Resolved: On balance, the United States federal govenment is justified in interveening in the intern

I will be debating for the Pro position for the debate: The United States is justified in interfering with other countries when human rights abuse occurs.Lannans pointsBecause of the wording of the resolution and where is is placed all I have to do is point out one event where the US wasn't justified. I am going to argue that this is abuse of conduct. My opponent didn't set these parameters up in the opening round, thus I had no way to agree to them. I am going to be arguing that overall the U.S. is better off intervening, not that every case was a good option.CHILEI am confused about my opponents source here... It's seems to be a link the the CIA's home page with no actual conclusive evidence of what he says actually being true."The arrival of Joel Roberts Poinsett, in 1811, marked the beginning of U.S. involvement in Chilean politics. He had been sent by President James Madison in 1809 as a special agent to the South American Spanish colonies (a position he filled from 1810 to 1814) to investigate the prospects of the revolutionaries, in their struggle for independence from Spain." (1)The United State's involvement in Chile was Justified as an attempt to stop tyranny to the Chilean political system.KyrgyzstanAgain this is just another source of a site's home page lacking any clear evidence of my opponents point. But aside from this, failure doesn't mean the attempt was morally and philosophically correct. The US doesn't have to be succesful in order for their mission to be moral.Middle East Again, the source cites the homepage of a site. Anyways there were other reasons the United States went to the middle east aside from j=what my opponent noted.Afghanistan and Pakistan, though situated in Asia, are considered part of the Greater Middle East. U.S. intervention in both Afghanistan and Pakistan started with the Carter Administration after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The relations of the U.S. with Afghanistan and Pakistan have been closely tied to the War on terrorism that has happened there. American policy has been instrumental in coordinating the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. In recent times, political situations of both countries have been bracketed under a single theater of operations, denoted by the newly-coined American term "AfPak." (2)Rocket's ArgumentsEvery human has the right to life, and should be able to pursue the right to happiness. These are the beliefs of our founding fathers that have been adopted over time, yet still remain what the United States relies on. We rely on the freedom and independence our government ensures us. Unfortunately, not all other countries sympthesize with these same goals.Argument 1: It’s within the United States bet moral interestsThe United States interfering with other countries isn’t something that should be required when it comes to human rights abuse. I will not be arguing that the United States should interfere with EVERY human rights abuse that occurs. Unfortunately the pool of resources, people, and time could make this impossible. My point will be that The United States “should” as defined in the resolution, do their best to prevent human rights abuse where and when they can.For this debate, let’s assume that war is a last resort to the process.Arugment 2: The United and States protects the values of its citizens; why not others?Our Country (the U.S.) is probably one of the freest countries in the world with the most opportunity. Our constitution guarantees us freedom free from government tyrants and dictators. With this freedom, most of our human rights are met with Justice and Equality. Some countries in the world do not serve their citizens this same way. Some countries governments inflict human rights abuses themselves, or put little effort into stopping abuses from other groups.Human rights, however, encompass all human beings, not just those who share societal relations. If we believe that human rights abuses are cruel, and are stopping them in our static environment, than why not do the same universally? If we feel that we have a moral obligation in any regard to human right violation, the same should apply everyone. This leads me to point 2.Arugment 3: Ability and responsibilityIf we have the means and ability to protect people from In-Justice, shouldn’t we pursue it?I will use an example: If you saw someone being robbed on the street, would you walk away and let it happen? Or would you call the cops, and/or step in to help the person being robbed? Note: this doesn’t have to be through an initial method of violence.Protection of innocent lives, and rights coincide with the goals of the United States, thus we should be obligated to attempt diplomacy with other countries in order to stop these occurrences.I conclude, that it is in the best moral interest sometimes for the US to interfere with political structures of other countries.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...