participation of foreign countries in protecting human rights of a country could be justified.

I will be arguing that it is not or can not be justifiable for foreign countries' participation in order to protect the human rights of a country. I apologize for being too long. First, I want to clarify one thing: For this debate, the exception that 'unless a country requests for help' should be disregarded. Thank you. 1. Foreign countries attempting to protect human rights in a certain country can backfire. -Most of the time, when a country seems to be a dictatorship, authoritarian, or generally inhumane to its civilians, many other countries will immediately get together to request that country's leader to either step down or start a democracy. And most of the time, that leader/government/administration will refuse to do either choice, despite peace treaties, or discussions. The foreign countries are provoked by the refusal, the leader is adamant that he is not doing anything wrong and therefore will not easily give up his power. Thus, the foreign countries start sending over troops and weapons, the leader sends out his own troops, there is a war, millions of innocent people are killed, starve to death, perish. A country is ravaged. Is this not an example of violating human rights? Isn't a war just a brutal as protesters being tortured or murdered? -In addition, here is a piece of evidence. According to the article "Mounting Libyan Death Toll From US-NATO Bombings" by Barry Grey on the World Socialist Web Site, it states, "The death toll in Libya from US, French and British air strikes continues to mount and promises to rise sharply. .. The escalating death and destruction being meted out by the US and its allies in Libya further exposes the lies that were used to justify the launching of the war five weeks ago. " This also a clear example how foreign countries also destruct and kill innocent civilians in a country that they deem "authoritarian". 2. Just because foreign countries say a particular country is a dictatorship and that they are violating human rights, and accuse the leader of being a dictator does not mean it really is. -Yes, there may be proof, evidence; your country may run a bunch of headlines stating how a certain leader killed a bunch of people, etc. , etc. , but that may be a way of your country justifying itself in starting a war with an " authoritarian" country. There is always some bias in here. Do you really know if Bashar al-Assad is a dictator, if he is as evil as various countries make him to be? Do you really know if Gaddafi,Saddam Hussein, all of those accused dictators, were really that cruel? If you were one of their closest advisors, or a citizen of their country, then maybe yo would know, but if you are just an outsider, a foreigner to them, then no, you don't know. And you won't really know unless you really get to know them. -The Huffington Post website states that Gaddafi, "In 1969, as a mere 27-year-old captain, he emerged as leader of a group of officers who overthrew the monarchy of King Idris. . .. .Gadhafi took undisputed power and became a symbol of anti-Western defiance in a Third World recently liberated from its European colonial rulers. During the 1970s, Gadhafi proceeded to transform the nation. " Gaddafi actually did some things for Libya. He must have been a pretty skillful leader, if at 27, he could form a group of supporters and overthrow an old leader. And if you read the quote again, it states, "anti-Western defiance". Furthermore, Libya is an nation run on oil, as the Huffington Post states [that Libya was], " . .. then an oil power courted by the West. .. " Of course, the foreign countries who took part in Libya's revolution were mostly made up by France, Britain, and the U. S. , Western powers, and they may or may not have seen the advantage of oil. My last point is merely a defense for all those "dictators" and can be easily disregarded. If you were a supposed dictator of a supposed authoritarian country, and then a bunch of foreign countries believe they have the right to just invade into your country, start a war, and drop bombs, would you step aside. If you do, you'll probably be killed. (After all, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein died, and if Assad is overthrown, he'll probably die too, right? ) Are you willing to merely step aside, and allow these foreign countries to take control? And if you are faced by angry protesters, such as the Syrian Rebels, can you be sure they will not do all those authoritarian, inhuman things that you are accused of doing? What if they don't protect human rights at all, but also violate them, despite claims from other countries that they are a "legitimate government"? Thank you and again, I apologize for such a long argument. I look forward to my opponent's argument.