Resolved: The US Ought to Aid Ukraine Militarily

Your C1 defense: I do not distort any figures. The question we must ask is; If China, who owns $1.3 Trillion of our debt, or Japan, who owns $1.1 Trillion, were to theoretically default on their loan, would we be able to pay them back? Perhaps, but it would be detrimental. Here is a map that illustrates GDP to Debt Ratio. Notice that ugly rust looking color over the U. S. ? Notice the green grass on Russia? I thank Pro for bringing this idea up. Pro did not mention the Million Dollar a year per soldier per year figure, or the fact that a war fighting insurgents in a desert has cost the United States around 500 Billion. Your C2 defense: You are correct about the Navy and Air force, but I wouldn’t say that puts them staunchly ahead. I would say it levels the playing field. I’d like to see the U. S. army, no matter how well equipped, face off against a force twice as big in battle. Once upon a time there was a war against a “piss-ant” nation of rice farmers in Vietnam that I believe didn’t go so great for the Americans. Putin may not be crazy enough to launch a nuke, but can we bet money on him? The bottom line is; if you are going to lose a war, and you are already a dead man, are you willing to go out with a bang, so to speak? We can’t be certain either way, and that’s enough of a reason for me. As for Jeff Daniels, most of his specific facts are B. S. , but not totally. By CIA factbook: The U. S. is 34th in infant mortality It’s 35th in life expectancy It’s 21st in the education index The U. S. is 3rd in labor force The U. S. is 2nd in exports, but per capita, is 43rd It is number one in incarcerated citizens per capita It is number one in people who think angles are real It is third in Median household income It does have the biggest defense budget in the world, 640 Bill. Bigger than the next 14 nations combined, and of the 14, 10 are strong allies. Most of the nations on the list are the only ones in the world with an actual military to speak of. So, not completely “garbage”. Are these really the stats of the greatest nation in the world, or the “lead hegemon”? Other Rebuttals Your points on the Mujahedeen are flawed. You missed a man named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, (who I mentioned by name in my first post) a terrorist leader of the first degree, who was supported by the CIA: “When the Soviet war in Afghanistan began in 1979, the CIA began funding his rapidly growing Hezb-e Islami mujahedeen organization through the ISI” I listed the factions under the umbrella of the Afghan Mujahedeen, one of which, called the Peshawar Seven, included Gulbuddin and his organization, the Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin. In Kabul alone he killed 50,000 civilians. Aside from Gulbuddin, we supported the Taliban because they were anti-Iranian—and they had oil: “Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U. S. -based oil company Unocal. For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools; the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women. In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U. S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia” There is an excellent article in The New York Times from 2001 I will quote: “Taliban forces in Afghanistan are reported to have up to 100 shoulder-fired Stingers, the U. S. -made missile with the deadliest record against low-flying aircraft of any weapon since World War II… In the 1980s, the Reagan administration delivered several hundred Stingers to Afghan resistance groups, including the Taliban. The Central Intelligence Agency, despite strenuous efforts, was never able to recover more than a few of the missiles after the war ended, even with big cash rewards. After Moscow's withdrawal in 1989, the CIA started a buy-back program to recover the Stingers, offering as much as $100,000 each. There were relatively few takers. ” . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://news.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Whether or not they were responsible for 9/11 is a red herring. They killed countless civilians, American soldiers, and innocent journalists. That is more than enough for me…we must look at humans, not Americans. Ignorance to where the money was going cannot be claimed. It was irresponsible, rash, and ill planned, and I don’t like repeating the same mistakes. I don’t see how blaming other nations for Pol Pot affects the argument. Sure, toss them in too. Hegemonic Stability NATO and the EU are somewhat comparable to the League of Nations, you’re right, and a big part of why we still sit apart from China and Russia and why Germany went to war was in direct relation to bad and lazy choices by the L. o. N. They just straight up excluded the USSR, ignored China when it called for help from the Japanese invasion, and beat the living hell out of Germany economically. NATO as a deterrent is a joke. They were the League reincarnated, still ignoring and excluding the people they should have been talking to. NATO was and still is a pretty banner for the people who were anti-commie to huddle under and make deals. They make promises they can’t keep, and they know they can’t keep, and then when the promises get tested, they run away and hide. They are so far practically useless in Libya. It’s got nothing to do with keeping the peace. Chomsky sums up why NATO is bad news: Your theory assumes that the world leader is a kind of perfect judge, a nation without fault, just and good, motivated to be fair and honest, and that belief is supremely idealistic and ignorant to reality. The honest reality is that the U. S. , if it truly is the undisputed leader, is not perfect. In fact, a case could quite easily be made that they are a terrible judge and a terrible leader. Just look at those stats I posted. Is this the best the world can offer? I’m not so convinced. When you say “it is the responsibility of the world hegemon and any strong nation capable to stop it”, you aren’t seeing what that means. That means war, and not some war where we sit back and watch, like Afghanistan. A big conflict is a big deal. You can see why I am very careful when it comes to choosing who to attack and who to spare. I am not isolationist. We don’t live in a world where we can be isolationist anymore. My main point here is this: War is a very, very ugly thing, and it isn’t a fun game for rich white folks to play. It’s not to be taken lightly. We have no economic legs to stand on at the moment, and I don’t want another war way out in the middle of not-north-America for some conflict that doesn’t involve us, either historically, or geographically. Canadians went to the Middle East too, after all. Your Mexican example is just as poor. Hispanic people make up 16% of the American population, and only 60% of those are Mexican. It would not be justifiable, in any way. Even if every single Mexican-American voted “yes” to become Mexican again, it would not be a majority in a state by state basis. If a civil war arose, which is not likely, but if it did, and the South wanted to secede, and it was voted majority, I would support them. That is the basis of Democracy. It is not “Government” and “People”, it is “People” and “People”, at least in theory. Here in Canada, we’ve been fighting a minority of Quebec that for years has wanted to become its own nation, and I would support that as well, if it was Majority. We can’t pick and choose democratic principles. It’s either all in or nothing, because any change is not truly Democratic.