Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy OBJ>

My opponent defends his value by saying not all governments work for the people,but giving my observation which he had no disagreement to,shows that this said govt.should be the standard. therefore, his attack falls and my attack ramains. My opponent defended his criterion by saying he did infact have one,and i apologize for not identifying it correctly,for it was not separated from the value. It is protection of the innocent. This falls because we can not protect the innocent if the oposing country,is in fact guilty of any one posibility. my opponent defended his 1st contention by saying "i already adress this above if this is what he has to say" i am at awe. i dont understand this attack not does he clarify to exactly which above part he is cross applying to. without a valid rebut, my attack remains. my opponent defends his second contention by saying war makes a much clearer point thatn economic sacntions. i will adress this first. economic sanctions are identified to economicaly harm a nation, as a head to more draconian acts. we use sanctions to make them stop without causing physical violence. if we used diplomacy, they could refuse like china did this past year. war takes more lives than sanctions by a long run, as i have proven. if you are upholding protection, and protecting innocent lives, then war is not the answer in anty way and by saying it is, my opponent contradicts. he says war is straight forward. he forgets that war kills. a bombing will kill more than the to or three you target. it can destroy a nation, hense the innocent. MY ATTACK still stands. my opponent defends his first subpoint of his thrid contention by saying but war doesnt effect economy. so what? that is my question. so what. war doesnt ONLY target economy. it costs LIVES. what is money if there is no being to spend it? what is life if there is no one to live it? i rest my case and my attack stands. he rebuilds subpoint B by saying "why waste time with sanctions when we know war is more effective."... he says, technically, why try stop it without violence, lets go ahead and bomb them and be done with it. if my opponent protects innocent and LIFE, he again contradicts himself. lets kill them, not take their money. this is draconian and crude, and on his part invalid because he doesnt repressent war nor say in his case we need war. he is getting off topic on his part, not defending his case. my attack stands. now to defend my case. first i would liek you to take into consideration, by my rights, that he failed to attack within the first round. now, on to rebuild. on attacking my value by saying if we are concerned for ourselves, why join the UN? i attack this by saying, i never once stated we specifically join the UN. i use the UN as an example. if he atatcks this, he must be relating to americans. i must note that the resolution does NOT apply only to america. it is international. my value stands because he misunderstands the subject of our topic. in attacking my value-criterion, my oppontent says "please choose one, you cant have both." i miss understand. does my opponent mean the value-criterion? if so he is unaware than that is a more liberal term used for a criterion, it is not two separate things. if he means government legitimacy, it is only one criterion. is is the goverments legitimate roll in protecting whom it governs. my opponent's attack is foggy or ill-spoken. please flow this to the negative side. on attacking my first subpoint, my opponent says "my case directly disapproves this." my opponent doesnt say how it does so or in what ways. his attack id short and very unclear. my first subpoint still stands in the idea that it wasnt attacked clearly. attacking my second and third subpoints, my opponent says "my case disproves this." he doesnt clarify which part. then goes on to say "possible war or bad economy you could survive." i misunderstand once again. does he mean that we should use sanctions to survive or jsut have war? if so, he is on agreeable terms with me and my subpoints are clearly upheld. if he means, other wise, i would please asked to clarify further or with more detail. by attcking my opponent and rebuilding my own case i have clearly shown you that economic sanctions are the best NONVIOLENT means, government must remain legitimate, and i strongly urge a negative ballot. (opponent, i am a girl:D lol, and feel free to befriend me. i can share tips with you if needed, i am on my way to harvard nationals this coming february(no bragging, only looking to lend a hand)" .