Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy.

==Answers to Cross-fire==1. Routing Al Qaeda out of the FATA region wnont take as long as you imply. With Obama constantly increasing drone strikes in that area, it is only a matter of time. Moreover, you have agreed to search and destroy mission, so I would think you would be for this strategy. However, my argument is that the search and destroy mission is predicated upon having safehaven in the Mddle East, espcially in this ase Afgahnistan since it borders the FATA region. Again, your time frame if off for Karzai. Probably in the next election he will be booted from office, seeing his unpopularity. And no, not another 9 yrs. Obama expects the mission to be basically over around 2014.2. You keep saying the benefits are speculative, however you never refuted line by line my advantages. You simply said it costs a lot. That doesnt respond the substance of my arguments at all. This will be more explained in my final focus. Plus, my argument abou plans already being put into affect counters the supposed net defecit you are trying to argue. 3. Your analogy is awful. My argument against it is that no other country can or will take the place of the US. Moreover, people have called for action in Sudan but it is because of people with your logic that action hasnt been taken. And no,even if our allies spent as much it would be too much of their GDP to be effective. However the US spends 4% of their GDP on stuff of that nature. Also, our allie probably wouldnt spend that much anyway. You are gaining no solvency. 4. Iran would gain regional hegemony because there is no other power that could counter-balance, besides Saudi Arabia. And even Saudi Arabia isnt nearly as strong as Iran is in terms of conventional military prowess. Add to that Irans ambitions for a nuclear weapon. Moreover, this gives me another advantage - remaining in the Middle East deters counter-balancing proliferation. Saudi Arabia would counter Iran in the absence of the US presence in the Middle East. This threatens US security since it allows proliferation within an already unstabe area of the globe. Plus, your argument about US sending in troops again just refutes yr own position. Better to deter Iran then to have to engage with a full fledged Iran with a nuclear weapon in the future. 5. Afghans dont want us out because if we leave a power vaccum would be created. This would spur the Taliban and Al Qaeda to return to Afghanistan and create a safe haven for terrorism once again. This leads to a double bind: 1) terrorism against the US becomes much more likely or 2) the US reenters Afgahnistan which means we would have to do the entire scenario over again. It is preferable to stay. 6. What? Now why would Iran and Israel reconcile? Thats ridiculous. Your argument makes no sense. The IAEA has already confirmed Iran is creating the ability to proliferate nuclear weapons. Sanctions and diplomacy has failed. KEeping the US in he Middle East would deter Iran. 7. They would be our allies becausewe are the ones promoting the democracy there. Just like Iraq now. The government there is an ally to the US since we are the ones that instituted it there. And refer to my DPT argument about why our allies are democracies as well.8. Your argument is that if it is in our interest then yes we should intervene. ITs not a debate over can or sould. You set up a condition necessary to affirm, vote pro. At this points its a topical affirmation. An you bring up the debt argument again. XA my above responses. 9. He says Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were good autocrats. Besides being completely outdated, Julius Caesar was assassinated, and basically plunged Rome into a ivil war. Yeah thats good. Alexander on the other hand was too busy conquering Persia and Egypt, and when he died his lands were partitioned. Hes not a good example. And SOME people wanted George Washington to be King but mt feared a King, seeing as they were being oppressed by King George. And thiple doesnt work since we cant weigh the goodness of Washington if he was King...since it didnt happen. 10. This report explains it: Afghanistan is stil an underdeveloped nation, but has been growing rapidly with the assistance of the US and other great powers. http://www.cfr.org...And you have stilled ignored my analysis. Economic development and education reform solves the reasons for terrorism. Extend my argument that empirically democracies have less terrorism than autocracies. 11. Again, you are ignoring my analysis. The Olson evidence tells you that democracies promote free rket and free trade since it is beneficial for community and the individual and it maximizes personal liberty and freedom. Moreover, it is empirically true that democracies are much more sympathetic to free trade thn autocracies. I outweigh 12. The definitions of hegemony and imperialism are similar but that doesnt make them the same. Hegemony gives a nation the ABILITY to imperialize but that doesnt mean hegemony is imperialism. And yes, these autocracies arent able to function our their own. You ignore the evidence. Without US hegemony in the Middle East countries will counter-balance each other, e.g. nuclear arms races, instability increases and thus terrorism is spurred. Refer to Cold War analysis for this to be true. Religious fundamentalism took over as a response for failures of those governments. 13. Vietnam failed because we didnt act like hegemon and we didnt use all of our force. We basically fought half@ssed, and isntead relied on man power and not our technological prowess. Plus Afghanistan doesnt have a national protector, like North Vietnam had - the USSR and China. *Last round will be final focus. Thats where I will do all my weighing from the stated arguments.*