participation of foreign countries in protecting human rights of a country could be justified.

Hi and thanks again! Again, apologies for my always long arguments. I hope I don't bore you! -My opponent claims that when a certain country violates the rules and regulations of the international community, then foreign countries are allowed to participate in that country's affairs in order to protect/help its civilians and human rights. However, many foreign countries, armed with their reasons of dictatorship, violations of human rights, and authoritarian government, will invade the particular country, drop bombs, go on air raids, etc. They are also responsible for killing instead of protecting the civilians, just like what they accuse the dictator of the country doing. -For an example, it states in the article -about the war in Libya, "Libya Intervention More Questionable in Rear View Mirror", (written April 5th, 2013 by Jim Lobe) on the Inter Press Service News Agency website, "As the civil war intensified " albeit inconclusively ..... however........ Britain, France, and the U.S., took more aggressive measures in support of the rebels. These ranged from on-the-ground training to supplying arms and providing real-time tactical intelligence, until Tripoli fell in late August and Gaddafi was killed two months later. Thus, an operation undertaken purely for humanitarian reasons eventually became one dedicated to regime change." Notice the last sentence. This article provides the clear example that many foreign countries intervene in a country that is "violating human rights" with a mouthful of great reasons-we're protecting the civilians, we're saving the innocent people from the crimes of their government, etc., etc. -and then in the end, it turns out- oh yeah, we were going to save the citizens, but well, the "authoritarian" government was really provoking us, so we decided to, you know, overthrow it , toss the country into more chaos, (without a truly legitimate government) wipe our hands, and leave. You may argue that overthrowing a cruel regime is actually helping the citizens, and in the end, saving them, but it is not as it seems to be. Once that regime has been overthrown, the country will have to struggle with a new government, and who knows if that new government could be just as horrible or even worse than the old one. Not to mention it takes a long time to reconstruct a war torn city. and there may be more violence still, even after the war. And who's partly responsible? Foreign countries. After the Iraq War: http://www.npr.org... After the war in Libya: http://www.theglobeandmail.com... 2. The United Nations My opponent says that the United Nations decides and considers actions to be done once a certain country violates the international rules and regulations protecting human rights. I agree with my opponent on this part, but as in the Libya intervention example I have presented above,(and link) Britain, France, and the U.S. ended up playing roles in overthrowing the regime and leaving Libya in more chaos. Did United Nations want to kill Gadhafi? No, they did not. And sometimes, The United Nations can make some doubtful decisions. (I mean, I still admire it though.) United Nations on Libya: http://unu.edu... http://www.theworld.org... Lastly, my opponent points out that Gadhafi was killed by his own people, not by the foreign countries. That is true, but they committed a crime. They murdered him. It's not like the foreign countries who played a role in the Libya intervention weren't guilty. Gadhafi is one man, and countries like France, U.S., and Britain were really helping the rebels(refer to first quote at beginning of argument) with weapons and important information of the enemies. Wait a minute, I thought they intended to protect civilians and take them to safety and freedom, not actually get that involved? If you look at it, the foreign countries intervening in Libya charged up the protesters even more by supporting them, resulting in the bloody death of Gadhafi. (What about those thousands killed by the foreign countries during the war? No one's angry about that?) *One last note- my opponent asked that if we don't know a supposed dictator is bad, how do we know he's good? Exactly. We'll never really know, so we can't just go accusing him of being a dictator. I know Libya has been the central theme of this debate. I guess Libya just provides a lot of good examples for both sides. :) Thanks again and please bear with my long arguments. I have a tendency to write a lot. :)