US should intervene in Libya

2, pro stated that I needed to give a logical reason as to why the US is not "fit" to help out Libya whether or not it has anything to do with us. The logical reason is because we are certainly not capable of helping Libya with more military aid. Currently, the US is fighting two other Muslim wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. Roughly 35% of the total amount of money spent on the military since 2001 is because of them. (. http://costofwar.com...) Adding another war to the list is simply undo-able. ==Rebuttal==Protection of Human RightsA) I ask for pro to explain what basic human rights are being violated by not intervening with military forces. The people in Libya are indeed being recognized by Qadaffi's violent actions. We are intervening but this debate calls for non-military actions. For Pro's contention one, I would like to state that the US and in fact Europe is blamed currently for providing Muammar al Qadaffi, weapons in the past. With this fact, I would like to point out that the US did indeed "help" Libya. However, we are the ones to have brought upon the violence that is occuring right now. (. http://articles.cnn.com...) He calls for the continuing of military intervention which equates to killing and murdering of people and defends his side by stating that humans deserve equal protection. (1) I would like to ask my opponent why he believes borders are arbitrary. They are indeed, not. Look at Korea or Vietnam. Those countries went through war to decide the boundaries thus proving borders are in fact made not by random choice. I agree, currently the US is the most powerful nation on earth. But I would like to ask, so what? The fight in Libya is not ours. Our only desire to intervene with Libya at all is due to their pure oil but currently, Libya is not selling much due to the strike there. We are only importing .63 percent of our total amount of oil recieved from Libya. (. http://www.worldcityweb.com...) Even still, Libya is not really of self-importance to the U. S. They are not being punished for being born there, they are just in a conflict they have yet to solve themselves. (2) Like I have stated, I would like Pro to explain how/which law the US is ignoring. We are intervening. This debate however, calls for a less violent way of intervention. Democratic Promotion is AdvantageousLibya is a non-democratic society. It is an absolute dictatorship lead by Muammar al Qadaffi. Therefore, I do not understand why Pro tried to make an argument by stating that democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other. I do not understand the point he is trying to make. If what I think he is trying to say is correct, which is: the US should try turning Libya into a democratic nation, that is almost impossible unless we go to war and eliminate the entire government. Calling for war just to turn a whole country into a democracy is completely selfish and undo able with unecessary deaths to both sides. If the People of Libya want a democracy, they should handle it on their own. It is simply not our fight. B) My rebuattal for this one will be similar to the previous. Trying to turn a whole country into a whole different system of government is impossible. Why Libya? What do they have that we want? Oil? Is that really worth investing more money? We have been trying to eliminate Osama Bin Laden and the taliban since the tragic occurrence in 9/11. We called for war and the war is still happening today and that was just to eliminate a small group and its leader. At least it was a valid reason to call for war since they attacked us. However, we are trying to eliminate a whole government, and they have not done anything to us. What Pro calls for is violence to achieve less violence which doesn't really benefit us in any way. Due to the lack of words remaining, I will rebut Pro's last contention in the next round and provide my own arguments==Arguments==--Libya isn't of self interest towards the US-- Oil has impacted Libya and currently the country is on an oil strike. Due to this fact, the US and other countries aren’t gaining any oil from them. However, it isn’t of importance to the US considering Libya only brings in 44,000 barrels of oil a day, which is less than 1% of the US’s total oil import. Additionally, because the US doesn’t receive much oil from Libya, it would not be hard for other countries to contribute for the absence of Libyan oil. . http://www.worldcityweb.com...;It is clear that the Libyan people need to be freed from their tyrant leader, yet the United States does not necessarily have the means to do it. The economic consequences as well as the risk of American lives discourages action, but the rights of our fellow men and women must also be defended. True independence and freedom must be achieved in Libya, but the decision is if the United States should be the one to enforce it. --There are less violent actions to solve this problem-- Rather than just hastily adding more military into Libya, the US should think of a more non-violent solution. The US has many beneficial ways of damaging Libya non-violently as well, such as international sanctions against Libya or threatening war crime trials against Qaddafi. --This can become a bigger problem than the US expects-- Calling for war can lead to a devastating conlusion. If the US acts too hastily, then it could lead to much more serious events and more terrorist acts from the Libyan government. He began with radical Arab comments and “propaganda” for support in his extremist movements, but later supported violence against his rivals. He also called up terrorist groups which were the main reasons for death of American citizens in Libya. . http://en.wikipedia.org... --It is not our fight-- Are we at all being affected by Qadaffi? No. The only reason we could possibly WANT to have Libya on our side is because of their oil. But that is not a reason to call for war. It will make it look like the US is greedy and attacks countries with a rich oil supply. Also, if the People of Libya want a democracy, then, in time, they will get it. No matter how powerful Qadaffi might be, as long as the people want a democracy, they will get it. However, if they do not, then the US is in no situation to tell them otherwise. . http://www.jewishworldreview.com...