Lucky for you that debating is an oral activity.
Now then to your question. It seems overbroad to me. Is that really how the subject of the debate is framed…i.e., do you have to come down on one side or another unequivocally? It seems to me that there are just too many variables and you have to consider each case on its own merits. FWIW I’ll put down my opinions with respect to recent events.
Yes I think we were right to attack Afghanistan and get rid of the Taliban government, but no, I don’t think we should still be bombing at this point. We should be working with our protege government there and let them ferret out the last pockets of resistance once their economy gets moving again.
Yes, we should be involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that’s constructive to both sides. Israel can, and probably will, eventually subject to Arafat to jail-arrest and trial. It’s arguable that he deserves it for sponsoring terrorism, yet that will not solve the underlying problem. We should be involved but not come down for either side exclusively.