America needs to stop intervening with other nations.

I am looking forward to debating and, though I hardly see where it could be present in this, no personal bias, please. My opponent claims many of America's problems would be solved if only we were to stop "Intervening with other nations. " In fact, he even tells us that we NEED to stop intervening. This is a moot statement. First, I must define two terms in order to allow the judges and my opponent know what is being debated: (As always, I'll be using the merriam-Webster dicitonary) Intervening: " to come in or between by way of hindrance or modification " Need as: "necessary duty : obligation" Obviously, we see that it is obligatory, as my opponent states, to stop interfering with foreign affairs. "We have troops in Germany, Japan, Belize and Haiti and none of them are doing much of anything but at the same time we have less than enough troops to go into Afghanistan. If we weren(')t promoting democracy in Haiti or bombing Kosovo to end genocide, we would have a significant amount of troops. " Excuse me but. .. Do you hear yourself? We are "end(ing) genocide. " Isn't any cause that furthers the human race a righteous and obligatory act by the party that has the ability to do such? Also, my opponent claims that if we were to pull out of SOME countries, we would have the option and the prerequisite to engage OTHER countries. The resolution you are debating is, "America needs to stop intervening with other nations. " not, "America needs to stop intervening with other countries unless they are a threat. " The resolution clearly states that we must prevent any foreign activity, seeing as we have had no issues with Afghanistan since 9/11/2001. And even then, it wasn't the Afghan leaders who our dispute was with, it was with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. "We spend a tremendous amount of money on our troops when they are overseas. And this is military funding. So we have less airforce jets than we should and cant deploy (people) quickly enough for the purpose of overstretching our military. " These soldiers are risking their lives to ensure that the world's ONLY superpower remains as such. It is not only contrary to our MORAL obligations as U. S. citizens but also contrary to our purpose in the military: * "Screwing other nations makes other nations hate us. If we werent helping Israel and Palestine, then Al Qa(e)da would hate us less. Other nations would like us more if we let them run their nation, while we ran ours. " This isn't an issue of Al Qaeda liking us. Al Qaeda is a a group of extremists whose soul purpose is to destroy all those who demoralize their faith. We did not start Afghanistan's problems, in fact, we aided them during the Cold War. "1979 The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan, beginning a decade-long war that ends with their withdrawal in 1988. " -. http://www.infoplease.com... The withdrawl was due to our contribution in arms and defensive forces. (Also refer to the movie, "Charlie Wilson's War") Al Qaeda is a seperate militia all their own. "We(')ve seen what Iraq has done. Pull our troops out of places that we dont need to be. Give the (government) more money and help other countrie(s) to like us more. " What about our efforts in World War 2. If it weren't for our actions and compilation with Russia, Hitler might very well be the World's dictator and either Germany or Austria would be the only superpower. Debate. org would not exist unless the only debate is "Hitler is right" in which, all those who vote or protect Con would be shot. This is one scenario. Also, what about our current actions in Africa? Would you say that it is MORE of a neccessity to aid starving children, those in need of help, and those affected by Darfur? Now that I have refuted my opponent's case, I shall bring up two contentions of my own. 1)* We protect those who either cannot protect themselves alone or who desperately need it. A) We provide for Africa alone, more than any other country. B) The past contributions America has made have been beneficial to the country and, in fact, led to a higher approval rating amongst other countries. 2) If we stop intervening, the possible and most likely outcome would leave some parts of the world in shambles. The Middle East alone would fall even quicker than it has already. We took the neccessary precaution by taking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and now we need to support them as they rebuild and recollect their ways of life. For the reasons presented to you, I urge you to vote CON. Thank you, -EG