Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
skillshot

Need Khalilazad 95 ev and Mead 96 ev please

Recommended Posts

I dont have much to trade, I just need those to cards for the LD topic, i am helping a friend write her case, so if you guys wanna hook a brother up, thanks

 

also anything else remotely connected to proliferation if you would....thanks guys

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you looking for, cuz like i said, this is for LD, so i mean, Policy files I do not have much of, considering I am graduated, I am helping a clsoe friend of mine on the Prolif LD topic, so that is why i asked, if you do not wanna hook me up its chill, i got other means, but it would be very much appreciated you kno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Decline Causes War

Mead, 1998

Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign

Relations, The Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1998

Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financial markets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that

started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted, thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn't money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in

Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing about depressions. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing "The Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."

 

Economic Decline Causes War

Mead, 1992

Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, World Policy Institute, 1992

Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

 

Khalilzad 95 Zalmay, the amazing, Washington Quarterly, Spring

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

 

 

Decline in US heg --> global destabilization and WMD use

Zalmay Khalilzad, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly Reader, Order and Disorder after the Cold War (ed. Brad Roberts) 1995, p.60

In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oil-importing nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring he rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis.

The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the PErsian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe wold force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of the U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might be high.

The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means of their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United States, would be harmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Khalilzad full article -- you can cut many cards from it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?3m2nztfntj3

 

Mead:

 

Walter Mead, Policy Analyst, World Policy Institute, 1992 Hundreds of millions--billions--of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles--and drawn closer to the west--because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates--or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India--these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that wants stuff in exchange for k-zad and mead are a little stingy

The Balanced Power System Would Not Succeed, Leading To Nuclear Exchange

 

Khalilzad 1995(Zalmay, U.S. Ambassador To U.N.) “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18., No. 2, Pg. 84, Spring. MZ

Finally, and most important, there is no guarantee that the system will succeed in its own terms. Its operation requires subtle calculations and indications of intentions in order to maintain the balance while avoiding war; nations must know how to signal their depth of commitment on a given issue without taking irrevocable steps toward war. This balancing act proved impossible even for the culturally similar and aristocratically governed states of the nineteenth-century European balance of power systems. It will be infinitely more difficult when the system is global, the participants differ culturally, and the governments of many of the states, influenced by public opinion, are unable to be as flexible (or cynical) as the rules of the system require. Thus, miscalculations might be made about the state of the balance that could lead to wars that the United States might be unable to stay out of. The balance of power system failed in the past, producing World War I and other major conflicts. It might not work any better in the future -- and war among major powers in the nuclear age is likely to be more devastating.

 

U.S. Hegemony Best Option For The Indefinite Future And Prevents Global Nuclear Exchange

 

Khalilzad 1995(Zalmay, U.S. Ambassador To U.N.) “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18., No. 2, Pg. 84, Spring. MZ

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

 

I couldn't find Mead 96 (found plenty of Mead 92 and Mead 04) so unless it's something different than what I assumed, you should check in the threads in the DA/CP forum, they have a bunch of generic impacts like that, it should have what you want.

 

Also here's a Waltz file on prolif:

http://www.mediafire.com/?cu9ynizmxua

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...