Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shaikenbake

Author Indites

Recommended Posts

really? so you've never been in a "war obsolete" debate and had to answer mandelbaum? also, the point of my post is he cut an entire comprehensiveness file but said "both kagans"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, really. so no, i haven't been in such a debate and had to answer mandelbaum. none of my cases were contingent entirely upon war scenarios. if i had to answer mandelbaum's claim i probably would have gone with mearsheimer's response to mandy, which was, if i recall correctly [and i always do] the only answer an affirmative i observed needed on a lengthy mandelbaum block to make the negative scamper back onto a topicality flow.

 

and yeah, we caught on what that your point was to make fun of him, but it seems to me that danny was clearly referring to the two that had been mentioned, so i don't really see how donald relates other than tangentially. that kid cuts good cards and i'd trust anything he's written to be every bit as good as he says it is. if donald kagan isn't included, it's still probably a damn good file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are three kagans that talk about US international power and are read in debate rounds. donald, fred, and robert.

 

i hope the rest of your file is better researched :)

 

you're overly presumptuous. robert kagan's book is widely read in hegemony debates. the historical indicts are criticizing one of his books. however, i cut quite a few cards indicting fred. and none about donald because no one reads donald. for the sake of concision, i used an overly generic phrase--"The Kagans." you can go back to beating off to how smart you think you are. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Ron Paul's Foreign Policy of Freedom, I think there is a good indite on Khalilzhad. Mainly about his lobbying history for the Taliban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

( ) Prefer our evidence – threats are exaggerated to justify hegemony

Layne 97 (Christopher, Visiting Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing” International Security, Summer, dbm)

The security/interdependence nexus results in the exaggeration of threats to American strategic interests because it requires the United States to defend its core interests by intervening in the peripheries. There are three reasons for this. First, as Johnson points out, order-maintenance strategies are biased inherently toward threat exaggeration. Threats to order generate an anxiety “that has at its center the fear of the unknown. It is not just security, but the pattern of order upon which the sense of security depends that is threatened.”4’ Second, because the strategy of preponderance requires U.S. intervention in places that concededly have no intrinsic strategic value, U.S. policymakers are compelled to overstate the dangers to American interests to mobilize domestic support for their policies.42 Third, the tendency to exaggerate threats is tightly linked to theconcern with maintaining U.S. cred strategy of preponderance’s ibility. The diplomatic historian Robert J. McMahon has observed that since 1945 U.S. policymakers consistently have asserted that American credibility is “among the most critical of all foreign policy objectives.” As Khalilzad makes clear, they still are obsessed with the need to preserve America’s reputation for honoring its security commitments: “The credibility of U.S. alliances can be undermined if key allies, such as Germany and Japan, believe that the current. arrangements do not deal adequately with threats to their security. It could also be undermined if, over an extended period, the United States is perceived as lacking the will or capability to lead in protecting their interests.” Credibility is believed to be crucial if the extended deterrence guarantees on which the strategy of preponderance rests are to remain robust. Preponderance’s concern with credibility leads to the belief that U.S. commitments are interdependent. As Thomas C. Schelling has put it: “Few parts of the world are intrinsically worth the risk of serious war by themselves. but defending them or running risks to protect them may preserve one’s commitments to action in other parts of the world at later times.”45 If others perceive that the United States has acted irresolutely in a specific crisis, they will conclude that it will not honor its commitments in future crises. Hence, as happened repeatedly in the Cold War, the United States has taken military action in peripheral areas to demonstrate—both to allies and potential adversaries—that it will uphold its security obligations in core areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peer reviewed meaning in academic terms they are functionally worthless

sorry, my sarcasm meter is malfunctioning. clarification, plz, sevii islands... err... sevvdog...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, i dont have much time so i have to post the websites...If any of you cut these please re-up them...

 

IPCC=Corrupt: Defense of popo brutality- http://www.ligali.org/article.php?id=1824

 

IPCC=Wrong and Corrupt- http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

 

IPCC=Too Currupt to Save- http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

 

IPCC Underestimated, 2 implications, no threshold (based on ipcc, we already would've seen MPX, OR if we do see mpx, they are terminal)- http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14466-ipcc-wrong-on-logging-threat-to-climate.html

 

50 other indite websites for IPCC- http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

 

 

 

 

More to come...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

( ) Khalilzhad holds no authority; his positions are only tools for political advancement

 

Paul, 02. (Ron, 10-term congressman and member of House Committee on Foreign Affairs, "The Case for Defending America," January 24)

 

"It is apparent that our policy has not changed with this administration. Our new special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was at one time a lobbyist for the Taliban and worked for Unocal, the American oil company seeking rights to build oil and gas pipelines through northern Afghanistan. During his stint as a lobbyist, he urged approval of the Taliban and defended them in the U.S. press. He now, of course, sings a different tune with respect to the Taliban, but I am sure his views on the pipeline by U.S. companies have not changed.

Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and previously with the Taliban. His appointment to the national Security Council very conveniently did not require confirmation by the Senate. Khalilzad also is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, in promoting early and swift military action against Iraq."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't get what the hell you're saying, destroyerdude, so if it was supposed to be funny you failed miserably. and if you don't get what that sentence means i recommend rereading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't get what the hell you're saying, destroyerdude, so if it was supposed to be funny you failed miserably. and if you don't get what that sentence means i recommend rereading it.

the sevii islands are from pokemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Ron Paul's Foreign Policy of Freedom, I think there is a good indite on Khalilzhad. Mainly about his lobbying history for the Taliban.

 

There's a good indict of Ron Paul actually, he lobbied for idiocy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't imagine why you would want to read the paul card over the layne card that i posted. the layne card indicts all of their impact authors while still using khalizad as an example which means this card still applies when they read ferguson, thayer, etc. plus, wtf does that paul card even mean? he lobbied for the taliban? cool -- how does that negate the importance of us hegemony? that card is fairly powertagged but the thing is, is that the tag is more warranted by the layne evidence than the paul evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i can't imagine why you would want to read the paul card over the layne card that i posted. the layne card indicts all of their impact authors while still using khalizad as an example which means this card still applies when they read ferguson, thayer, etc. plus, wtf does that paul card even mean? he lobbied for the taliban? cool -- how does that negate the importance of us hegemony? that card is fairly powertagged but the thing is, is that the tag is more warranted by the layne evidence than the paul evidence.

 

given that The concept of HEG is that we need to assert our power...By implying that he lobbied for the people we are fighting shows that he is displaying weakness. Doesn't this disprove his theory that we can only survive if we assert dominance???

 

Idk just a thought

 

 

EDIT- BTW thanks for whoever gave me neg rep for not spelling correctly...Also, way to not sign...Real cool

Edited by shaikenbake
Neg Repped

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...