the u.s should stay out of foreign affairs

I. GlobalizationMy opponent begins his round by stating that he has nothing against a globalized economy. This is not a concession though because he then attempts to justify his position by implying that there is a difference between globalization and our involvement in foreign affairs militarily. This is false. While they are not literally the same thing, the latter is necessary for the former to work. We cannot expect our precious resources such as oil to travel through hostile regions without the necessary protection. We cannot expect our consumer goods from Asia, which cross seas via shipping vessels, to make it here without the necessary influence in regions where pirating is a reality. In order to maintain control over our import and export shipping routes, necessary measures must be taken to secure the materials. By removing our influence in any regard or from any region only heightens the risk of theft or other dangers to occur to our traded goods. I ask my opponent to present a realistic plan of action to secure such trade routes and other regions which hold America's interests, in terms of resources, if we are to not use our own security forces. Are we to depend on the security efforts of the local regions which in themselves might be prone to corruption or lack of basic military/security strategy? How can we depend on such regions to hold our best interests in heart when they themselves are not Americans or recipients of such imports/exports? Based on these points alone it should be evident to my opponent that some involvement in foreign affairs with military efforts are not only wise, but also imperative if we are to continue our current efforts for international trade and globalization in general. II. Maintaining dominance in the fields of Intelligence. My opponent failed to even acknowledge this argument. I ask that he please provide a counter-argument in order to maintain his BOP for the affirmative position of this debate. At this point, this argument stands unchallenged by my opponent and is thus extended it from round 1. III. Continued lack of justification (Egypt). My opponent failed to expand on the Egypt contention he raised in round 1. He made the claim that the problems in Egypt are the fault of American efforts in Egyptian foreign affairs. I have asked for him to expand on this in my previous round to show how it is, in fact, America's fault. I would ask that my opponent acknowledge this rebuttal and provide a counter argument as it currently stands unchallenged. IV. Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen. In regards to Iraq, my opponent presents a case where it was a waste of time and effort due to the insurgents continued attacks even after we left. That is a poor excuse considering that what we actually accomplished was putting an end to the reign of Saddam Hussein. With this in mind, I would ask my opponent to consider what would have happened had the late Hussein or his sons gained control over WMD's? Saddam Hussein posed a threat to American interests, as did the high numbers of Al Qaeda operatives which were, at-least temporarily, blocked by American forces from gaining control over the factories and resources available to Hussein's regime in the area. The fact that they are continuing such acts of brutality in that region are due to Obama's decision to remove forces from the area. So you are basically arguing that because they are continuing attacks we shouldn't have ever wasted time there, but in reality they are continuing attacks because we left. Pakistan and Yemen are also highly contested areas. I still do not see why three cases should give cause to ending American efforts in foreign affairs on a global scale. What about Europe, East Asia, South America, or Africa? My opponent assumes that three cases of controversial efforts give balance to the rest of our efforts which span across this globe, this is ludicrous. My opponent still lacks justification for attempting to end all of our foreign affairs efforts because of these cases. I would ask that my opponent show how at-least 50% of all of foreign affairs efforts are evidently harmful and should stop. Perhaps then we might have a debate where ending such acts are justified. Until then, my opponent has a huge mountain to climb in regards to showing how these three cases actually give enough weight to his argument that American should stop all of their involvement in foreign affairs. In conclusion, I have provided rebuttals to each of my opponents arguments. I now await for my opponent's closing round in which I hope he will touch on each response including those he failed to provide rebuttals for in his previous round.