Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other

FIRST I WILL ADDRESS THE FACT THAT NONE OF MY ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY MY OPPONET AND THERFORE ALL MY ARGUMENTS STAND AND FLOW THROUGH TO THE NEXT ROUND. Now onto the VALUE AND CRITERION DEBATE. My opponets value is freedom and his criterion is nirvana. He defined nirvana has place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry, and the external world. This is whole argument is a utopian idea. And perfect world idea in which we know that there is no such thing as a perfect world. However he said that it mean't freedom from the external world??? Which means it is better upheld on the negative side because to be completly free from the external world one cannot intervene in another state! So we can see his criteria is not being up held because people could be free from the external worlds if we intervene. Thus according to his criterion we must negate the resolution. And with the drop of his criterion all his arguments fall aswell however I will address those points as well. 1:Arguments that force will only make things worse ignore the result of WW2. Lets get in to depth on this point... "World War 2 serves as one gigantic empirical example of the potential of humanitarian intervention to work to save lives meaning humanitarian intervention can be successful and so intervening can be morally justified." He said that it is justified in intervening. However what says whether it is or isnt justified. The only person in this debate that as presented a criteria for justifications is me. So we must look to my criteria of the JUST WAR THEORY, in which we find the us in not justified for these reasons 2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough. We have seen the US have ulterior motives with Iraq Ambassador James F. Jeffrey said that a main reason for invading iraq was for oil resources. Also our Ambassador of Afganistan James B. Cunningham said that a main reason for going in to Afgan was that American geologists discovered that there were a trillion dollars worth of metal in Afghanistan. This mineral deposit is perhaps the largest in the world, containing valuable metals like gold and silver, along with rare metals such as platinum and rhodium. Therefore the are ulterior motives for going to war other than stopping human rights abuse. 3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate states around the world. We already know that the UN Resolution stated that No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any State. The us must have respect for the international social contract in which the us in not justified in a unilateral decision. Making the us unjustified but also losing legitimacy. 4. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. We"ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years now. And we are still human rights abuses have not stopped! Therefore we know there is not a great chance of success. Also we make things worse. Nils Gleditsch, a Research professor at the International Peace Research Institute said intervention rarely works and countries never rehabilitate and change there ways it also results in a very weak relationship between the two countries this study was done through out 1931-2010. 5. Proportionality. Can we honestly say that America has been proportionate with Iraq and Afganistan. We are not being proportionate because we"ve been invaded these two countries for 10 years. C2: Jus in bello which is justice during the war. Again the US must fulfill all the criteria in order to be justified. 1. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity. Soldiers are only entitled to use their weapons to target those who are abusing human rights. Unless the Aff can guarantee that no civilians will be killed. And that the only targets will be the people abusing human rights. America is not justified in going to war. 2. Proportionality. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. We have seen this power abused in Afganistan and Iraq where once human rights were obtained we still occupied these countries. 3. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war. If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer"engaged in harm." Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. However we have seen that America has abused human rights of these prisoners of war in Guantanmo bay and Abu Grahib. The red cross reported that there are ongoing torture, sexual degradtion, forced drugging, extreme torture, sleep deprivation, religious persecution, and medical experimentation. Thus we see that the just war theory criteria is not met making the us not justified in going to war. So we must negate the resolution. We see that lives will not be saved and we are not successfull with evidence such as IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS!