Resolved: On balance, the United States federal govenment is justified in interveening in the intern

Sorry for the FF, I had to work my school's registation and I tried to hurry. Contention of IsMy opponent says this is abuse of conduct, but this is false because he agreed to the resolution in a PM and in round one. Thus meaning he accepted all uses of the definitions. He also says it should have been stated in round 1 but that is also false because the rules state that round 1 is for acceptance and definitions and this is a contention, an arguement, thus meaning that it didn't fit in round 1 and is totally leagal. So extend all agruements. ChileSorry about the link here is the actual link . https://www.cia.gov...My opponent says is this case that we were justified, but as I stated in round 2 we helped set up a dictatorship in Chile. Does that sound link what Pro is saying? KyrgyzstanAgain sorry about the link here is the correct link . http://spectator.org...My opponent says it was morally correct, but is rationing water when you have plenty of it and human rights abuses sound morally correct and we outsted the leader because he was Mulsum. Middle EastMy opponent says that we're justified here, but another thing that we did is fund Al-Qaeda and helped cause 9/11 . http://www.theinsider.org.... We in the end killed millions of people for nothing in a major loop, is this morally correct? I think not! Rocket's arguement'sMy opponent goes and says that we should involve ourselves because we're correct on our values, but the thing is that eastern values differ than western values and we shouldn't go meddaling with their beleifs. Over their what we call human rights abuses they call their religon of Islam. We can't go over their and fight them because of their religon or it would spark another Crusade. What we do to those citizens of the nation we interveen in we end up hurting them. Let me introduce to you a card Intervention violates the rights of those in the intervening nation. On a related note, Dobos argues that intervention is potentially immoral on the grounds that those in intervening nations are denied information and choice:DOBOS, NED. 2010. ["A State to Call Their Own: Insurrection, Intervention, and the Communal Integrity Thesis. " Journal Of Applied Philosophy 27, no. 1: 26-38. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 6, 2013). ]Of course none of this should be taken to suggest that intervention is justified all things considered wherever rebellion is. Even where the means employed and the ends sought are similar, a foreign invasion can be expected to provoke stiffer resistance than a local uprising, augmenting its costs and potentially impeding its success . Thus inter-state war can fail to satisfy the prudential constraints (proportionality, likelihood of success) where intra-state war would fulfil them. Humanitarian intervention might also conflict with the domestic obligations of the state that prosecutes it, depending on how one conceives of the social contract that binds a government to its people. According to what Buchanan calls the ‘discretionary association’ view, citizens empower their government to act as an agent or trustee for the sole purpose of promoting their interests. We each submit to the authority of our government and relinquish a portion of our earnings in tax in return for this service. The contract says nothing about using public resources to render assistance to foreigners.50 Therefore humanitarian intervention involves a state violating the fiduciary rights of its taxpayers. It might also be said to violate the rights of the military personnel deployed. Martin Cook describes the ‘implicit moral contract’ between a state and its armed forces as follows: The military contract obliges military personnel to run grave risks and to engage in morally and personally difficult actions. They do these things on the basis of the implicit promise that the circumstances under which they must act are grounded in political leadership’s good faith judgment that the defense of sovereignty and integrity of the nation (or, by careful extension, the nation’s vital interests) require their action.51 The crucial point here is that soldiers implicitly agree to fight and die only for their country and its vital interests. A government that uses military force to defend human rights beyond its borders thus tramples on the rights of its own armed servicemen and women in the process. Con's sourcesWikipeadia isn't a creditable source so I do implore that Pro finds something else to back up his arguements. ConclusionIn conclusion we can see that the US isn't justified. With the conention of is states that I need to find 1 thing wrong and I have showed that there were things wrong with everything, even what my opponent brought up.