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

“My opponent has dropped this contention. Remember now that my opponent has dropped this contention all I have to do is prove 1 incident were the US was not justified which would disprove the resolution.”Yes, you have to find an incident where the US was NOT justified. Post intervention problems/human rights violations are not applicable. So far my opponent has not presented any unjustifiable incidents with evidence or facts. Post intervention problems are not feasible to result in an unjustifiable intervention. In order to disprove this resolution you will need to prove with facts and evidence that human rights violations are justifiably done by these government regimes. Whether or not the US has failed at intervening has no factor in determining whether or not the US is justified. Remember, the title of this debate clearly states “On balance, the United States federal government is justified in intervening in the internal political process of another nation, in an attempt to stop human rights abuses.” This debate is not on government intervention for imperialistic intentions but government intervention in the internal political process of another nation in an attempt to stop human rights abuses. Chile This could have indeed been a government intervention but this is unrelated to the topic. IF the US was actually involved in this coup, it would have been for more political reasons not human rights abuses. Salvador Allende was not know for human rights abuses. This should be off the table. Kyrgyzstan There is still absolutely no evidence that the US was involved in this ‘revolt’. Not even a shred of evidence. Again, not even in that link you posted. Zero, zip, none. Frankly, I didn’t even know about the tulip revolt until this debate. The US was involved in two wars at the time. Now, George W Bush gave a speech during his inaugural address and sparked some provoking to revolt. But that’s nothing near government involvement. Middle east I object that my opponent is turning away from the topic of this debate to argue the conspiracy theories of these two wars.Again, this is unrelated to the discussion. Fact: we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Fact: We entered Afganistan to combat Islam terrorism and find Osama Bin Laden(took us 10 years but we accomplished our mission)Both reasons we entered these countries were partly of human rights violations. Conspiracy theory: We went for REMs and oil. You’re saying we went into both of these countries and didn’t overthrow Saddam and kill Osama Bin Laden? Therefore, these are theories. “Let me remind you of Benghazi. The United States Embassy was attacked and several Americans were killed in Benghazi.” This was post intervention. This could have easily been prevented if our secretary of state were actually doing her job. This resulted in poor leadership. After capturing the man behind these attacks, he had said they conducted the attacks because of an anti-Muslim American video not because of the 2011 intervention. http://talkingpointsmemo.com.... Conclusion The US has and always will be justified in the intervention of the political processes of another nation if human rights violations were commited to a certain extent. Human rights violations are against international law which is backed by the UN. The UN has vowed to disrupt and preserve human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human rights. The US, being one of the top 5 security council members, has taken that vow. Throughout history, we see human rights violations continue on a daily basis. If we don’t disrupt these actions then it will continue to spread. The US can impose tough economic sanctions or military intervention. Whatever is best for our national security interest. Now, like I have stated, the US should only intervene if we are economically and militarily capable. Not risking anything for our national security. Of course, intervention should always come at the peoples permission. My opponent has not given any sufficient sources to indicate the US was not justified intervention for human rights abuses. Chile should be off the table considering the CIA secretly intervened for our nations imperialistic state; it had nothing to do with human rights violations. There are no evidence regarding the US involvement in the 2005 Tulip Revolt. Absolutely none. And lastly, my opponent had stated conspiracy theories to go along the middle east wars. I have presented my arguments backed with facts and evidence that give us justification.