The US should suspend foreign aid to Egypt.

Thank you for your argument. Well done, sir! Now, I would first like to apologize for failing to mention the Yom Kippur War. It completely slipped my mind, and con is correct, that Egypt and its Arab coalition lost two major wars in reasonable quick succession, adding to their reason for wanting peace. Now I would first like to respond to con's statement at the end of his opening correction Con says, "U.S. aid was correctly seen then, and continues to be seen now, as a bribe to Egypt for maintaining peace with Israel. " This is simply not an assumption you can make. First of all, like I mentioned above, Egypt had been twice defeated by Israel in the space of less than a decade, making peace an important objective. Now, if the treaty was simply money in exchange for peace,then I would grant you this point. The treaty, however, covers peace in small part, and mostly focuses on commercial matters such as oil. (1) Money and aid was simply another bargaining chip for the west, and it would take good information from several qualified sources before it is reasonable to make that belief. Also, if the US and Israel were really afraid enough of Egypt that they needed to bribe the state for peace, why would they send them 2 billion dollars in military aid? That's like bribing al-Quaeda with bombs in hopes of preventing terrorist attacks. Now, on to rebuttals: 1. Yes, all the Arab league invasions have been prevented, furthering the reason for why Egypt has no cause, and indeed no desire, to attack Israel. This is going off the assumption that Egypt wants our aid, which polls say is not the case. (2) 2. I do not see what issue the United States and Egypt would not be able to talk about, that they could not plan independently. If an important issue is secret, plan a secret meeting. There is no point to using the "umbrella of aid discussion" to discuss other topics. This might be a good argument for presenting aid to Egypt in the first place, but not a good justification of keeping military aid despite the current Government killing thousands. 3. Again, a good argument for aid, but not for briefly suspending that aid until democratic principles are enacted. Also, the treaty was far more complicated then simple aid, and I do not think Egypt would run back to Russia because of the US cutting off its aid for what the Egyptian Army claims to be in favor of. 4. Here con argues that aid is our only vote in Egyptian politics, and actually says "serves as a kind of veto against Egyptian initiatives that the U.S. would like to prevent". Yes, and one such initiative would be the shooting of unarmed civilians. I cannot think of many better circumstances to veto an action. Con then says "Egypt is diplomatically isolated and will likely seek new patronage from Saudi Arabia or China, further disengaging Egypt from U.S. interest". So then if we remove the aid, this will happen? Then where's that vote in Egyptian politics con mentioned if the US can't even afford to remove the aid? I would again remind Con that this suspension of aid would be for a short time, until the promises of reform made by the army are carried out. 5. The people currently do not support aid from the US to Egypt, partially on account that the Government uses it on them. Now, if the peoples' power was restored, this might change, but I support the return of aid in that situation. I would like to see sources for this, or at least an in depth explanation of why, if Egyptians really want US aid, the polls all report that they don't. CIVIL UNREST IN EGYPT Con says, "That's a pretty short-sighted view of the conflict." What, cutting off aid for two or three months, possibly a shorter amount of time? In the short-sight, thousands of people are getting killed, and it is partially being funded by the US. Yes, democracy might return. Then we begin giving aid again. It's that simple, and not short-sighted at all. My opponent then goes on to talk about the evils of Morsi, stating "Morsi staged a coup against the Egyptian democracy before a constitution had even been agreed." Morsi was a pretty awful president. How does this mean the shooting of lead bullets into unarmed crowds is not a justification for cutting off aid? Also, Morsi did not kill thousands of protesters when he was President, and the Egyptian army has not only committed that grievance, and staged a real coup, but has suspended the Egyptian constitution and made many controversial and untested emergency decisions. (3) The next argument con makes on this point, after coping a part of the US constitution, states "Punishing Egypt for its dogged pursuit of a more representative government would the less democratic option." Suspending the constitution and gunning down protestors is not a dogged pursuit of democracy. I also fail to see how suspending military aid would demote democracy. Wouldn't a smaller military help that process? To finalize his case, Con makes yet another unsupported claim, saying "The military removed Morsi from power to prevent the Syrian Crisis from escalating into a much larger conflict." Yes, Morsi's pro-rebel stand was unpopular, but is one of many reasons he was hated among the Egyptian people. If you wish to claim that Syria is one of the primary reasons for Morsi's ousting, then I would demand evidence. STANDING FOR PRINCIPLE My opponent refutes my claim that America is known as a beacon of democracy by pointing out America' spotted past in supporting peace in the Middle East. He missed the point of that section. While I did mention that America was known for supporting democracy, I then said, "Regardless of whether you believe that to be true, I think you will agree that condemning the actions of the Egyptian army is just and noble". The point of this section was that the Egyptian Army killing people is wrong. The US's past grievances are irrelevant. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE In the last round, I pointed out that the Egyptians greatly oppose US aid in polls. There are two main reasons it seems this could be true: A. Egyptians don't want America to try to dip its toe in their affairs. B. The Government uses the aid against them. Con states, "the Egyptian majority is clearly most interested in a democratic state and the Egyptian military is clearly the only faction in Egypt with the means and the interest to implement democracy". That is true, and as soon as they do, the aid should return. Once again, cutting off military aid does not stem the democratic process. Con then goes on. "So long as U.S. aid remains popular with the military, and so long as the military continues to represent the interests of the majority of Egyptians, U.S. support still favors Egypt's primary interest" At this point, the military represents neither democracy nor a very large portion of Egyptians. Con is correct, the US does support Egypt's primary interest of establishing democracy, which is why cutting aid until that goal is reached is an important incentive. THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT To refute this argument, con points out the many failures of the US to follow their own law. While this is shameful for the US, the refusal to adhere to this law does not make the law invalid. If Iraq were to use chemical weapons again, would that be acceptable given that they've done the same in the past? This law should be followed, and the failure of the US to do so is the US's problem, not the law's, as are the gross abuses of human rights committed by the US. I look forward to your next argument, sir. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.gallup.com... (3) http://www.theguardian.com...