lived in a nation where the lead hegemon was marginalizing my country. He's right, I probably would not, but as I pointed out in my quote during R2, if the US so wishes to maintain it's role as lead hegemon, we must deal in power concepts, we must look at what acts will be best for our country first and foremost, and any benefit or hindrance that might happen as a result to another country as a byproduct, not the product in and of itself. It is in the interest of the United States to maintain the military and monetary disparity that the rest of the world has in comparison to the US, there is no doubting this, but it's also in the best interests of the world and maintaining stability. My opponent uses a historical example to enforce his argument; Afghanistan. This is, of course, the rallying cry of most pacifists and anti interventionists. This is still controversial today and is a flimsy way for my opponent to enforce his argument. As a policy expert at Cambridge University and Vasili Mitrokhin; the first chief directorate of the KGB and an ex soviet and archivist for the soviet union's intelligence service stated: there is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen. "[43] Peter Bergen writes that "[t]he real problem is not that the CIA helped bin Laden during the 1980s, but that the Agency simply had no idea of his possible significance until the bin Laden unit was set up within the CIA in January 1996. They argue that: with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of U. S. agents to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan;[14] the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen. Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri says much the same thing in his book Knights Under the Prophet's Banner. [15] Bin Laden himself once said "the collapse of the Soviet Union . .. goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan . .. the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant. " [16] . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... As you can see, while I am not denying my opponents claims (since no verifiable source can actually confirm or deny them), they are controversial and should be taken with a grain of salt, considering they are so fundamental to the core of his argument. Even the leader of the Al Qaeda and Bin Laden himself denied that they were funneled any aid, only Afghans were given aid, foreign armies were not aided by the USA, and it was the foreign arab armies that were held responsible for forming the Taliban, not the people that the US funneled aid to. My opponent expends the rest of his time and characters forming his own argument, that America is prideful and arrogant sees the world as it's own to plunder. I could easily refute these claims, but my opponent does nothing more than assert that they are true while providing no evidence of such "plundering" on a large or significant scale. The hegemonic stability theory and my value of enlightened self interest do not attempt to deny that the United States is acting in it's own interests, simply that the byproduct of this is world stability. We can see that in history, any time the lead hegemon started to collapse, instability followed. When the Roman Empire was absorbed by the vikings the dark ages followed. Competing hegemons led to WWI and WWII, and then we see the example where the US finally accepts its role as hegemon, the Cold War. The conditions for the cold war and pre-WWII were strikingly similar, except this time the US accepted it's role as hegemon and through multiple smaller wars, prevented World War III. Russia is attempting to rise again, the lessons of history have taught us that appeasing thugs and dictators in hopes that they will stop at the concessions we give them have failed. Before WWII, we would have had pacifists like yourself that would have advocated against the US impeding Germany's expansion, Hitler himself said: "If France had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs. " - Hitler . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... Ukraine, Crimea, is the 21st century Rhineland, Russia does not compare to the United States militarily, if we use force to back Ukraine, they will most likely withdraw with their tails between their legs, if we don't, it will only embolden them and other nations and undermine our hegemony. If we fail to stay the lead world hegemon, it will lay the groundwork for another large scale conflict with competing hegemons like China and Russia. My opponent claims that Russia should be able to handle affairs in its own backyard, let me ask him this. Would his opinion be any different if Mexico decided it was going to violate the United State's territorial sovereignty and send thousands of troops to Texas, Arizona, Southern California and New Mexico to protect 'ethnic hispanics' and then held it's own elections (where it didn't allow international oversight), and then annexed the territories? Or what if the US did that to Canada or Mexico to protect 'ethnic americans', would your opinion be any different? I imagine it would be. We can see today that what will actually keep the world at peace and what will actually work in reality is a practical theory that has been proven to work in history, not an idealistic slogan fabricated by Noam Chomsky. I eagerly await my opponents response.