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

This is a PF debate. Anyone accepting this debate will be expected to know the rules of PF (including reliability of sources, what a crossfire is etc.). Round 1 will be speech 1, plus any questions my opponent has that need to be answered. Round 2 will be crossfire 1. Round 3 will be speech 2, and round 4 will be crossfire 2. Round 5 will be final focus. ----------------------------------------------------- Contentions: 1. Democracy may not be the best form of government for certain countries. 2. Democracy in other nations is none of our business 3. Intervention is expensive In this debate intervention will include any military or political/economic intervention. Contention 1: Democracy may not be the best form of government for certain countries. Democracy has been a shining success in the US, but that doesn't mean that it will be for the Middle East, or for any other region for tat matter. There are a lot of examples in history of failed democracies, from France's directory during the French Revolution to Germany's Weimar Republic. In order for a democracy to succeed it must be non-corrupt and have the support of the people over all other forms of government. So far only Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia have shown any interest for democracy, making democracy the best government for them but not for other nations. Also, if a nation supports democracy and is willing to fight for it, there is no need to intervene. The civilians of Egypt ousted Mubarak by themselves. The civilians of Tunisia ousted Ben Ali by themselves. The French Revolution occurred by itself. There is a saying that the end justifies the means, but everyone agrees that the less involvement on your part required in the means, the better. If people that want democracy can get democracy without US intervention, then why should the US intervene? Contention 2: Democracy in other nations is none of our business, and may not even benefit us Form of government in the Middle East does not affect us in any way. We could care less about whether Karzai (president of Afghanistan) was a dictator or a democratically elected leader, just as long as he didn't support al Qaeda. Likewise, we could care less about whether Saudi Arabia was under a dictatorship or a democracy, as long as they supply us with cheap oil. Since form of government is none of our business, there is no reason we should waste our time and resources trying to change it. We do not even have our allies' support. According to Journal of Democracy Volume 22, Number 2, the "Global powers" are "not promoting democracy", but instead "responded with equivocation or silence", while "authoritarians have acted with aggression and self-assurance". Intervening in general creates enemies (such as Osama). One can only expect more enemies when the intervening party has no business in the situation. In everyday life, we hate nosy people that butt into conversations where they have absolutely no part. In the international world, nations at war or chaos hate nosy nations that intervene where they have no business. This concept was clearly demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, where growing amounts of people want the US to get out, and perhaps will be demonstrated in Libya and Syria. Contention 3: Intervention is expensive According to President Obama, the Iraq War cost "eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars." The cost of Afghanistan was similar: nine years, tens of thousands of American and Afghan lives, and almost half a trillion dollars [1]. It's common knowledge that wars are expensive. The question is: are these expenses worth the fate of Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer is a resounding no. Not only does the US fail to get any benefit from the wars (Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD's and Osama would've been shot with or without the war in Afghanistan), but it also gets plenty of disgrace and shame for not being able to make progress for nine years. The Taliban are stronger than ever and Karzai's impotent security forces are nowhere close to finishing their training. I oppose the resolution based on the possible unsuitability, potential backfire, and potential expense of democracy promotion and urge you to vote con. Sources: [1] The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 [2] planet debate [3] past debates