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

Answers to my opponent's questions: 1. The advantage of not intervening is saving crap loads of money that can be better spent to improve our domestic environment. We have spent more than a trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the day when we can call the troops back with our mission accomplished is nowhere in sight. The same thing would be said of any other wars/invasions that the US may start to promote democracy. It outweighs the alleged benefits from your case since the US cannot afford the long-term cost of democracy promotion, no matter what benefits promotion may bring. 2. "How would you envision the world with a US retreat from the global scene?" That's like asking what happens when a head of the police department gets fired. Either the police department is left leaderless but otherwise intact or the police department finds a new leader to replace the one that got fired. Likewise, new democracies would be without a role model, but no harm would come to them. 3. I cannot speak for Middle Eastern states that the US hasn't touched, but Iraqis and Afghans certainly want us out. 4. Diplomacy should bring a satisfactory solution to any alleged problems with Iran having nuclear power. If not, we can always tighten the embargo of nuclear materials to Iran. 5. The idea that terrorism has a solution is laughable in itself. Terrorism is the use of violence to get something desired. If you can't get rid of greed or the violence in human nature, there is no way you are going to solve terrorism. As for terrorist groups, I see nothing wrong with the existing approach: search and destroy. 6. Yes, when the country asks the US to be involved. Otherwise it's none of the US's business. 7. It depends on the leaders. An autocracy with a good leader is a viable government. An autocracy with a bad one should fall to revolution. Same with democracy, except the bad leaders in a democracy should be impeached instead of shot. Second Speech: In my opponent's 2nd contention, he states that democracy reduces terrorism by eliminating xenophobia, economic hardships, and religious intolerance. He doesn't explain how democracy would eliminate these things. I will explain how democracy doesn't eliminate these things. During the 2nd Red Scare, America, the role model for democracy, went into a panic at the mere mention of Communism. This can be best described as the historical epitome of xenophobia. Also, there are plenty of poor people and anti-Semitics in the US, so in what way does democracy eliminate economic hardship and religious intolerance? In my opponent's 3rd contention, he states that the US would gain hegemony in the Middle East if it promoted democracy there. Hegemony is just another word for imperialism. How promoting democracy will suddenly turn the US into an imperial power is beyond anyone's imagination. But even if democracy promotion had that effect, would it be ethical to colonize the Middle East? My opponent argued earlier that humans are equal and should be treated equally, and now he's arguing that we should imperialize certain nations. How anyone ever deserved to be born into an imperialized country is beyond me. Rebutting my 3rd contention, my opponent implies that we shouldn't care about cost. All civilians have to worry about bills and savings, but apparently the US government doesn't. Whenever the government runs out of money they can just print more. Who cares about inflation? The worst that can happen is a global economic recession, and recessions end eventually. And plus, we can avoid inflation by raising taxes or borrowing from other nations. The worst that can happen is that we add a 15th digit in front of the 14 digits of our national debt. And after we successfully set up a democracy in the Middle East after 20 years, we can trade our way out of debt. First of all, whether or not the US will be successful in setting up a democracy is still in question. Democracy has failed in the past and there is no guarantee that it won't fail in the present, even with the US's help. US troops have spent 9 years in Afghanistan, and the Afghans are still stuck with a corrupt leader that is certainly not democratic. And no wonder, since the two factors my opponent claims caused past democracies to fail are present in Afghanistan. Karzai is far from liberal, and times are so bad that whole Afghan families smoke opium poppy to ease hunger pangs. Second, whether or not the newly found democracy will engage in free trade and help us get out of debt is also in question. As I've mentioned before, governments engage in free trade because it's in national interest, not because they are democracies. In short, my opponent fails to show how promoting democracy will in any way help the US, instead of only weakening the US economically. I urge a CON ballot. Sources: [1] past debates