Calling Out Libertarians on Foreign Policy

==Framework==1. He has dropped all of it*Remember, drops are concessions*=His Responses=C1: Assumptions of non-interventionismI) Reciprocal non-interventionism1. He says Ron Paul doesnt want us to get tangeled into problems that do not concern us--> He dropped the first objection I made which said globalization is inevitable, thus it is inevitable that we will be entaglened with other nations and their issues either way. At this point that very fundamental notion which Ron Paul believes is false.This is critical because the worldview he holds will ultimately have no solvency, at least in the way he believes it will have. --> This doesnt respond fully to my objection. The argument is that nations wont act like a bee and leave us alone if we leave it alone. At that point the US would always be playing the defensive, which will be critical when wmove down the arguments. --> He dropped my analysis that stats will have different decision calculus' so having a narrow worldvew of non-interventionism will fail in case be case scenarios. 2. Non-interventionism =/= pacifism --> Paul has given no brightline when the right of self-defense can be activiated. Since he is against preventive and preemptive warfare, I will assume its on a reciprocal basis. This is horrible: 1) It only plays offensive so the only time the US is justified in using force is if we are being attacked already. AND 2) This violates the framework - governments would not be adhering to consequentialism if all their actions had to be reactionary since harms would have to occur each time. Thus, it violates their meta-obligation to protect their citizens by weighing different case scenarios.3. Troops Stationed--> TURN: it is necessary to have troops stationed around the world because it makes military readiness much more quick and efficient. The very notion of self-defense you bring up is predicated upon the ability to answer threats within a good timeframe. Withdrawing from the national stage makes it very difficult to even wage a defnsive war against assymtric threats. --> We have withdrawn most of our troops from Germany. You dont need Ron Paul for that. --> TURN: South Korea is an advantageous area to have troops since it deters Nrth Korea aggression and helps stop the weapons blackmarket. This helps prevent more weapons technology from being proliferated. Tis would be self-defense. [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com...--> My opponent doesnt think outside the box when it comes international affairs. And his argument is a false dichtomy - since we have bases in other countries we are defneding them and not us. 2) Past foreign policy1. We cant foresee the consequences of our actions--> This links into the historicist criticism I provided, which he dropped. My opponent is trying to say look at all these mistakes we made. So intervention is bad. First, no link - it doesnt prove interventionism bad. Second, all of this is retrosepctive. At the time it was seen by policy-makers as beneficial especially in light of the communist threat. Moreover, our policy didnt try and prevent these hotzones from emerging. --> Thus, TURN: promoting democracy is the best remedy for hot spots. 1) It encourages economic development, through investmment, free trade and free market. 2) It encourages Education reform. E.g. In Afghanistan 6 million children are now in school and the number keeps rising. And thishelps fight radicalism because removes desperation of people, who would have no other recourse and educates people. It is empirically true that democracies have much lower threshold rates of terrorism and radicaism compared to autocracies. [2][2] Carothers. Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terrorism.2. He isolates a few examplesA) Osama Bin Laden--> He doesnt warrant how us helping him lead to the 9-11 attacks. He just asserts we intervened and now we got hitby a terrorist attack. --> TURN: non-interventionism helped fuel Al Qaeda because after the US thought it was enugh in Afgahnistan we turned our backs on those people. As such they had no recourse but to organize, which lead to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. B) Saddam Hussein--> That seemed to be the only course of action to balance rising Iranian power in the area. --> Oil interests. If we didnt intervene the oil market would have been further put into shock because of Saddam's move into Kuwait. B1) Saudi Arabia--> XA Rubin. The argument that US presence created terrorism is a facade. Rubin tells us that if this were true, terrorism would have decreased when US involvement decreased as well. However, Rubin shows that the inverse is actually true - when the US started to withdraw, terrorism against the US increased, e.g. bombing of the embassies. [3]C) Iran--> Non-unique. Extremsists were already angered even by the democratic leader that we helped overthrow. So, no solvency on your side. It was still possible that the Islamic Revolution would have occured with or without US intervention before that. Moreover, it probably would have been easier since the demoratic leader was militarialy and politicall weak in comparison to the Shah. So it would have been more probable that an overthrow against the democratic leader by the Islamists . *He dropped my 2nd objction plus the Rubin evidence from my case. This is a damning concession because it overarchingly diproves the theory Ron Paul holds which says terrorism is the fault of US foreign policy. --> Unless he can present a scenario-case that can be weighed now, like the ones I provide, he doesnt link to the framework. C2: Individual Case ScenariosI) Afgahnistan1. He argues that the Afghanis should determine their own fate...well: Its either the US or a resurgence of the Taliban. 1) 6/10 Afghans are optimistic about US involvement. 2) The Taliban has an only 10% favoribility rating among the Afghan people. 3) The Taliban had instituted extreme Sharia law, had violated most, if not all basic human rights. 4) Thousands of Shiites had been killed by the Taliban. 5) Thousands of civilians were killed or incarcerated. [3][3] Bergen, Peter. Time; Vol. 177 Issue 122 Havent brought peace--> Not warranted or justified.--> We have brought peace to the a plurality of Afghanistan. The place with the most intense fighting is Souther Afgahnistan and that is because the Taliban still maintain a presence there. *He dropped the two impcts I provided - 1) withdrawing will plunge afgahnistan into another civil war and an area of safe-haven for terrorists. This gave them the ability to do the 9/11 attacks. Thus, withdrawing makes terrorism against the US homeland much more probable in my opponents world. 2) It empowers global jihad groups, e.g. in Pakistan. This will be crucuial in the Pakistan scenario*II) Pakistan 1. We dont know who to trust in Pakistan--> Non-sequitur and false dichotomy..How does that lead us to the conclusion to we need to withdraw? Other options are aviable - like using our aid as a levergae. --> We do know, but the harm of letting Pakistan destablilize is worse. 1) If you use his stanard of trust as a gauge, its worse cause then we wont be able to trust anyone. 2) This creates another safe-haven for terrorism, again making the probability much highr but also making nuclear terrorism much more likely.--> Just citing the Osama incident doesnt negate all the other intelligence that Pakistan has provided for us in the FATA region. III) Iran1. They havent gotten a nuke yet--> TURN: thats because we have sanctioned them with targeted sanctions which has hindered their efforts. AND Ron Paul is one of the only members of the House to have voted against sanctions on Iran2. Let Tehran implode--> Proven to fail. The democratic movement was quickly erradicated a year ago. Protestors were beaten and imprisoned. And TURN: the US is key to help democratic movements - e.g. soft power in Egypt and hard power in Iraq. IV) Dropped