Interventionism is Preferable to Isolationism

FrameworkI Will agree that the way Me and Varrack did this debate made it not as we intended, However,1. I think we can all agree that we wanted a debate where Pro had a BOP and i would try to debunk his points to fulfil his BOP but however this debate ended up being both sides presenting there case and the other side trying to debunk it. I will say that this is partly my fault since i wanted a case for Isolationism to be better than Interventionism which i have shown but i have not done as good of a job debunking of Pro brought up in his defense. So for this round i will bring up objections to his main points for interventionism and the reason why i did not but it all in was because of the way the debate was formatted or turned out and the characer limit. World War 2 and InterventionismI Will rebut Pro's claim on how invading Germany earlier would of resulted in World war 2 not happening and by standing by we let Germany go out of control. First i will show how it is actully Interventionism which caused World war 2 but you will need to look at the core reasons why Germany invaded in the first place, It was because of certain reasons Germany and most of the axis powers had a flawed view and that was called Interventionism which can be seen by Germany invading Europe, Japan invading Asia and so on. Now we need to adress why they got this idea on using intervention on our countries. It was because during World war 1 when they lost and they had to sign the Treaty of Versailles they were put with the blame of having started World war 1 and all this santactions and the Western World trying to act like it can run the world tried to punish Germany and as a result of this meddling this creates the seeds for world war 2 so i suggest Pro look at the cause not what was already happening and in my view since Germany was now invading the World and Japan invaded us then i will be perfectly ok in going to war with the axis powers. There's reasons on why countries are the way they are and most of the time its because we dont let them seddle out their own prombems and we try to do that and that leads to even worse promblems as i have shown. ISIS and Iraq Instabilty Pro says that ISIS being created by Us was a bare assertion which is false, I state my case and prove my arugment with links which if checked can find articles expalning how ISIS was created by the War on terror. Accoriding to mutiple sourcses which i will site. When we invaded Iraq in 2003 we created a puppet goverment which was led by the Shia marjoirty which started to suppress the Shunna minroirty which led to tensions and then a uprising which created the perfect battleground for other terror groups to fight the USA which caused even more Instablity and terror on earth which could of been avoided if we just did not get involded. In other words The Us Invasion led to the creation to the very terriosists the Us wanted to get rid of in the first place because iraq was the perfect training ground for terrosim combined with massive poverty, umemployment and relgious funaticism this led to the creation of Isis. They came to light after Syria fell to Civil war and they started to overtake parts of Syria and Iraq and they easily toppled the 25 billion dollar army we gave to Iraq to defend itself with. Unless Pro says we should occupy all the unstable countries forever in the world and run them ourselves like puppet goverments then he needs to concede that Us Interventionism caused ISIS and the Iraq Instabilty.WMB's In IraqPro says that there were Wmb's in Iraq and he sites the widely sited New York times article about it which NeoCon's point to as showing that George Bush was Right!. However Quoting from a article that debunks said article, The right was confused. The NYT piece, though important, referenced pre-1991 weapons. Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion was still completely wrong. With this in mind, over the weekend, the New York Times had another fascinating, well-researchedpiece on Iraq’s abandoned chemical weapons, and Republicans, apparently having learned literally nothing in October, are once again very excited by the prospect that Bush was “right all along.” The fact that the right hasn’t given up isn’t admirable; it’s sad. Pouncing on details Republicans don’t understand actually has the opposite of the intended effect – these bizarre, misguided celebrations serve as a reminder of just how spectacularly wrong they were, are, and will continue to be. To reiterate some of the points from our discussion in October, I can appreciate why the right is still a little sensitive on this. A Republican president lied the nation into a disastrous war, the consequences of which we’re still struggling to address, based in large part on weapons stockpiles that didn’t exist. That conservatives are still searching for some kind of evidence to justify the catastrophic Bush/Cheney failure isn’t too surprising. But it’s still wrong. Saddam had a chemical-weapons program, but it was inactive and several years old by the time the Bush/Cheney era began. When the Republican administration insisted that Saddam had an active WMD program that Iraq might use to attack the West and/or share with al Qaeda, all of those arguments were brazenly untrue. For the right that keeps misreading New York Times articles, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.So yes Pre 1991 Iraq had a Chemcial weapons program but by the time we invaded it was inactive and several years old and i have shown before that Saddam was willing for the UN to investaige there Programs which Pro does not address. Saddam helped fund terroist groups agaisnt The WestThis is a running Theme in Pro's case which he says without Us Interventionism The Brutal Saddam would of funded terroirst groups to destroy us and he had WMBS which he would of used to nuke us as well and give to his terroist buddies. I Would one again want to show Pro WHY its importent to look into why the Middle east hates us so much, its because as i shown by Miltary Interventionism. Simply minding our own bussiness and the promblems on what Saddam is doing whould not be a promblem only in a world where Amercia is the Worlds Policeman is it a problem but not in a Isolationist World and the consequences's are shown by 911 and the 1993 BombingRebutal to the Rebutal of 911 and 1993Pro claims that im Cherry picking and not looking at the bigger picture and then goes on to say how Saddam was finacing these terroists and they attacked us. However as i pointed out Saddam was not finacing terroists he was suppresing a certain relgious majoirty in the country which created some instabilty but he maintained the order better than we did. Plus i have also shown that If we had remained Isolationist than we would not have to be worried about what other countries think of us since we are not creating enemies over seas.No BrainerPro Drops my concrete arugment agaisnt Interventionism in my "No Brainer" Section.BOPIN Tune with Pro's wishes i will be fighting his Arugments he brought up. So i will not be defending my Arugments for Isolationism this round. It is up to voters to decide if my arugments stand agaisnt Pro's rebutalls ( I think they do)ConclusionI Have shown that despite Pro saying that Interventionism will make a more orderley world i have shown that it does the exact opposite it creates more haterd agaisnt the USA which makes the World more Anti Amercian which makes more problems with us then if we just let them sort it out themselves there will be more peace in the world naturally. I have presented a viable model to show how the World can be a better place without war. I Have Shown how Interventionism causes more disorder in the country that gets Invaded and this in turn creates breeding grounds for terriosim agaisnt the Invader which can led to terrfying outcomes such as the 1993 Trade Center Bombings and the 911 Attacks. I Have shown how Constant Wars have led to the collapse of empires in the past and that amercia is following a simlar path and how Us Interventionism have burdned us with death of many amercians, have made familys lose there loved ones, and have given our soliders PTSD and have given us trillions of dollars in debt. I have also shown that Amercia one of the top prizes to show for us was our freedom and that has now been all but gone thanks to the War on Terror which was a result of US Interventioism. For the Sake of a more Peacefull and great future world i hope voters see how Isolationism is in fact a better way than the CounterProductive, "War War War" Chant of Interventionism.VOTE CON!!! http://www.newyorker.com...http://www.msnbc.com...