Governments must consider the moral implications of their actions when formulating foreign policy

OPENING STATEMENT. I'd prefer that my statements not be "done away with" as I try to make everything pertinent to the round. Thank you. Of course I realize that the national interest ought to be preserved. If a nation does not seek the national interest, then it is not fulfilling its duty. A government by the people ceases to be by the people when it does not act as if the people themselves were not in its stead. A. I believe I did accurately attack this argument. His whole argument was about how morality and the national interest are mutually exclusive. I addressed this. I would like to see what airspace policy my opponent is referring to. Please provide a source. Examples support the argument. Having said that, I will defend my example. First of all, Al Quaeda was based in Afghanistan, Sudan, and Fatwas at the time of the September 11 attacks. We were not in Iraq at that time. Secondly, we did not even enter Iraq until 2003! To say that the attacks were morally based would be a statement of complete obliviousness. "We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," Bin Laden said. However, we had not touched Afghanistan's security! Israel had had some run-ins with Lebanon in arguments about borders and such, but the US only supported her ally. We did not violate Al-Quaeda's security. Even if we had, my opponent;s only options are to admit that we did right, or to claim that the 9/11 attacks were justified. One of these seems logical. B. I concede that the US has an obligation to its citizens FIRST. However, our planet is infested with humans, even with those outside of the US. We cannot ignore their rights. We can either start acting like it, or remove the words "freedom and justice for all" from our pledge. I do not think my opponent wishes to justify the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children over economic benefits. However, if he truly wishes to do so, please state that next round clearly. "Also, I find it interesting that my opponent chose to point out the humanitarian crisis created by the war in Iraq (which he conceded through silence was caused by a feeling of moral duty); I had not really considered the possibility that trying to be moral could lead to moral problems, but I suppose he's right!" I concede nothing through silence, only through speech. I was obviously not silent in my last argument. Refrain from putting words in my mouth if you please. For my opponent;s information, the invasion of Iraq was in the nation's interest. It was done for retaliation and for atomic security. (Whether or not those atomic reasons were justified have yet to be determined) Both of these provide for the national defense, and thus protect the national interest. THIS IS WHAT MY OPPONENT IS SAYING WE NEED TO PROTECT. Moral duty was not the driving factor. Secondly, it was in trying to protect the national interest that these atrocities occurred. The sanctions were not acts of war, but of economics. Protecting our interests brought death the hundreds of thousands. Really, the main backing I had for my reasoning about the world's policeman was the Truman doctrine. As previously stated, a government is but an agent of its members. Therefore, a just government's actions are in the national interest by definition, whether or not my opponent agrees with it. The Truman doctrine is still in effect, by the way. (To be followed by Eisenhower's policy of "massive retaliation") C. My opponent seems to misunderstand my arguments here. I need not address a universal code of morality. I only need to address morality as it pertains to government. Now, my opponent's only real attack on my argument is that there are divisions in views of morality in the US government. (Amongst others) This is completely true, and thus I agree. I am not saying that everyone in the US will eventually sing Kumbaya and hold hands and agree on morality. I am saying that a JUST government represents the morality of a nation collectively. That being the case, a nation's morality is decided by the government, and thus is the national interest. (Since a just government acts in its member's interests) I would hardly call US citizens "property." 1860s anyone? Last time I checked, millions of deaths due to nukes have MAJOR moral implications. Last time I checked, 6 million Jewish deaths have MAJOR moral implications. I am in no way justifying Stalin and his administration for their nefarious crimes, but I am saying that the US sided with what we had believed to be the lesser of two evils. That is not debated. In addition, the US had deemed Communism immoral. It violated our inalienable human rights, and thus violated morality. Therefore, our actions against communism were not only in the national interest, but in the interest of morality. All of these issues affect both morality and the national interest. My opponent only likes to point out how it applies to the national interest. I believe I have refuted all current points. I ask the voters to consider how morality and the national interest are both affected by a government's actions, and how both ought to be considered. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org...