Appeasement disadvantage

Download 109.5 Kb.
Date conversion20.04.2016
Size109.5 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Appeasement Disadvantage

Samford Debate Institute Opening Packet


Thesis: The thesis of this disadvantage is that a substantial reduction in the US military presence in the world will be perceived as weakness by Obama, undermining his tough stance against rogue regimes like Iran. Obama is presently engaged in a high stakes gambit to pressure Iran into giving up its nuclear arsenal. However, unilateral troop withdrawals from allied nations will make it appear as if Obama is backing down to rogue nations, emboldening Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stand firm against Obama. The continuation of Iran’s nuclear weapons arsenal would be disastrous: risking widespread Middle Eastern proliferation and an attack by Israel. Now is a critical moment for Obama to stand firm and not give rogue nations like Iran hope that he will back down to tyrannical regimes. Obama must remember the lesson of the 1930’s and not behave like Neville Chamberlain in the face of despotic, rogue regimes.


Appeasement DA Shell (1/2) 2

Appeasement DA Shell (2/2) 3

Uniqueness: Obama is Getting Tough With Iran Now 4

Links: Plan Will Be Perceived as Appeasement 5

Links: Iraq Specific 6

Impacts: Appeasement risks Iranian proliferation 7

Impacts: Strong Military Checks Iranian Proliferation 8

Impacts: Iranian Nuclearization Risks Nuclear Terrorism 9

Impacts: Iranian Nuclearization Risks War 10

Impacts: North Korean Proliferation 11

Impacts: Middle East Peace Process 12

***Appeasement DA Answers*** 13

Appeasement Answers: Extensions: Obama is Appeasing Rogues Now 14

Appeasement DA Answers: Extensions—Iran Won’t Give Up Nukes 15

Appeasement DA Shell (1/2)

A. UNIQUENESS: Obama is engaging in a successful multilateral approach to pressure Iran over its nuclear program now—he is avoiding perceptions of appeasement in the status quo.

Matt Duss, 2010. “Neocons Dismiss The Views Of The Military (Again) To Call For (Another) Preventive War.” April 20, 2010. Online. Internet. Accessed April 26, 2010 at -again-to-call-for-another-preventive-war/

Finally, it shouldn’t even need to be said that President Obama’s approach hardly qualifies as “appeasement” of Iran — unless you’re someone for whom any strategy that doesn’t involve huge numbers of people being blown up by U.S. bombs equals “appeasement.” Seriously: President Obama just hosted a very successful nuclear security summit that, in addition to front-and-centering vital nuclear non-proliferation issues that the Bush administration could barely be bothered with, has resulted in significantly more international unity around efforts to pressure Iran over its nuclear program — the very sort of unity made impossible by the Bush administration’s neocon-inspired belligerence. It’s says something very troubling about the lack of accountability in American politics that these same characters should come again now, calling for another preventive war, using the same clever argumentative method of simply insisting that such a war will go splendidly and will achieve all of our aims with no unintended consequences, and be taken remotely seriously.

B. LINK: American defense pullbacks embolden US adversaries LIKE IRAN—it feeds the perception that Obama is weak.

Robert Kagan, 2009 (senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), February 3, 2009, “No Time to Cut Defense.” Online. Internet. Accessed April 25, 2010 at

· What worries allies cheers and emboldens potential adversaries. The Obama administration is right to reach out and begin direct talks with leaders in Tehran. But the already-slim chances of success will grow slimmer if Iranian leaders believe that the United States may soon begin pulling back from their part of the world. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's spokesman has already declared that the United States has lost its power -- just because President Obama said he is willing to talk. Imagine how that perception would be reinforced if Obama starts cutting funding for an already inadequately funded force.

C. INTERNAL LINK: Iran watches US policy toward other nations—weakness in one area will embolden Iran to stand up to Obama.

Melanie Phillips, 2009. The Spectator. “The fruits of appeasement.” May 27, 2009. Online. Internet. Accessed April 26, 2009 at

The result of such epic cringing is two fingers from North Korea, with yet further threats today. Iran in particular will now be watching intently to see whether America will once again display weakness and impotence; if the US won’t even act to stop North Korea from going nuclear, Iran will be reinforced in its belief that it can develop its own nuclear weapons with impunity. So far, Obama has ‘rushed out a special statement’ in which he said ‘I strongly condemn [North Korea’s] reckless action’ and promised to ‘redouble’ America’s efforts to stop Pyongyang from acquiring nuclear weapons. Well, that will have them quaking in their boots, for sure. Redoubling weakness simply results in twice as much weakness.

Appeasement DA Shell (2/2)

D. IMPACT: Appeasement policies will cause Iranian nuclearization.

Nile Gardiner, 2009. (Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation). June 3, 2009. “Barack Obama Must Heed the Lessons of the Holocaust.” Online. Internet. Accessed April 26, 2010 at

Ahmadinejad and his acolytes speak the language of Himmler and Goebbels, and such warnings are ignored at great peril. The recent missile test by Iran of the Sejil-2 surface to surface missile with a range of 1,200 miles, capable of striking targets across Israel, the Middle East and southern Europe, further underscores both the conventional and nuclear threat that Iranian aggression presents. There is no sign whatsoever that Tehran is backing down from its ambition of dominating the region, or that the Obama administration's leisurely approach is reaping dividends. The horrors of Buchenwald are an important reminder of the failure of the appeasement polices of the 1930s, and the danger of failing to take genocidal threats seriously. Millions were murdered in Europe at the hands of the Third Reich after the world declined to take early action against a tyrant who later acted upon his menacing words. The president's visit to the camp as well as his discussions with German Chancellor Angela Merkel must reinforce the message that evil must be confronted and defeated. When he travels to Germany, President Obama has a major opportunity to declare that his administration will under no circumstances accept a nuclear-armed Iran, a regime with clearly genocidal intentions. He should make it clear that Tehran will face a dramatic escalation of international economic and political sanctions, the complete isolation of the Iranian government, and possible military action unless it immediately halts its nuclear programme. The president must also press forward with the deployment of a global missile defence system, including installations in eastern and central Europe. Obama should urge his German counterpart, Chancellor Angela Merkel, to end her country's massive economic investment in Iran when the two leaders meet in Dresden. German money is shamefully playing a key role in sustaining a brutal, Holocaust-denying regime that oppresses its own people and poses the biggest state-based threat to global security of this generation. Through its investments in Iran, Germany is also helping finance the world's biggest sponsor of international terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Germany remains Europe's biggest exporter to Iran, with nearly 4 billion euros worth of exports in 2008, a third higher than its exports to Israel. Last year, German trade and investment with Tehran actually increased 10 percent to record levels, with several thousand German companies still conducting business with the rogue state. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has been at the forefront of lobbying efforts to advance Iranian-German trade ties, as the honorary chairman of the German Near and Middle East Association (NUMOV). This is a time for robust U.S. leadership in the face of a grave threat, not the adoption of the European Union's failed policy of endless negotiation. It is also a moment for Barack Obama to rethink his flawed strategy of reaching out to dictatorial regimes in the name of "engagement", whether in the form of Iranian Islamist fundamentalists or North Korean Stalinists. The Obama administration's foreign policy doctrine is fraught with risk. As Jimmy Carter discovered to his cost, a United States that looks like a soft touch will swiftly lose the respect of its allies and be outmaneuvered by its foes and rivals. Obama's application of "smart power" is looking increasingly like the appeasement of America's enemies, and on the Iranian nuclear question his administration has projected weakness and confusion. There are striking parallels between the world's initial failure to stand up to Nazi Germany over 70 years ago and the West's inaction today in the face of Iranian aggression. Tehran's drive towards nuclear might can and must be stopped, but only if the United States and its key allies across the Atlantic are willing to do what is necessary.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page