Should the United States (have) intervene(d) in Rwanda? (See further details below).

Thank you, Con. Your arguments have been very useful in refining this case. With that in mind, this is an easy Con ballot. To demonstrate this, I am going to rebut Con's rebuttals, and then I am going to walk you through the ballot. Reconstruction:I. The United States is obligated.A. The United States is morally obligated. Con has two responses here, and neither are adequate:1) "Killing is wrong, so the United States should send in soldiers to kill people, instead of sending in aid workers to help the victims."Firstly, the only reason the US would engage either side is if killings were actively occurring or about to occur (see caveats), so the likelihood of killing innocent civilians, rather than aggressors, is fairly low. Secondly, if killing some aggressors can help to save thousands, if not millions, of lives, this is clearly justified. This is a genocide; that is the immoral action here. Note that Con has not (and cannot, now) respond to the idea that lack of intervention is equivalent to moral culpability, since the United States is in a unique geopolitical position to intervene and stop the spilling of innocent blood. This is a critical drop, and must extend through. 2) "Who said that the conflict would escalate?...Why wouldn't the African Monetary Union...put large sanctions on the Hutu government?"Firstly, my opponent does not rebut the idea that the conflict is likely to escalate because surrounding areas have similar militias and ethnic populations, and have had unrest in the past. This is a critical drop, as my opponent had to rebut the concept, not just claim "well, who said it's gonna escalate?" He cannot respond to this point, per rules, and, as such, has conceded that millions upon millions will be killed, and regional instability lost, if the US fails to intervene. Secondly, the UN HAS put sanctions on the Hutu government, with no avail. The African Monetary Union has not yet come into existence. This demonstrates that sanctions are insufficient to stop the genocide, and that something more must be done. B. The United States is legally obligated. Pro's responses here are again inadequate. 1) "France...would not agree to genocide."Except they did. They backed the Hutu government in order to further their imperialist agenda in the region, similar to their support of tyrannical governments in Algeria, Cote d'Ivore, and many other locations in Francophone Africa. As of April 20, they have shot down several proposals by the Security Council to intervene, because of their interests in the region. 2) "Why hasn't there been intervention [elsewhere with killing"All this means is that the United Nations and the United States has failed in their pledge to never again permit genocide. Why should the United States continue this tradition of bloodshed, when it could easily intervene and stop the conflict? This is not a response. II. Stability is in the best interest of the United States. A. The genocide is likely to escalate. "If these nations cannot stop the escalation, then the entire region, and, indeed, the entirety of sub-Saharan Africa, threatens to become embroiled in a catastrophic war, with millions of casualties and a massive economic impact. B. Such escalation will likely be detrimental. Domino theory, as my opponent is referring to, discusses increase in Communist influence. This is not what I have discussed. I have discussed the idea that the genocide could, and likely will, spill over into neighboring countries with similar populations. My opponent, again, has failed to sufficiently rebut the central idea that escalation is likely. "If it did escalate...Zaire...would be able to stop the threat by its own."This is not a bad idea in theory, but is not practical in reality. Zaire's military IS large, but has been slowly rotting for decades after the US stopped funding their military. Zaire has had issues even PAYING their military, as seen by an uprising in 1990, and they have not been able to ensure stability in the Eastern half of the country for some time now. This is compounded by the fact that the dictator of Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko, has been embezzling millions from foreign economic and military aid, and has allowed the civil and military service to be completely infiltrated by corrupt agents more concerned with lining their own pockets than ensuring safety. As such, Zaire could not possibly stop it, and, indeed, it seems more likely that they will become the site of massive killing and conflict as the genocide spreads, especially since several refugee camps are currently located on the Zaire-Rwanda border. ConclusionI have shown that it is in the United States best moral, legal, and geopolitical interests to intervene in Rwanda. I have demonstrated that the United States has a moral and legal impetus for intervening and, especially in the face of failure to do this in the past, should make a statement by intervening, gaining much-needed global credibility as the hegemon. This has not been effectively rebutted by Con. I have shown that the genocide will likely escalate into a regional war, which has never been rebutted by Con. This escalation will cost millions, if not billions, in lost precious metals and mining interests, in humanitarian aid necessitated by casualties and refugees, and in lives lost. Such instability only serves to weaken the United States' influence in the region. I have demonstrated that this intervention is substantially different from past interventions, in that it is neutral, without organized opposition on either side of the conflict, thus mitigating any possible risks. However, if the United States were to intervene, they could stop the killings with little force, maintain regional and moral legitimacy, and send a valuable political message, that the United States will not permit wholesale slaughter of a group of people, saving future lives through deterrence. Thus, it is clear that the US should intervene in Rwanda. Failure to do so amounts to blood on the hands of America. Proud to propose. Note: remember, no new arguments for Con in this speech, except rebuttals to new material from my past two speeches. This means any drops from my initial arguments flow through to Pro. In this particular case, these drops from morality and likely escalation are critically damaging to Con's case.