President Obama was justified in intervening in Libya.

So far, we can see Pro giving claims with NO factual support, NO sources, and honestly no merit. I will defend my position and then go on to my opponents "claims". 1) President Obama's acted unconstitutionally Pro is trying to tear this down by saying that within the initial 30 days, in accordance to the War Powers Resolution, Obama was doing nothing wrong. Pro claims that the resolution was meant to focus on the initial intervention. But it quite clearly states "President Obama was justified in intervening in Libya". Not "President Obama was justified in the initial intervention in Libya". You can't change the topic once we have started debating, sorry. Also, it is past the initial 30 days....it's also past 60 days, and still nothing from the Obama administration. Therefore, my legal argument not only stands, but is left untouched. 2) Intervention in Libya is going to lead to more and more American intervention. Pro has failed to even recognize this contention, so allow me a brief second to reiterate it's importance; American soldiers and resources, who are clearly in Libya for the gains of foreign nations, not for protecting democracy (if it was, are showing our Country to be the police of the world, someone you can just rely on to do all the work. Many countries allied with the U.S. have very small armies, because they know we will step in and defend them. Is it our job to spend our valuable American lives and resources? Because that's exactly what's happening. Todd Harrison, Senior Fellow for Defense Budget Studies, estimates the price. "Harrison estimated the cost of the no-fly zone after the first strikes are over at $30-100 million per week. " (http://www.alarabiya.net...) 3) Libya is of no National Interest/Security to the United States Pro attacks my contention with the notion that Libya supplies all our oil, having some great leverage over us. It's simply not the case. In fact, Libya is very low on the level of oil the supply us with. They are not even on our list of top 15 oil importing countries, and are 17th on the list of top oil exporters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). With 16 other nations to get our oil from (us being one), how does it make sense to spend billions of dollars helping out the Libyans, when there is NO gain, despite what Pro claims. Now on with my opponents position and points. I will sort them as such; 1. Spreading Democracy 2. Increase in U.S. hegemony 1. Spreading Democracy Obama acted to protect fledgling democracies in the Arab world (and to protect Libyan civilians) but it's not clear what this doctrine implies with regards to other troubled states. For example, Burma (Myanmar) has one of the most repressive governments in the world and an incipient pro-Democracy group led by Aung San Suu Kyi. Millions of civilians have been displaced, brutalized, or killed, while Burma's neighbors are all struggling to become more democratic. It's reasonable to ask why hasn't the US formed an international coalition to topple the Burmese dictators? This leads to Pro's first point being invalid, and it falls. 2. Increase in U.S. hegemony First of all, that's just a horrible reason to be invading a place. It sounds straight up dictatorial, and that's NOT justified under our constitution AT ALL. Neither is spending valuable American resources in the name of foreign influence justifiable. I refer to my definition of Justified (in accordance to the Merriam-Webster dictionary): to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done. Is increasing U.S. influence a sufficient lawful reason? No, it's not. It's not even a good reason, let alone a lawful one. Completely unjustified. Secondly, stating that it's a matter of an increase for U.S. hegemony is not a priority level reason. If it was, we would be allowed to occupy and control foreign countries, issuing spheres of influences. Completely ludicrous. |Conclusion| All of the four sentences Pro posted are not back by any facts, and are just speculation and should be taken as such. I have refuted the points my opponent has made, and we all come to the conclusion that all my contentions held up, and every point I made about Obama being unjustified was valid, sourced, and completely relevant, while Pro's were the exact opposite. I urge a Con vote for the three contentions: President Obama's acted unconstitutionally, Intervention in Libya is going to lead to more and more American intervention, and Libya is of no National Interest/Security to the United States. Thank you.