Afghan k neg V2



Download 167.52 Kb.
Page1/10
Date conversion20.04.2016
Size167.52 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10

Afghan K Neg UMICH 7 Week Juniors HKMP

/

Afghan K neg V2




Afghan K neg V2 1

Afghan K neg V2 1

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN 2

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN 2

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN 4

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN 4

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN 6

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN 6

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN 8

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN 8

Peace Movemnts U—growing 10

Peace Movemnts U—growing 10

Peace Movements U—growing 12

Peace Movements U—growing 12

Peace Movements U—growing 14

Peace Movements U—growing 14

Peace Movements U—growing 15

Peace Movements U—growing 15

Peace Movements U—growing 17

Peace Movements U—growing 17

Peace Movements U—growing 19

Peace Movements U—growing 19

***AFF PEACE MOVEMENTS ANSWERS*** 21

***AFF PEACE MOVEMENTS ANSWERS*** 21

Peace Movements U—Weak now 22

Peace Movements U—Weak now 22

Peace Movements U—Weak now 24

Peace Movements U—Weak now 24

AFF—PEACE MOVEMENTS FAIL 26

AFF—PEACE MOVEMENTS FAIL 26

AFF—PEACE MOVEMENTS FAIL 27

AFF—PEACE MOVEMENTS FAIL 27

AFF—PEACE MOVEMENTS FAIL 29

AFF—PEACE MOVEMENTS FAIL 29

***US Exceptionalism Case Defense 1NC*** 31

***US Exceptionalism Case Defense 1NC*** 31

***DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION TURN*** 33

***DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION TURN*** 33

DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION TURN 35

DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION TURN 35

DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION TURN 36

DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION TURN 36

Democratic Consolidation DA—A2: “but that’s imperialist” 38

Democratic Consolidation DA—A2: “but that’s imperialist” 38

Democratic Consolidation Link—Anti-Imperialism 39

Democratic Consolidation Link—Anti-Imperialism 39

Democratic Consolidation--A2: Extinction/War Inevitable 40

Democratic Consolidation--A2: Extinction/War Inevitable 40

EXCEPTIONALISM GOOD EXTENSIONS 41

EXCEPTIONALISM GOOD EXTENSIONS 41

EXCEPTIONALISM GOOD EXTENSIONS 42

EXCEPTIONALISM GOOD EXTENSIONS 42




PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN


A. The BP oil spill is sparking new life in the Afghanistan war movement—working together with environmentalists and gaining momentum.

Horowitz, 2010

Jake Horowitz, Arab American Support Center, “Could BP Oil Fuel the Afghan Antiwar Movement?” http://humanrights.change.org/blog/view/could_bp_oil_fuel_the_afghan_antiwar_movement June 23, 2010



Hard as it may be to believe, the BP oil disaster may actually have an upside, by bringing new life to the antiwar movement in Afghanistan.

Despite the constant daily stream of news stories covering the BP oil spill, the mainstream media has until now failed to draw the important connections between the environmental crisis in the Gulf and America's wars abroad.

But, there's a growing movement, led by Public Citizen, a government watchdog group, that calls on the U.S. government to hold BP fully accountable for its actions in the Gulf of Mexico by canceling the company's multi-billion dollar business contracts with the Department of Defense to fuel U.S. fighter jets and military vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a letter recently sent to the White House and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the group gathered 150,000 backers in a drive to remove BP from the federal payroll, by calling on the White House to suspend and revoke the DoD's six federal fuel contracts — worth a total of $2.1 billion dollars — to the company and its subsidiaries. According to the group's director Tyson Slocum, "You have to send a clear message to shareholders that committing felonies is not tolerated in the United States. And the way you do that is through some form of permanent sanctions."

It's no secret that the U.S. military's foreign wars have left the country heavily dependent on petroleum companies. But, as Nick Turse highlights in his recent article at TomDispatch.com, BP receives the lion's share of DoD contracts, already awarded more than $837 million dollars in this fiscal year alone. In 2009, the company was the largest government-funded oil moneymaker, receiving almost 12 percent of all of the petroleum contract dollars awarded by the Pentagon for the year.

The fact that the same company that is responsible for what the Obama administration's top environmental adviser Carol Browner has deemed "the worst environmental disaster we've ever faced in this country," is being subsidized by the Pentagon and Americans' tax dollars is surely evidence for greater linkage between the environmental and antiwar movements.

As tens of thousands of barrels of oil continue to spill into the Gulf, U.S. fighter planes are burning 47,000 gallons per mission over the skies of Afghanistan. If this movement to cancel BP's defense contracts with the government continues to gather steam, environmental and antiwar activists may be able to channel and utilize the public's outrage with BP not only to give much-needed spark to the green movement, but also as a new weapon in the effort to withdraw U.S. troops from the AfPak region.

PEACE MOVEMENTS TURN


B. The Aff Kills the Peace Movement—sudden withdrawl makes the peace movement will collapse into confusion.

Hayden, 2007

Tom Hayden, Senator, the Nation Institute's Carey McWilliams Fellow, has played an active role in American politics and history for over three decades, beginning with the student, civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s. “Hawks for Withdrawal” http://www.thenation.com/article/hawks-withdrawal?page=0,0

The peace movement should take some credit for this. And the peace movement should keep the pressure on the pillars of the war policy, lest public opinion backslide into divisions or despair. The peace movement should also be planning now to make it virtually impossible for presidential candidates to campaign successfully in 2008 without committing to a speedy withdrawal from Iraq.

But there are understandable limits to what the peace movement can accomplish in the short run, aside from forcefully expressing the majority's desire that the United States withdraw. What are those limits? The peace movement cannot force the US government to "withdraw now," unless of course the insurgents suddenly overrun the Green Zone. The peace movement cannot force the United States out of the Middle East, though it can help pressure our government to reverse the Israeli occupation, which our tax dollars subsidize. But with the public climate soured over Iraq, the peace movement can mobilize opinion against military intervention in places like Venezuela.

Movements generally have power against the system when they apply pressure to the focal point of its weakness, in this case the dramatic waste of lives and taxes spent on an unwinnable war conducted undemocratically. The strong popular demand to set a withdrawal timetable is becoming impossible for the elites to avoid. When and if withdrawal is announced, the peace movement may face serious shrinkage and internal confusion. The phase of negotiation tends to wear movements down. The Paris peace talks of the Vietnam era took some seven years. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process appears eternal. An exception worth examining has been the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Besides remaining a formidable factor for politicians facing close elections and military recruiters chasing down high school students, the peace movement has a historic role to play every day in shaping the public understanding of the lessons of Iraq. The lessons of this war will "prepare the battlefield," to borrow a Pentagon term, for future wars and political campaigns. It will determine whether the current peace movement will be limited to a single important issue or be an embryo of a broader progressive movement.

This is the sharpest potential difference between the peace movement and the centrists. Both can and should collaborate on military withdrawal. But the peace movement wants to prevent future wars, reverse the nuclear weapons momentum, end domestic spying, divert resources to domestic priorities and, just for starters, put an end to the pattern of "armed privatization."

These are issues the centrists and most politicians will not touch unless they are confronted with a future climate of opinion in which real answers are demanded. Moderates wish the war to end so that the "real" war against terrorism can be prosecuted more effectively. Progressives should be making the case that the Iraq War is far from a misguided adventure but rather the result of pursuing an anti-terrorism approach that divides the world into camps of good and evil, just as Vietnam was the logical outcome of cold war assumptions about a monolithic Communist conspiracy.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page