The Unites States is not concerned with MORALITY when operating its foreign policy and entering war

Sorry about round 2...I'll try to catch up here. In Round 1 my opponents writes: "Why do the pro-war organizations cite Moral Obligation when advocating the use of the American military on international soil? If "The United States is not concerned with MORALITY", then why bother? Unless.... well .... you would think the only reason we cite, iterate, and reiterate moral obligation is that WITHOUT a moral obligation, it would be impossible for a Democracy, such as the US, to enter into any extended military operation." I would agree that without the APPEARANCE of a Moral Obligation, "it would be impossible for a Democracy, such as the US, to enter into any extended military operation." As we all know, apperances can be decieving. This concept plays into the point i made in my opening about the disconnection between American rhetoric and American action. My opponent refences a superb example of this with the Cuban Revolution of 1895 and the role the United States played in the surrounding events and influences. At the time of the Cuban Revolution, Unites States owned over 50% of all Cuban industry, primarily in sugar and tobacco. Although it was polically a Spanish colony, U.S. interests ran and operated its economic engine. Keep in mind that Cuba had only abolished slavery less than a decade before this point (1886), an act which was fiercey opposed by many in the US government who were beholdin to the system's benefactors. My opponent believes that it was the Morality of U.S. policy that prevented us from entering the Spanish-American War prior to 1898 (which was when the Teller amendment was passed and a congresional declaration of war was made). However what my oppenent has neglected to tell you was that the United States was in negotions with a weakened colonial Spain to purchase Cuba (not liberate) which fell through in 1896. In 1898 the US battleship, the USS Maine, mysteriously exploded off the coast of Cuba (Spanish claim to know nothing about it and it is now generally believed that it was not an enemey attack), and the event was used to stir public sentiment into a pro war-position. The US public was also bombarded by the media with messages of the horrible conditions of their neighboring Spanish colonial subjects (in Cubas case, conditions that were made considerably worse by the proceeding American puppet governments). Its true, the government must present the facade of Morality when selling a given Imperial venture, as it did with Cuba, but this FASCADE is not the TRUTH. To understand America's rise in modern history is to understand the oppurtunistic CORPORATE nature of U.S. policy. Lets take a look at Cuba after the so called Revolution. "The growth of US sugar estates was so quick that in 1905 nearly 10% of Cuba's total land area belonged to US citizens. By 1902 US companies controlled 80% of Cuba's core exports and owned most of the sugar and cigarette factories" -Navarro, Josï¿½ Cantï¿½n: History of Cuba, Havana, Cuba, 1998, p. 76 -Compare this rapid success of U.S. interest to the desparaging and fleeting conditions of most Cubans and you have a good picture of the winners and losers of the revolution. Couple this U.S. economic dominance with the Platt amendment, which essentially gave the U.S. control over the Cuban Military, and you have a very un-democratic democracy. I encourage the viewers of this debate to do a little research on Fulgencio Batista, the U.S. backed military strong man that reigned over Cuba defacto/and officially from the 1933 Coup until Castro's revolution. There was NO morality in American policy towards Cuba. The U.S. supported and orchastrated the murder of thousands and the oppression of millions in Cuba and created a political dynamic that virtually guarantees perpetual militarism in Cuban government. Why did it do this? Money or Morality? I dont know how anyone could intelligently argue the latter. My opponent makes an interesting arguement when he said: "Whenever we speak about an American decision regarding foreign policy, we have no choice but to ultimately acknowledge that it is a decision made By People, and even if these people are not Saints, it stretches credibility to imagine that these people operate without ANY sense of morality." These people, in the context we are speaking of, dont operate as people, they operate as components of an intitution. Institutions operate for many purposes, however, I do not believe the institutions that manifest U.S. foreign policy have a moral purpose. In the case of Cuba they opperated primarily with an economic purpose and completely overlooked, even perpetuated the moral catastrophe that ensued. The United States government (and the financial institutions that exercise great power over it) has no more of a moral compass than a cigerette company. Morality is merely a pragmatic means to an end, but never the end itself. Quite simply, WAR can not be the means to that end. Finaly my opponents says that because we give money(over $15 billion per year) to foreign contries that this must mean we are doing good in the world. I have two short responses to this arguement. 1. My premise was never that the Unites States does nothing positive in the world. Even though we spend less of our economy on foreign aid than any other industrialized nation in the World, we do infact shell out about $15 billion to various inernational programs. 2. The U.S. would not give a cent to any foreign (or domestic) institution (or individual) if it did'nt see a net benifit in the action. As I said, the U.S. is not in the business of making things better for the people of the world, but sometimes it can be benificial if it is viewed as such. Symbols are important. Sorry for missing round one and thanks for debating.....