Resolved: The United States should send military into N. Korea.

I believe North Korea is more of a risk alive than if it was handled. I will start with my arguments in the same order and then proceed to your two. 1.Morality-You never said the human rights shouldn't be stopped, you just claimed it happens other places. That's like saying "Officer, yes, I'm stealing this money, but it happens in other places with different circumstances. Don't arrest me because you can't stop it all." Russia, China, and Iran have made leaps and bounds in the right direction but North Korea isn't giving any leeway. Also, North Korea is smaller and a good place to start. 2.Political-You said that it wasn't a good reason but you never proved why. If you were saying that your two points outway, that's one thing, but I never saw something saying that fascism isn't a reason to fight. http://www.economist.com... This link is my evidence that they are a fascist dictatorship. 3.Existential-If we're to go off of what North Korea has said, then we have to assume he wants to turn South Korea into a "sea of fire." The other countries that have them, have them as deterrence and prove it by not saying we're gonna nuke other countries or we're not gonna turn another nation into a "sea of fire." 4.China-http://www.scmp.com... This article shows that even though China won't help against North Korea, they won't get into a full-fledged war. It wouldn't be worth the lives as you said. China won"t go to war " threats are a diplomatic bargaining tool. Kelly 13 (Michael Kelly, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for International Programs @ Creighton School of Law, "Why China Doesn't Really Want the Senkaku Islands", JURIST - Forum, December 7, 2013, http://jurist.org...) Whatever the origins of the revived Senkaku claim forty-three years ago, Mr. Xi knows he can get much more fossil fuel to feed his carbon-thirsty economy from the South China Sea deposits than he could from the comparatively meager East China Sea. His strategy is to create the biggest fuss possible with brinksmanship tactics over the Senkaku Islands in order to bring a frayed and twitchy Japan to the bargaining table, with the US nervously in the background pushing hard for peace. And then, he will pitch his grand bargain. In exchange for relinquishing China's claim to the Senkakus, Mr. Xi would want Japan to support China's claim to the South China Sea. Politically, the Japanese government comes home with a huge victory that costs it virtually nothing. But of course, what Japan gives China in this grand bargain is far more valuable to China than a handful of rocks near Okinawa. With Japan backing its claim in the South China Sea and the US backing off, China will be in a position to deal bilaterally with the claims of the smaller states. Unable to withstand the political, economic and military might of their vastly larger neighbor, the claims of Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines will eventually collapse through bribery, bullying and benevolence alternately applied. Long the object of Euro-Japanese grand bargains that carved up its territory and subjugated its people, China now seeks a grand bargain of its own. Mr. Xi understands that his country has the leverage to pull one off, and he is gambling that this feint to the Senkakus will get him the support from the other Great Powers to do it. This piece of evidence also shows that China uses threats to get what it wants but won't actually follow through with them. 5.Lives-As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" I feel that since I proved China's threats are just diplomatic tools and not actual problems, the death count would be significantly lower because it would be the US versus North Korea. The lives that are lost are valuable of course, but I would say that we can say their sacrifice is worth the human right issues. For the sake of human rights and North Korea's threats, I urge an affirmative ballot.