The U.S. should intervene in Darfur.

"...Therefore, any U.S. action which affects the situation in Darfur is "intervention". Military trade sanctions against Sudan would affect said situation..." -OK, fine. I don't want to argue semantics so I will let the point "Military trade sanctions against Sudan" count as intervention. "The Sudanese government supplies Arab militias. These militias have raped, tortured, and murdered millions of Sudanese. The United States must condemn these acts by halting any and all military shipments to Sudan." 1) The U.S. does not supply Sudan with military weapons, other countries do. 2) The U.S. has no right being involved in a civil war, which is what happening in Darfur. (1) 3) See points 1-8 above. -In case my opponent tries to argue that the situation in Darfur is not a civil war, but genocide: ---The situation in Darfur is not genocide. ---There is undoubtedly widespread violence in Darfur, but legally speaking, the situation is not genocide. Legally speaking, the legal definition of genocide means: "…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." (2) ---In 2005, the United Nations found that the government of Sudan was not committing genocide in Darfur. The U.N.'s International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur concluded: "The crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central government authorities are concerned. Rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counterinsurgency warfare." (3) ---In March this year, the International Criminal Court put out an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al Bashir. He was wanted for seven counts; they included five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes. Concerning genocide, the majority (five) of the judges of the Chamber, with just one judge dissenting, found that: "…the material provided by the Prosecution in support of its application for a warrant of arrest failed to provide reasonable grounds to believe that the Government of Sudan acted with specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups. Consequently, the crime of genocide is not included in the warrant issued for the arrest of Omar Al Bashir." (4) ---The situation in Darfur is being over-politicized to create fear and attract attention. Thierry Durand, director of Operations for Doctors Without Borders says, "The magnitude of violence in Darfur has been huge, but it's not genocide … The situation on the ground has not been an emergency since 2004. The real problem is the dependency in the camps. But the whole thing has become over-politicized" (5) My opponent has offered 1 reason why the U.S. should intervene in Darfur, which has been rebutted. I have provided 8 reasons on why the U.S. should not intervene in Darfur, which my opponent didn't even bother to argue, so they stand. The resolution "The U.S. should intervene in Darfur." is negated. Vote Con. pcmbrown... thanks for the debate, I enjoyed it. ---Sources--- (1) http://www.globalsecurity.org... (2) http://www.unhchr.ch... (3) http://www.un.org... (4) http://www.icc-cpi.int... (5) http://www.latimes.com...