The UN and other countries should interfere militarily in Libya.

Hi! Let's hope for a good debate :) __________ I notice that you didn't define "military interference". I will do that now, then: I assume that we agree that it is synonymous to "military intervention". (If you disagree, I'd be happy to debate the merits of any alternate definition.) This in turn is defined as: "the deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy" [1] 1) You argue first that international human rights were broken in Libya. This is inarguable. It is similarly inarguable, though, that human rights are currently being broken by virtually all governments in the world, most importantly by the United States and her allies (who would presumably be the ones to intervene). A few examples: http://www.amnesty.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org... (All examples taken from Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org... and http://www.amnestyusa.org... ) Furthermore, since there is an ongoing rebellion in Libya, one could even argue that there is at present a better chance for the human rights violations of the Libyan government to be remedied than there is for those above. Is it your argument then that the UN should intervene militarily in the United States? You assert specifically that the Libyan government is perpetrating genocide. Your source defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" [2] May I ask you which national, ethnical, racial or religious group the Libyan government is targeting? Also, please provide evidence. 2) Your argument with Afghanistan is not very convincing. First, it is undeniable that today, almost 10 years after the beginning of the NATO involvement in Afghanistan, the human rights situation is still terrible. [3] Second, Afghanistan serves as a perfect example of an intervention gone wrong. As stated before, it began almost 10 years ago - and yet to this day there is no end in sight. [4] Meanwhile 1499 Americans have died, along with many more of their allies, totaling 2364 dead. [5] 3) On to my own argument: The perhaps most important number of casualties I haven't even mentioned yet. At least 9759 Afghan civilians have been killed so far, and the trend is going up, rather than down. [6] This is the most important point to remember: A military intervention is nothing else than war. And in war, countless innocents die. Only if we are ready to accept the deaths of thousands of innocent Libyans should we even consider intervening. Is bringing one government to justice for their human rights violations really worth thousands of innocent lives? (And remember, there is an ongoing rebellion, so the government may be brought down whether or not anyone intervenes. The only thing an intervention would do is up the death tolls by several degrees.) __________ [1] http://www.encyclopedia.com... [2] http://www.hrweb.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://articles.cnn.com... [5] http://icasualties.org... [6] http://www.guardian.co.uk...