The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

I'll try to keep this short, since this has gone on long enough.I have a few key voting issues.(1) Choice vs. obligationAssuming that you agree with my resolutional analysis, a Pro vote means the US must intervene in every international conflict. Voting Con allows us to pick and choose to intervene only when it is in our self-interest to do so. For a moral obligation to mean anything, it must mean that we are forced to intervene even when we don't want to.One key reason to buy my resolutional analysis is that if the resolution were: "you are obligated to wash the dishes," this mean that you must wash all the dishes, not that you can choose which two dishes you want to wash. Pro argues that being morally obligated to intervene in "international conflicts" means we can pick two (and then our obligation is satisfied). I would argue that this is not a moral obligation at all, if you can pick and choose when you want it to apply.(2) All my arguments turn Pro's casePro argues that we need to uphold national security to save American lives. However, all four of my objections show how intervening makes us less safe or costs American lives.First, cost. If we transfer wealth abroad to mitigate regional issues, this is a theft from Americans who need that money to survive. In addition, costly wars bankrupt our nation. Remember my argument that all the great empires (Roman, British) went bankrupt from fighting so many wars. If another large war (like Iraq) bankrupts us, we cannot engage in national security *at all.* We will be forced to cut down on the size of our military. And if we bankrupt ourselves, no one will lend our government money if we need it to fight a key war.Second, military overstretch. If we're fighting a major conflict in one place, we cannot fight a major conflict in another. This decreases our power projection and deterrence in other parts of the world. Our allies and our own country is less safe every time we dispatch most of our troops to one area. Decreased deterrence means an increased probability of war against an ally or the homeland.Third, terrorist sentiment. Al Qaeda and the experience with the British quartering of troops in colonial America proves that a large troop presence stokes resentment, which inevitably leads to violent backlash. Thus, interventions make us less safe.Fourth, battle fatigue. The American people are tired of war because of Afghanistan and Iraq. When there are arguably cases where we need to put boots on the ground (like when al Qaeda almost overran Yemen), we could not do so because Americans are tired of war. Thus, fighting too many times makes it less likely that the American people will support a war when we actually need to engage in it. The United States is a democracy, so battle fatigue among the American public does matter if you care about your ability to engage in strategic combat that can uphold national security. (3) Pro offers no good, unrefuted examples Pro says in the last round that Pro's three examples from round one were "refuted":"I have proved via 11 applications this point, to which only 3 of them have been refuted." Pro seems to be conceding that WWI, WWII, and the First Gulf War are not good examples because those are the ones I refuted (as being about our self interest - not morality - and proving why meddling makes us less safe with regards to Pearl Harbor and a nuclear-armed Iran).The other 8 examples were a laundry list. My opponent's LD coach would be disappointed. When you offer an example in debate, you have to back it up with evidence and analysis. It's not my job to refute a list of 8 conflicts. A lot of these weren't even "international" conflicts because they involved internal strife within one country. And I already expressed doubt that our intervention in Pakistan has made us any more safe, given what a terrible "ally" Pakistan has been. There have been reports that the ISI (Pakistan intelligence) works directly with al Qaeda and funnels money to the Taliban.In sum, Pro does not really give a single future example of when an intervention would be permissible and would uphold our national security. So Pro does not even meet his own burden to prove two future interventions, assuming you buy his bastardized version of the resolution. Conclusion: Vote Con to preserve choice. We don't want to have to intervene because our "morality" dictates it. We only want to intervene when it's in our self-interest to do so. Otherwise, we will bankrupt our nation with constant military intervention (empirically, we've had one new one every sixteen months since the end of the Cold War), and we will make ourselves less safe due to the collateral consequences of intervening. Ask yourself: do you want to live in a world where no obligation exists, but we may choose to intervene, or a world where Pro's resolution obligates us to do so.