US Involvement, Georgian-Russian conflict

My opponents final statement was, "Your argument essentially boils down to they are our friends so we help them no matter what, practically. That's blind ideology if I ever saw it." This is an outright lie. To recap, it is in the best interests of the United States to provide full back socially, economically, and militarily to Georgia because: -Despite what my opponent wants you to believe in her statement, "… the US would be sticking its nose in a situation that doesn't concern it. At least Russia has an arguable claim." She fails to realize that since its inception, Georgia, has been a concern of the U.S., as are all democratic nations for that matter. Not to mention the lives being disrupted and lost. I clearly pointed this out in my opening statement, and leads me into my next point. -It is the policy of the United States not to be divided and conquered by aggressor nations. My opponent is ignorant to the fact that the majority of this conflict is located within greater Georgia and not disputed regions[1]. Which is highly speculated as a move to disintegrate the Georgian government in an attempt to acquire more Georgian land[2]. Inaction threatens the security of all democratic nations. This point was also elaborated and not refuted by my opponent in my opening statements. -Finally it is important not to overlook the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Currently one of two pipelines supplying Europe's energy needs, the other owned by Russia; it threatens Russia current strangle hold on Europe. It is of most importance to liberate all of Europe, most specifically France[3], economically so that they will then be capable of assisting us in combating injustice and providing security to the world community. My opponent also states, "You say [sovereignty] should be respected, Georgia's, is why Russia should leave. If sovereignty should be respected,,,, then the US would be doing exactly what you're telling Russia not to do.. thus your [hypocrisy]." I would like the reader to review my earlier arguments and note that nowhere have I dictated what Russia should or should not do, but rather what the U.S. should do in response. Any allegation of hypocrisy should be dismissed as they were incompetent or malicious assumptions made by my opponent. Russia will do what it wants even if it risks the sovereignty and lives of other nations, but the U.S. is obligated to counteract these forces (See Above). "It'd be like if Maine was in good faith disputing its status... and got in a heat with the US. And then China came and bombed the US cause it was picking on Maine and supplying efforts to [thwart] them. How much sense does that make? " Wrong. It's more like if China killed or displaced all Non-Chinese in Maine, granted the remaining population citizenship, and in turn claimed territorial integrity of the region. I made clear of the ethnic genocide committed in disputed regions in my opening statement, but I'm beginning to believe my opponent hadn't bothered to read it. My opponents argument lack any substance, yet is riddled with nothing but inaccuracies and Anti-American sentiment. Of which is literate, my opponents argument blatantly disregards what would be in the best interests of the United States. The torrent of evidence suggesting full backing for Georgia in face of--nothing, leads to a obvious conclusion. Pro. [1]-http://online.wsj.com... [2]-http://www.eurasianet.org... [3]-http://www.heritage.org...