Calling Out Libertarians on Foreign Policy

==Framework==1. I use “drop” and conceded interchangeably. Basically we agree to it.==Case==C1: Assumptions of non-intervenionism1. Interventionism doesnt just refer to military as my opponent has alluded too. It refers to the policy of governments proactively trying to alter or encourage policies of other States. So it can include economic as well as militaristic action. This can be seen by Paul’s rejection of sanctions on Iran.I) Reciprocal non-interventionism1. My opponent made the argument that non-interventionism =/= isolationism. And I agree, but he is missing the point of the objection. The objection is that due to the nature of the international system, globalization makes it extremely difficult to avoid interventionism because interests and conflicts of interests are inevitably going to overlap. Thus, taking on a form of non-intervention puts the US a disadvantage because it makes them hostage to the policies of other states. 2. My opponent argued that non-intervention helped us before WW2. He makes a few assumptions/flaws: 1) globalization wasnt at the level pre-WW2 as it is now. It has come to be post-Cold War. 2) Europe pretty much killed itself off internally when the US decided to enter the war. So to say the US was high and mighty is fallacious - they didnt have to do much. 3) WW2 involved nation states, whereas todays challenges are exacerbated due to transnational organizations, such as Al Qaeda.Ib) Decision Calculus1. My opponent says it is only theoretical and doesnt show how non-intervention fails. Yes, it is theoretical but it shows how the mindset behind non-interventionism is problematic because it assumes all actors are rational actors. But this just isn’t the case. The cost-benefit analysis is skewed due to identity and geopolitical considerations. Refer to argument about Taliban and Saudi Arabia. Thus, to make the claim that States will always calculate the risks is false, and as such the US has an obligation to intervene in cases of irrationality. Non-tagged point: Self-defense framework. My opponent made the argument that Ron Paul supported taking out Al Qaeda and supports the Congressional ability to declare war. This ignores my argument. My argument is that Ron Paul lacks a brightline to any framework about when we can intervene and when we cannot intervene. As such, my opponent basically says self-defense. But he ignored my argument that this is very vague - it excludes preventive and preemptive warfare. And as I also mentioned this violates the consequential framework because it assumes a deontological-type framework - we can only attack if we are attacked. But the framework says no: governments must act to first protect their own citizens and should not be constrained from doing so. IIb) Root Causes1. My opponent again brings up troops stationed. He ignored my argument that the fact of war now, e.g. assymetric warfare means we need to respond immediately in various places throughout the world. He says we have strongest airforce and navy. Ok, airforce we need bases scattered throughout to re-arm and re-fuel. Navy fails if its a landlocked country, e.g. Afghanistan. And he brings up Germany again, but remember I said removing troops from Germany isnt unique to Ron Paul.2. He says we need to promote democracy by showing other countries the way to live and behave. Thus we cannot impose and intervene. First, he has conceded the impacts - that economic reform and education solves terrorism. Second, he lacks ANY solvency on the fact that as can be seen in places like Syria, grassroots democratic efforts fail without US assistance. My opponent may say Egypt but remember it was only until after the US had strongarmed Mubarak did any true traction be gained. He then goes onto being up the very common anti-American argument. But he already conceded the Rubin evidence which tells us that the anti-american sentiment is going to exist no matter what, is going to be spun by these terrorist organizations and that whenever the US tries to withdraw terrorist attacks escalate. Isolated Scenarios1. Osama Bin Laden. He ignored my turn which said non-interventionism was the actual case for Bin Laden’s hate of America because after the Soviet withdrew the US cut and from the people of Afgahnistan - thats what harbored the hate. And moreover he doesnt provide a link that its because we armed them that gave them the ability to perpetrate 9-11. 2. Saudi Arabia. He brings up Rubin but doesnt argue the substance of Rubin. He says well Ron Paul wants us to look at what they have to say. Sure. BUT RUBIN ALREADY ANSWERS THIS!! If what they said on-face was true, terrorism should have de-escalated when US was on the brink of withdrawing. This however wasnt the case. When the US wanted to force a 2 state system and withdraw from Saudi Arabia terorism didnt de-escalate, it escalated. 3. Iran. He misunderstands my argument again. I wasnt saying turning the argument and saying CIA overthrow was good. Your argument was that the people were mad so the revolution started. My argument said the intervention didnt matter, would have occurred anyway and probably much more easily without the Shah in place.C2. Individual Case Scenarios*He dropped ALL of them in his last speech. Refer to previous rounds for argumentation*These include:1) Afgahnistan: withdrawal from Afghnistan will spark another civil war and as Taliban and Al Qaeda resurgence. This makes safe-havens for terrorists which can then one again attack the US homeland. And it empowers global jihad. 2) Pakistan. Non-intervention with Pakistan pushes it over the instability brink. The only reason PAkistan has remaine stable thus far is because of close US presence and US aid. If Pakistan is estabilied it makes terrorist aquiring a nuclear weapon much more likely. 3) Iran. Withdrawing throws the balance in the Middle East off. This will spur arms proliferation between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Again this makes terrorism and specifically nuclear terrorism much me likely. AND all of these have the strongest link to the framework. The US overnment must consider these geopolitical considerations when making policy. It is the only way to follow the poli-ethical stance of consequentialism which we both have agreed to. ==Defensive Analysis==Even though my opponent didnt tag a lot of his arguments, the main argument he makes is that US intervention creates more problems then it solves. When voting remember these 2 key points:1) This argument is directly responded to by the Rubin evidence. The Rubin evidence makes the key argument that non-intervention doesnt solve for any harms because terrorist groups will act regardless of our actions. This is proven from an analysis of escalated terror attacks against the US when the US was withdrawing from the Middle East and (2) interventionism solves better because 2) Interventionism solves better because it attacks the root causes of terrorism, namely economic desperation and low education. Refer to the analysis of Afghanistan that economic growth has grown exponentially under US guidance and that 6M Afgahni students are now in school. ==Voters==1) He dropped my C2 in his last speech. Those give clear reasons to vote due to geopolitical considerations that are protected against through interventionism and accessed through non-interventionism.2) There are many theoretical flaws with non-interventionism. Refer to my C1.