Presidental Debate: Subutai vs. KingHenrikLundqvist

In this round, I will be discussing my foreign policy. I won't be going into that much detail in this round (unlike what I'll do in the next two rounds). My platform will simply revolve around non-interventionism and the Non-Agression Principle. I. Universalizing NonviolenceI do not support the war in Afghanistan because: "For 12 years, the US has given military solutions every chance to work. It is clear these efforts have failed. For example, the Afghan NGO Safety Office, a highly respected group that tracks insurgent attacks in Afghanistan, recently noted a 47% increase in attacks by armed opposition groups from the first quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 2013. Inclusive political negotiations are extremely difficult in the best of conditions. As violence grows, any efforts are very unlikely to bear fruit without first securing a ceasefire between international and Afghan forces and the insurgency. "[1]As a foreign military invades a country, even though the "innocents" may not be on the side that that military is trying to fight, that still view themselves to be under foreign occupation. More and more districts are coming under Talibain control in Afghanistan, despite the surge of troops a few years ago. It was a mistake to go into Afghanistain, and it's been a greater mistake to continue it. End the war in Afghanistan. [2][3]Further, I do not support bombing Syria just because they may have used chemical weapons. Between the fact that we have no grounds to bomb Syria, and the fact that Syria has powerful allies that are, conincidentally, not exactly on our good side (i. e. Russia and China). Between the economic porblems that could surface from our anatagonism and the Russia/China to Syria alliances that could lead to WWIII, it's not right to bomb Syria. [4]Here is why we have no grounds to bomb Syria: "The Syrian people have a sovereign right to decide their own destiny without outside interference. Their civil war is an internal struggle that will have to be decided for themselves. As much as Americans want to believe otherwise our values are not universal. It is one thing if a majority of people are clamoring for democracy and are being denied it by forces far outside of their control, it is another thing to intervene and force American values on a nation that clearly is torn over the issue. We have no right to pick sides. "[5]Overall, I support the non-agression principle. Intervening in countries is not moral. At best, it rests on the flawed belief that we have a right and responsibility to intervene in countires experiencing violence - however, one, nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have a right or responsibility to intervene; second, as shown in Afghanistan (but also in other wars), interventionism is not a net benefit to the "innocents". Take this example from Afghanistan: "With escalating violence, far fewer Afghan refugees returned in 2009 than any year since 2002. Meanwhile, the number of internally displaced persons fleeing war nearly doubled to 275,000. .. The number of Afghan civilians killed and wounded last year rose to nearly 6,000. "[2]To conclude, I believe in non-interventionism because it is a net benefit for the US and the countries themselves. In general, I believe in the non-aggression principle. Sources [1]: . http://www.guardian.co.uk...[2]: . http://forusa.org...[3]: . http://www.war-times.org...[4]: . http://www.archives.gov...[5]: . http://www.conservativepolitico.org...I look forward to reading my opponent's views on the subject, although I bet it'll probably be basically just a rehash of this.