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

Since my opponent didn't ask me any questions for crossfire, I'll continue directly to my second speech. First, let's look at my opponent's responses. For question 1, he said that Germany was not a world power before WWII. What then do you call the Nazi war machine? For question 2, my opponent claims that West Berlin starved until the Soviet Union lifted the blockade. The supply airlift to West Berlin was supposed to be a success. All the history textbooks lied to us. For question 3, my opponent concedes that most of the impoverished countries today were imperialized, and thus income is not dependant on form of government at all. My opponents point about the US promoting a better economy by promoting democracy falls. My opponent claims that modern day imperialism is a direct result of corrupt leaders and democracy would fix the problem. First of all, there is no modern day imperialism. Second, corruption results from the impoverished state of the low-income nations, not the other way around. Thus democracy would not fix the problem at all, since it doesn't influence the economic state of a nation. For question 4, my opponent avoids the question and wants me to explain how the question is relevant. The question is relevant because my opponent claims that democracy can bring peace to the Middle East, when in reality democracy does nothing to lessen the animosity that Middle Eastern people have against Israel. For question 5, my opponent claims that setting up a democracy in Germany and Japan did not require military intervention. WWII was not military intervention? One has to remove the existing government before one can set up a new government. For question 6, my opponent refers to wars that might not ever exist. The only factor included in his response that might lead to war is hostility. Hostility occurs all the time between nations, whether the nations are democratic or non-democratic. My opponent's point about future wars between non-democratic nations is therefore void. In response to my opponent's side note, I would like to say that he has no grounds to say what he said. My sources are as relevant as his and I cited my sources with bracketed numbers. Now let's look at my opponent's contentions. His first contention states that democracy promotion can set up successful democracies, and cites Germany and Japan as examples. I can cite a counterexample of when democracy promotion failed: Vietnam. Everyone would agree that the Middle East is more like Vietnam than it is like Germany and Japan. When assessing whether something is possible, one should look at the context. In the current context, democracy promotion would more likely not succeed in the Middle East. My opponent's second contention states that foreign governments affect our economic interests. This is true only if the foreign governments in question control a valuable resource that can't be obtained in any other country. The Middle East dominates the oil market, but only because we are unwilling to use our own oilfields. We can always turn to the oilfields in the US if unfriendly nations place too high a tariff on their oil. My opponent also claims that the type of government determines whether terrorists can thrive in a nation. He fails to realize that terrorist groups such as Hezbollah exist because of animosity towards Israel, not because the governments in the Middle East are undemocratic. A better solution to this problem would therefore be to reconcile Israel and its neighbors. In conclusion, my opponent's contentions hold no weight, and my contentions are left unchallenged. I urge a CON ballot.