Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
VLORD

Sudan aff help

Recommended Posts

I was thinking of making a Sudan aff for next year, but I need some solvency advocates, ones that preferably do not deal with the Armed Forces. If anyone could help that would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what exactly are you thinking if you're not thinking armed forces intervention?

 

if its basic 'send aid' plantext, then a smart negative will just whip out all the cards indicating the genocide is abducting humanitarian aid workers. that's a solvency turn that i doubt you've got answers to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could provide PHA to the refugees there.....

U could do something about the govornment there...but thats not exactly PHA......

Military intervention...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could provide PHA to the refugees there.....

U could do something about the govornment there...but thats not exactly PHA......

Military intervention...

 

Actually, most PHA being directed to refugees is being blocked by the Janjaweed. If you were to send direct aid to the people, you would first have to stop the Janjaweed. That is why you would most likely use the armed forces. Although, if you look hard enough, there is a bunch of stuff on how blocking and putting sanctions on US investments in Chinese Oil companies could pressure China to try to end the conflict. There are also alot of great cards that talk about China being key to stopping the genocide, especially since China has so much influence on the Janjaweed.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want to go the china route, the evidence you'll need to look for are all the brink cards on them really not wanting the beijing olympics to be known as the genocide olympics.

 

unfortunately, sanctioning china is hella effects topical. even i wouldn't run that. but, scottj's right.. all the PHA-->darfur cases won't work without some solvency mechanism for the janjaweed.

 

keep us posted/keep asking questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't remember what camp put it out, but this year a genocide prevention aff was put out, and in the file, there was some neg stuff. With the neg stuff was a cp involving what I was talking about above, I am sure you could find a few useful cards in the file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After doing some research I guess military intervention would be best, but I have another question: where do I get the recruits for the genocide? I don't really make a new branch of the AF. And does anyone know of any cards saying I could just send weapons to Darfur? Thanks for the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one way to creatively work your way around recruiting is to cut all the cards saying iraq is the biggest deterrent to youth joining.

 

when the other team brings up a recruiting solvency deficit argument, just go up in cx and ask them why they don't think you can get full recruits. they'll say "look we barely have enough recruits now, why would plan be different?" then you get up in the next speech, say "the problem with the squo is we're sending everyone to iraq so they don't want to join--we solve this back because we recruit specifically for darfur"

 

that'll get you some risk of increase, at least. i think this argument will probably be much less prevalent this year. but, it could happen.

 

weapons to darfur? riiiight.. if you want the janjaweed to get hold of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The O'Hanlon evidence in the case was pretty specific in saying that if we created a Genocide Prevention Force then that would act as an icnentive and many people would join it. I think the number was like 5,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one way to creatively work your way around recruiting is to cut all the cards saying iraq is the biggest deterrent to youth joining.

 

when the other team brings up a recruiting solvency deficit argument, just go up in cx and ask them why they don't think you can get full recruits. they'll say "look we barely have enough recruits now, why would plan be different?" then you get up in the next speech, say "the problem with the squo is we're sending everyone to iraq so they don't want to join--we solve this back because we recruit specifically for darfur"

 

that'll get you some risk of increase, at least. i think this argument will probably be much less prevalent this year. but, it could happen.

 

weapons to darfur? riiiight.. if you want the janjaweed to get hold of them

 

And O'Hanlon talks about this, how a specific genocide prevention force would be incentive in itself for people to join. Really, your going to want your plan to do something with military intervention. As I said above, sending weapons will only feed the Janjaweed. A better question is, who are you sending the weapons to? The government, as of now, is in support and actually supplies the Janjaweed. Finding a way to give weapons to the rebels would just be counterproductive to the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did o'hanlon spec that number in his december 2k6 article? i didn't remember a number when i was cutting that case to run it this past year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5,000-10,000 new troops

 

[Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution May 7, 2006 (Washington Times, http: //www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/pagedefs/1242fbe403a0ff40800058950a1415cb.xml)]

 

Third, the genocide prevention force would have some backup from standard U.S. military units. In other words, the mission would admittedly impose some slight additional strain on an Army and Marine Corps already heavily overdeployed abroad. But given the limited capabilities of the Janjaweed and any Sudanese troops who tried to join in the fray, such American main combat forces would probably not have to be larger than company-size formations - 200 to 300 troops each. Assuming several such companies would be deployed, perhaps 1,000 American soldiers and Marines from existing units would be needed countrywide, to back up the 5,000 to 10,000 new enlistees in the dedicated genocide prevention force. In addition, American airpower in the form of Air Force jets or other assets could help back up the units, as might Navy helicopters (which are not being quite as severely stressed in the Iraq operation as are many other types of formations).

 

None of these thoughts are comfortable. A number of them would surely make American military professionals, who typically do not welcome interventions in Africa in the first place, shudder in their boots. But we are beyond the point of finding comfortable, standard solutions to Darfur. What the world has been doing isn't working, and hundreds of thousands are dead or dying as a result. Moreover, even if this conflict in the end is resolved, other conflicts cry out for this type of capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks for the help thus far, now I pose another question: would making a genocide prevention force or recruiting to Darfur aff be FX-T?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know Chris; I think allowing this case opens up floodgates to anything solving for death as topical.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there was ever a case and a resolution where i would resort to non-traditional responses on topicality, this is it. i think the reasons for that are obvious. and i know there are tricks out there in the literature that will let you do so in ways that we hear all the time, as well as ways that are unique to this res, because i saw a lot of cards on it while i was cutting my prevention force aff for this past year.

 

furthermore, what's your violation? i bet sudan meets it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public health assistance? As in, genocide is not? That's just the problem with it - that if solving genocide is public health assitance, that means solving nuclear war, or regional conflict, or meteors falling from the sky and hitting the sub-Saharan land mass would be topical.

 

And don't go T = genocide on me now. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha i'm not going t=genocide [yet]

 

lets talk for a minute though. this genocide. is it "just" [sic] killing? is it "just" conflict? or are there camps with hundreds of thousands of displaced individuals who are relying on stagnant water as their water supply, [read: malaria] who have AIDS, who have TB, who are malnutritioned, and who can't get aid of any sort because all the aid being sent is being monopolized by the government and all the relief workers are being abducted or scared away?

 

yes, plan acts against a human rights atrocity. yes, plan hopes to prevent people from dying as a result of conflict. but plan also recognizes that the reason these individuals in camps are sick and are dying has to do with a complete lack of infrastructure for health assistance.

 

people hear "darfur" and think "killing each other"--this may not be false, but it isn't the whole truth. the displaced people are falling victim to just about every disease that you'd argue we should combat in other countries by sending [whatever your preferred solvency mechanism is] over. the difference is, sending [whatever] won't solve. the government in sudan is uniquely preventing any health relief from coming. saying an affirmative dedicated to eradicating this problem isn't topical under the guise of "public health assistance" is just not a good argument, IMO.

 

and, teams running this would be ready for that violation. just like teams running it this past year were ready for extra-t: you can't create a new branch!

 

i speak from experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you interpret it that way, then does slapping a few "war spreads disease" cards make a case topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

generic cards don't.

 

specific cards on the diseases in camps and the public health issues in darfur specifically make it pretty topical.

 

and i still haven't heard your interpretation of what public health assistance is.... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you interpret it that way, then does slapping a few "war spreads disease" cards make a case topical?

 

When the Janjaweed are directly stopping aid from getting to refugee camps, and you take away the Janjaweed, then the aid can get through. I know one major problem in the camps in cholera, and with intravenous fluids being blocked from getting into the camps the problem is getting worse, I am sure this could be considered a "public health" deterrent. Along with this, there is also the fact that the Janjaweed pick out their soldiers with HIV/AIDS, and purposely have them rape women to spread the disease. I really don't think this case is "public health" T.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as always it's going to depend on the interpretation. teams running this case may actually be able to make "counterinterpretation: plan plus their interp" work this year. hint hint.

 

"counterinterpretation: we win", unfortunately, will probably have to wait for a little longer.

 

and, syn, i think you're complicating it an awful lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...