intervention in Libya

Let's get started: My argument is obviously that America should NOT intervene in Libya. I have several reasons why. 1. Gaddafi threatened to kill more people if we intervene. That means by us intervening, more people will die. It might finish faster, but more will die. Secondly, he's almost finished. A lot of people are deserting him. A couple of pilots ordered to bomb citizens ejected out of their planes and did not do as told. His cousin is leaving him. Gaddafi is practically insane now. He will soon lose control of the situation and it will be over. So basically by intervening we will kill more people. 2. Americans will die. Simple as that. Hundreds, probably thousands of american soldiers would die if we sent them. Even though it's not our problem. This is clearly a disadvantage to intervening in Libya. 3. We can't be the world's policeman. America is America. We can't go around fixing everyone's problems for them. Sure, it's sad that people are dying, but it's not our duty to fix Libya's problems. Now I will quote an article talking about this subject, and how we shouldn't intervene. “Considering the potential outcome of the Libyan rebellion is a government even worse for the United States than the incompetency that dominates Gadhafi’s government now, creating a no fly zone over Libya- and any military intervention for that matter- is potentially counterproductive to long term American national security goals and our interests in the region. Better the revolution play itself out and America be able to make peace with whatever government takes over than we potentially back the losing side and alienate all parties while doing so. But what’s worse is that some American politicians would have us risk American military lives to support a rebellion which A. might not even be ultimately successful and B. if it is successful, might be just as anti-American and anti-democracy as the demagogue who rules the country now. I’ve argued before that the United States should have a non-interventionist foreign policy generally, but nowhere is this suggestion wiser than in the current instance of Libya. Furthermore, there is something to be said about America contemplating military intervention in Libya but not in the multiplicity of other nations that are undergoing potential revolutions such as Yemen. In Yemen, protesters are being fired on by government soldiers just like in Libya, except in Libya, we’ve already seen hesitation and outright refusal by certain military officials to follow Gadhafi’s orders and fire on the people. What makes the Libyan people so much better than the Yemeni that we should protect them and not the latter? Oil of course. With oil and gas prices rising as quickly as they are here in America, oil must be a very real aspect of any military or non-military decision we make in the region, but a $1 increase in the price of gas per gallon may not be worth the decades of ill sentiment our government may create if it intervenes in Libya and not in other countries as well. The complexity and unpredictability of the Libyan conflict necessitates that America adopt a non-interventionist policy and permit natural events to take their course there. (1)” We can clearly see that intervening in Libya is disadvantageous. Now I’d like to clarify: I’m perfectly human. I feel for these people too. But even though people are dying, we need to look before we leap. Intervening in affairs of other countries is what made the Soviet Union and US so hostile towards each other. My opponent must adequately respond to these arguments and show that: 1. More people will die if we don’t intervene (which I already proved the opposite) 2. Americans won’t die (Impossible to prove) 3. Intervening in other countries is fine. (Again, if he says it’s fine it’s a falsehood) Sources: (1) (1) . http://thepoliticizer.com...