Jump to content

R-tothe-shawna

Member
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

R-tothe-shawna last won the day on January 1 2010

R-tothe-shawna had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

-3 Slipping...

About R-tothe-shawna

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/10/1993

Profile Information

  • Name
    Shawna =)
  • Biography
    I spell it with a "Y"
  1. R-tothe-shawna

    Ozark NFL

    We don't actually have the aff finished yet. We will probably wait until Wednesday and see what is happening in the world (remember health care last year =] ) Here are the 1acs we have read so far: SoKo (read at Truman) [b]Observation 1- Inherency- The [/b][b]United States[/b][b] is continuing its presence in [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b].[/b] [b] [/b] [b] [/b] [b] [/b] [b]A- The attacks of November 23rd on [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] will guarantee that the [/b][b]United States[/b][b] military presence will continue to increase in coming weeks. This will hurt US/ [/b][b]China[/b][b] relations.[/b] [b]Lobe on November 24, 2010 [/b]Hawks, Doves Aflutter Over Pyongyang's Latest Moves Analysis by Jim Lobe Bureau Chief of Inter Press Service with a Juris Doctor from Univ of California Berkley [url]http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53667[/url] That's not only because [b][u]the bombardment, which drew heavy retaliatory shelling by South Korean forces, has brought tensions on the peninsula to their highest level in decades, if not since the end of the Korean War more than 50 years ago[/u][/b]. [b][u]The crisis could[/u][/b] also [b][u]strain increasingly delicate relations between the U.S. and China,[/u][/b] which, to the administration's growing frustration, is widely seen here as North Korea's only big-power ally whose continuing diplomatic and economic support is indispensable to keeping the Kim dynasty in power. China has long feared that regime collapse next door would result in chaos, spurring the flow of millions of refugees into northern China and the possible intervention of South Korean and U.S. troops right up to the border. [b][u]Washington's announcement Wednesday that it is dispatching the USS George Washington aircraft carrier task force to take part in joint military operations off the North Korean coast beginning this weekend is certain to cause heartburn in Beijing[/u][/b], as well as Pyongyang, given the increased sensitivity Beijing has shown in recent months regarding its maritime claims, including the Yellow Sea. While the George Washington is intended primarily to convey solidarity with Washington's South Korean ally, [b][u]it may well be seen as provocation in [/u][/b][b][u]Beijing[/u][/b][b][u]. According to some analysts here, the upcoming exercises likely presage a reinforcement of [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] military capabilities in the region[/u][/b] -- short, however, of returning U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea, as was suggested earlier this week by Seoul's hawkish defence minister. [b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] has more than 25,000 [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] troops stationed in the South at the moment.[/u][/b] [b][u]"I imagine that over the coming weeks and months, you're going to see a further supplementing of the American presence," said Alan Romberg, a former East Asia State Department expert now with the Stimson Center here. "The Chinese won't like it; they'll see this as somewhat directed against them.[/u][/b] But this is part of the cost of their letting the North go ahead and act with what we see as impunity." [b][font=Times-Roman] [/font][/b] [b][font=Times-Roman] [/font][/b] [u][font=Times-Roman] [/font][/u] [b]B-[/b][b]US[/b][b]/ [/b][b]China[/b][b] relations are the key relations to determining worldwide peace or war. [/b] [b][font=&quot]Husain 2009 [/font][/b][font=&quot]Sino-US relations By Javid Husain retired ambassador Published: [/font][font=&quot]October 27, 2009[/font][font=&quot] [url]http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/27-Oct-2009/SinoUS-relations/[/url][/font] [b][u][font=&quot]If there is one issue which will determine the future course of the 21st century, it is the direction and substance of US-China relations in the coming decades[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].[/font] The driving factors behind this relationship are twofold: the US determination to prevent the emergence of a power in any part of the world capable of challenging its global supremacy and the phenomenal economic growth of China over the past three decades which in due course would translate itself in the growth and strength of its military power. The combined effect of China’s huge size and rapid growth makes it inevitable that the world would, at first, see increasing rivalry between the two nations in the economic field followed by a challenge to the US global supremacy in the military field by China in the second half of the 21st century. Of course, this conclusion is based on the bold assumption that the present trends of growth in the economic power of the two nations are sustained in the coming decades. These developments would transform the global geopolitical scene with far-reaching strategic, political and economic implications for the whole world. There is no denying the fact that the current world order has been shaped primarily by the West under the leadership of the US - a reflection of the Western countries’ domination of the global political and economic scene since the end of the World War II. The structure, the procedures and the functioning of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, the World Bank and the IMF, established after the World War II, were such that no major decision could be taken without the backing of the West. The position has remained more or less unchanged since then. This state of affairs is going to change dramatically in the coming decades reflecting the redistribution of the economic and ultimately the military power globally. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union did pose a challenge to the military supremacy of the West. The defeat and disintegration of the Soviet Union made the world unipolar briefly with the US emerging as the global hegemon. However, the rapid growth of China and other powers like India and Brazil, the re-assertiveness of Russia, and the emergence of other power centres such as the European Union, Japan and the ASEAN indicate that the US unipolar moment has already passed. The world is increasingly turning multipolar with several centres of power emerging on the scene even though for the time being the US is the only country capable of projecting its military power in the different corners of the world. It is inevitable that these developments would ultimately lead to the re-writing of the rules which determine the way in which the world functions in the political and economic fields. China’s rapidly growing economic and military strength would make it a major player in this process of global transformation. An example of the kind of changes that can be expected in the coming decades was the call by the Governor of China’s Central Bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, in March 2009 for the replacement of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency by Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s). Changes can, thus, be expected in the structure and functioning of multilateral institutions like the UN Security Council, the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. The net effect of these changes would be the gradual decline in the influence of the US and the West and increase in the role of China and other emerging powers. The changes in the structure and functioning of the international political and economic institutions will be only one consequence of the growing rivalry between the US and China. There will also be important consequences of this development for US-China bilateral relations.[font=&quot] [b][u]The US-China relationship is both cooperative and competitive at present[/u][/b][/font][font=&quot].[/font] China is an extremely important trading partner of the US. In 2008, China’s exports to the US were estimated to be $338 billion whereas its imports from the US amounted to $70 billion. China is also the recipient of the US private investment on a large scale. Many US firms have established their manufacturing facilities in China which has thus also benefited from the inflow of the US technology. As a result of its balance of payment surpluses, China has accumulated huge foreign currency reserves estimated to be over $2 trillion. Some 60 percent of China’s official reserves are held in dollar-denominated assets. These trade and economic linkages dictate a cooperative relationship between the two countries. But there are also elements of competition between them in the economic field. China’s growing appetite for fossil energy resources in Africa, the Persian Gulf region, Latin America and elsewhere, which pits it against the demand by the US for the same resources, is just one example of this competition. China’s trade surpluses with the US year after year generate increasing US charges of dumping against China and demands for the appreciation of its currency and the opening up of its market. Environment is another area where the two countries are pitted against each other in terms of emission reduction targets for climate warming gases. But [b][u][font=&quot]it is the strategic and political aspect of the relationship between the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]US[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] and [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]China[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], which will play a predominant role in determining its future direction.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font]The US views China’s rapid growth as posing a serious threat to its global supremacy and to its security interests, especially in Asia. Predictably, it is now engaged in a strategic manoeuvre of far-reaching consequences to contain China through an architecture of security alliances on the latter’s periphery. That is why the US has pledged to make India a major world player in the 21st century, why it entered into an agreement with India in 2005 for close military cooperation and why it has agreed to commence cooperation in civilian nuclear technology with India despite the crushing blow delivered by it to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime through its nuclear explosions of 1998. The US would also try to strengthen its security relations with other countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and even the ASEAN countries for the same purpose. The US focus on China also limits the extent to which it can put pressure on Russia for achieving its strategic goals in Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. The recent decision by President Obama to abandon the missile defence project in Poland and the Czech Republic is a reflection of this limitation. China has naturally reacted to the US initiatives by its own moves to protect its vital national interests. Its strategic partnership with Russia aims at countering the US global hegemony and unilateralism. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation including China, Russia and Central Asia Republics excepting Turkmenistan as members serves the same purpose besides enhancing regional cooperation to combat terrorism, extremism and separatist movements within the member states. China’s strategic relationship with Pakistan balances in South Asia the effect of the growing US strategic partnership with India. China is also engaged in diplomatic moves to strengthen its relations with the ASEAN countries, Japan and South Korea with which it maintains extensive trade and economic relations. Historically, the rise of a new great power, which challenges the prevailing world order, has led to tensions and wars with the established great powers. This was especially the case when the existing great powers were not able to accommodate the emerging great power through necessary adjustments in the global political, security and economic architecture.[font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]The question whether the 21st century would be a century of peace or of war and conflict will be decided fundamentally by the ability or the failure of the US and the Western countries to accommodate China’s rise, by adapting the existing world order dominated by the West to the strategic compulsions of China’s phenomenal rise. [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Times-Roman] [/font][/u][/b] Thus the plan: The United States Federal Government, specifically President Obama, will order the withdrawal of all ground troops in South Korea. Funding, enforcement, administration and logistics will be through necessary means. We claim fiat. [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]Advantage 1- Trade[/b] [b]A-[/b][b]US[/b][b] military presence in [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] causes trade frustrations between the [/b][b]US[/b][b] and [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b]. [/b][b]Asia[/b][b] will be key to economic recovery. [/b] [b]Schneider 10[/b] For U.S., free-trade agreement could be backdoor to China By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 8, 2010 [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110805802_pf.html[/url] [b][u]For the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u],[/u][/b] an agreement could represent the most-promising chapter in [b][u]a long effort to recalibrate the balance of trade between the Western developed world and the world's manufacturing center in [/u][/b][b][u]Asia[/u][/b]. This [b][u]has been [/u][/b]an[b][u] elusive[/u][/b] American goal ever since Taiwan, Japan and later South Korea began emerging as industrial powers in the 1960s and 1970s, reshaping the worldwide auto and textile industries among others. [b][u]Asia, with its expanding middle class, growing wealth and rich opportunities for investment, may be the future engine of world economic growth.[/u][/b] But U.S. officials and business executives continue to cite a range of trade frustrations, from India's tight grip on its service sector and Japan's close control of agriculture to Indonesia's strict ownership rules and China's management of its currency. [b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] has unique sensitivities. After centuries of war and invasion, it remains a society[/u][/b] both resilient and insecure - successful in the global economy, but divided from communist North Korea and [b][u]reliant on a major [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] military presence. As a result, there is a national fixation on food security, which has produced stiff tariffs on imported agricultural products and prominent labeling for goods that use Korean ingredients[/u][/b]. Hotel chains, for instance, advertise dishes with Korean ingredients on their menus and the Dunkin' Donuts chain here gives its Korean wheat-based confections a special display tray. The tariffs are supposed to come down under the free-trade agreement. But building market share for foreign imports will be a separate challenge. [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]B- A lack of focus on trade with [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] is bad for several reasons. First, it hurts the [/b][b]US[/b][b] economy. Secondly, it hurts the ability of the [/b][b]US[/b][b] to influence other nations through soft power. Failure to focus on trade now will permanently effect US/ [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] relations. [/b] [b]Bandow on [/b][b]November 23, 2010[/b] Free Trade Deal With South Korea Will Boost Prosperity And Security By DOUG BANDOW Posted 11/23/2010 [url]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=554639&p=1[/url] According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, [b][u]the elimination of South Korean tariffs alone should add $10 billion to $12 billion to the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] GDP.[/u][/b] [b][u]Demand[/u][/b] for American audiovisual, financial and telecommunications services also likely [b][u]would increase substantially. Overall, the ITC figures that American exports to [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] would go up nearly twice as much as imports from the ROK. The longer-term gain could be even greater[/u][/b][font=&quot]. First, South Koreans, like Chinese, remain less affluent individually than suggested by their GDP. Continued strong growth would greatly enhance individual buying power, leading to increased purchases of American goods and services. Second, reunification with the North is likely some day. A unified [/font][font=&quot]Korea[/font][font=&quot] will be an even more important market for U.S. Concerns. [/font][b][u]Nor is economics the sum total of the issue. A rising [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u] is bumping up against a still dominant [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]. Strengthening trade ties is one way for [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] to ensure continued American influence in [/u][/b][b][u]East Asia[/u][/b][b][u]. Despite the Wall Street crash, the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] retains the world's largest and most productive economy. However, [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u]'s economic dominance in [/u][/b][b][u]East Asia[/u][/b][b][u] is waning. China has pushed American companies into second and even third place in many countries, most notably in South Korea[/u][/b] and Japan. [b][u]At the same time, the People's Republic of [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u] is asserting itself throughout [/u][/b][b][u]Asia[/u][/b][b][u], including in the ROK.[/u][/b] [font=&quot]In June [/font][font=&quot]Beijing[/font][font=&quot] finalized the economic framework cooperation agreement with [/font][font=&quot]Taiwan[/font][font=&quot], and is pressing for free-trade agreements with [/font][font=&quot]Australia[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Japan[/font][font=&quot]. The PRC and [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot] also have discussed the possibility of an FTA. The fact the PRC is pursuing this strategy with [/font][font=&quot]America[/font][font=&quot]'s three leading military allies in the region demonstrates [/font][font=&quot]Washington[/font][font=&quot]'s problem[/font]. [b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] is not waiting for the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]Last year [/font][font=&quot]Seoul[/font][font=&quot] completed the world's largest bilateral trade pact, with the European Union[/font]. [b][u]American manufacturers will soon find themselves at a disadvantage compared to European producers — with the likely loss of roughly $30 billion in exports. The primary benefit of the FTA is economic. But expanding trade ties offers geopolitical advantages as well.[/u][/b] The Bush administration only slightly overstated the benefits when it argued: [b][u]"By boosting economic ties and broadening and modernizing our longstanding alliance, it promises to become the pillar of our alliance for the next 50 years[/u][/b], as the Mutual Defense Treaty has been for the last 50 years." [b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u]'s influence in [/u][/b][b][u]East Asia[/u][/b][b][u] is slowly ebbing. Today, the U.S.-ROK military alliance is outdated.[/u][/b] [b][u]However, [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] can employ American "soft power" — access to the world's most important, advanced, and productive economy — to actively engage friendly nations[/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot].[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] The [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] should press for multilateral and regional agreements. [/font][font=&quot]Washington[/font][font=&quot] also should negotiate FTAs with [/font][font=&quot]Japan[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Taiwan[/font][font=&quot], and ASEAN, the collection of highly trade- dependent Southeast Asian states. But the start is for the president to accept and Congress to ratify the pending accord with [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot].[/font] [b][u]Failing[/u][/b] [font=&quot]to approve the South Korean FTA[/font] [b][u]is likely to result in permanent economic and geopolitical damage. This would be a high price to pay at any time, but especially when China is rapidly expanding its influence throughout East Asia[/u][/b]. [b]C- Soft power allows the [/b][b]US[/b][b] to stop terrorism. [/b] [b]Margulies 10[/b] PUTTING GUANTANAMO IN THE REAR- VIEW MIRROR: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DETENTION POLICY Peter Margulies Professor of Law, Roger Williams University. Roger Williams University lexis President Obama’s announcement that he would close Guanta* namo within a year redefined efficiency in counterterrorism. Bush and Cheney viewed efficiency narrowly, as the speed entailed in taking concrete steps to kill or incapacitate terrorists.56 [b][u]President Obama[/u][/b] has a broader vision. While the President does not slight the importance of killing or detaining those who would do violence against the United States, he also views efficiency as entailing the accumulation of good will throughout the world.57 The President [b][u]understands the importance of American soft power to our ability to achieve policy goals.58 When America has credibility on the world stage, it can count on cooperation from other governments and populations. Moreover, American credibility blunts charges of excess or hypocrisy that furnish recruiting tools for terrorists.[/u][/b] [b][font=&quot]D- Economic turmoil causes war. The longer the recovery takes the more likely war is.[/font][/b] [font=&quot] [/font] [b][color=black][font=&quot]Haniff 09[/font][/color][/b] [color=black][font=&quot]Financial crisis bigger threat than Al Qaeda, says US intelligence czar, Aziz Haniff, the National Affairs Editor and Chief Diplomatic and Political correspondent of India Abroad--the oldest and largest circulating South Asian newspaper in North America and the largest outside of India.He has been covering Washington for over 18 years since joining India Abroad and over the years has scored many scoops and done tons of exlusives, including interviews with presidents, prime ministers, cabinet ministers, and US and South Asian lawmakers., [url]http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2009/feb/15bcrisis-financial-crisis-bigger-threat-than-al-qaeda-says-us-intel-chief.htm[/url][/font][/color] [b][u][font=&quot]The plunging global economy is an even bigger threat to the United States' national security than the al Qaeda terrorist network or proliferation of weapons of mass destr[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]uction[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot],[/font][font=&quot] according to America's new intelligence czar.Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the Obama administration's Director of National Intelligence, in his first appearance before the US Congress, stated,[/font][font=&quot] "[/font][b][u][font=&quot]The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]." [/font][font=&quot]Traditionally, US intelligence chiefs always preface their opening remarks with either terrorist or nuclear proliferation threats, but Blair's first sentences in his testimony before the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was about the economy.Blair said, "The crisis has been going on for over a year, and economists are divided over whether and when we could hit bottom. Some even fear that the recession could further deepen and reach the level of the Great Depression." "Of course,[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]all of us recall the dramatic political consequences wrought by the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Europe[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], the instability, and high levels of violent extremism," he said. "Though we don't know its eventual scale, it already looms as the most serious global and economic and financial crisis in decades,[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]"[/font][font=&quot] he added. Blair pointed out, "Industrialised countries are already in recession and growth in emerging market countries, previously thought to be immune from industrialised countries' crises, has also faltered, and many are in recession as well." "Even China's dynamic growth engines have taken a hit as they grapple with falling demand for their exports and slowdown in foreign direct investment and portfolio investments," he said. Blair served notice that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging market nations over the next year, prompting additional countries to request International Monetary Fund or other multilateral or bilateral support." [/font][font=&quot]"[/font][b][u][font=&quot]Time is probably our greatest threat[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]," [/font][font=&quot]he said. [/font][b][u][font=&quot]"The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to US' strategic interests."[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]Blair added, "Roughly, a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instabilities such as government changes because of the current slowdown."[/font] [color=#141413][font=Arial] [/font][/color] [color=#141413][font=Arial] [/font][/color] [b]E- Reducing US military presence in [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] allows the [/b][b]US[/b][b]/ [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] relationship to focus more on trade.[/b] [b]Bandow 10[/b] The U.S.-South Korea Alliance Outdated, Unnecessary, and Dangerous by Doug Bandow enior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan July 14, 2010 [url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb90.pdf[/url] [b][u]The U.S.-ROK military alliance has lost its purpose. [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] is not critical to [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s defense [/u][/b][b][u]and [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s assistance is not[/u][/b]—or at least should not be—[b][u]critical to [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u]’s defense. Far from improving regional security, the current relationship makes it harder for both nations to act to protect their own vital interests.[/u][/b] Especially after the financial crash of 2008, [b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] should make policy to promote [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s[/u][/b], not the ROK’s,[b][u] continued economic development. Doing so would not end the strong relation- ship between the peoples of the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] and the ROK. Rather, eliminating the alliance would offer a new beginning. The relationship would continue, but now it would be centered on[/u][/b] family, [b][u]trade,[/u][/b] culture,[b][u] and other nonmilitary ties. Security cooperation could continue where warranted, but with [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u] and [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] as equals.[/u][/b][b][u] After 65 years of dependence on the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u], the South Korean people should take over responsibility for their own defense.[/u][/b] [font=&quot] [/font] [b]Advantage 2- Korean war[/b] [b]A- Recent attacks have put the Korean peninsula on the brink of war. This evidence isolates 2 reasons: the transition from Kim Jung Il to Kim Jung Un as the leader of [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b] and the [/b][b]US[/b][b] military presence in the region.[/b] [b]Childs on [/b][b]November 26, 2010[/b] 26 November 2010 Last updated at 11:47 ET US-South Korea military alliance under pressure By Nick Childs Defence and security correspondent, BBC News [url="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-exercises-lsquoputting-korea-on-brink-of-warrsquo-15015250.html#ixzz16SiF5p6h"][color=#003399]http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-exercises-lsquoputting-korea-on-brink-of-warrsquo-15015250.html#ixzz16SiF5p6h[/color][/url][b][color=#262626] [/color][/b] [b][u][color=black]Tensions have soared between the [/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black]Koreas[/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black] since the North's strike destroyed large parts of the island, killing two civilians and two marines in a major escalation of their sporadic skirmishes along the sea border[/color][/u][color=black]. [/color][/b][color=black]The attack — eight months after a torpedo sank a South Korean warship further west, killing 46 sailors — has also laid bare weaknesses in [/color][color=black]South Korea[/color][color=black]'s defence 60 years after the Korean War. And [/color][b][u][color=black]the skirmish forced [/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black]South Korea[/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black]'s beleaguered defence minister to resign on Thursday. The heightened animosity between the Koreas is taking place as the North undergoes a delicate transition of power from leader Kim Jong Il to his young, inexperienced son Kim Jong Un[/color][/u][/b][color=black], [/color][color=black]who is in his late 20s and is expected to eventually succeed his ailing father. As [/color][color=black]Washington[/color][color=black] and [/color][color=black]Seoul[/color][color=black] pressed [/color][color=black]China[/color][color=black] to use its influence on [/color][color=black]Pyongyang[/color][color=black] to ease tensions amid worries of all-out war,[/color][color=black] t[b][u]he [/u][/b][/color][b][u][color=black]US[/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black] prepared to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to South Korean waters for joint military drills starting tomorrow. The North, which sees the drills as a major military provocation, said: “The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war.”[/color][/u][/b] [color=black][font=Verdana] [/font][/color] [color=black][font=Verdana] [/font][/color] [b][color=black]B- This war on the Korean peninsula will escalate beyond just the borders of [/color][/b][b][color=black]Korea[/color][/b][b][color=black] to a global war. [/color][/b] [b][color=black]Van Auken on [/color][/b][b][color=black]November 27, 2010[/color][/b][b][color=black][/color][/b] Bill Van Auken The Korean crisis and the threat of a wider war 27 November 2010 [url]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/pers-n27.shtml[/url] [b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] had threatened to carry out joint US-South Korean military exercises in the [/u][/b][b][u]Yellow Sea[/u][/b][b][u] last July, [/u][/b]ostensibly in response to the sinking of a South Korean warship in which 46 sailors lost their lives. South Korea has charged North Korea with having sunk the vessel, which went down near the disputed maritime border imposed by the US at the end of the Korean War, but Pyongyang has denied any responsibility. [b][u]In the face of [/u][/b][b][u]Beijing[/u][/b][b][u]’s sharp protests, the Obama administration shifted those exercises to the [/u][/b][b][u]Sea of Japan[/u][/b][b][u], away from Chinese waters. This time [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] is deploying one of its most powerful warships in the [/u][/b][b][u]Yellow Sea[/u][/b][b][u] as a demonstration of its military supremacy against [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u]. [/u][/b]While the Chinese government issued a measured warning over the exercise, declaring that it opposed “any military acts in our exclusive economic zone”—which extends 200 miles from the Chinese coast—others close to the Beijing government and its military vigorously denounced the US maneuvers. [b][u]While the immediate pretext for the provocative exercise is the Korean conflict, it is in line with an increasingly aggressive [/u][/b][b][u]US[/u][/b][b][u] policy in [/u][/b][b][u]Asia[/u][/b][b][u]. This has included the US attempt to insert itself into territorial conflicts in the South China Sea[/u][/b], backing Japan, Vietnam and other ASEAN countries against China. Washington’s aim in the region has been the pursuit of a series of alliances and assertions of military power directed against China that stretch from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. [b][u]In the wake of the world [/u][/b]capitalist[b][u] financial meltdown[/u][/b], geostrategic offensive has been coupled with increasingly aggressive demands for Chinese currency revaluations and trade concessions. Fundamentally, the growing US-China tensions are rooted in deep-going shifts in the world economy and the global balance of forces: China’s rise to the position of the world’s second-largest economy, eclipsing Japan, on the one hand, and the relative economic decline of US imperialism, combined with its growing use of military force, on the other. [b][u]This conflict threatens to turn [/u][/b][b][u]Northeast Asia[/u][/b][b][u] and the entire planet into a tinderbox. Much as in the period preceding the First World War, seemingly isolated regional confrontations between minor powers have the potential of precipitating a global conflagration, this time between nuclear-armed adversaries.[/u][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]C-[/b][b] The current presence of the [/b][b]US[/b][b] military in [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] makes conflict inevitable. The [/b][b]US[/b][b] should withdraw its military from [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b].[/b] [b]Hale on [/b][b]November 28, 2010[/b] Stuck between a ROK and a hard place Cliff Hale, The Shorthorn guest columnist Sunday, 28 November 2010 [url]http://www.theshorthorn.com/content/view/21027/266/[/url] Yet, [b][u]for 57 years North and [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] have been only inches from resuming a war that will automatically suck [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] forces into a conflict that will make [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] and [/u][/b][b][u]Afghanistan[/u][/b][b][u] look like Capture the Flag at camp. [/u][/b]During the totalitarian regimes of Kim Il-sung and his son, current ruler Kim Jong-il, and on the brink of installing Kim Jong-un as the next leader, the seemingly unpredictable nation has regularly stirred up international provocations ending in conciliatory measures, largely financial, by the rest of the world, lead by the U.S. Chances are good that the recent attack by North Korea will be more of the same, with the same results, but[b][u] at some point the North will err and step too far, or the South will err and respond too sharply, and our forces — about 28,000 — along the Demilitarized Zone will be wedged between both nations’ armies. [/u][/b][b][u]North[/u][/b] Korea has much of the natural resources of the peninsula, [b][u]and [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b] has two-thirds of the entire Korean population as well as the fifth largest deep-water sea ports in the world. Each [b][u]desire[/u][/b]s [b][u]and need[/u][/b]s[b][u] the resources of the other, but voluntary, mutually-beneficial exchange is not possible[/u][/b] as long as both insist on having things strictly their own way, and [b][u]as long as the U.S. is held hostage in the middle.[/u][/b] To paraphrase David Bowie,[b][u] using the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] military to “prevent” war from continuing on the [/u][/b][b][u]Korean[/u][/b][b][/b][b][u]Peninsula[/u][/b][b][u] is like putting out a grease fire with gasoline. The U.S. should recall its troops from South Korea,[/u][/b] and during that process, withdraw all financial aid of any form from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the North, and offer trade incentives to the southern Republic of Korea so that the only way the DPRK can get any American dollars is to do business with the ROK. [b][u]People too busy making, buying and selling things are not inclined toward war[/u][/b]. [b] [/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]D- All the evidence about the state of [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b] or [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] that is from before November 23rd should be categorically ignored. Right now is a unique moment for 5 reasons: it is different in size and scope from previous Korean battles, [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] responded, it is near the March bombing of a submarine by [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b], [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b] has developed nuclear weapon grade material, and there is a transition to a new leader in [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b].[/b] [b][color=#262626][font=ArialMT] [/font][/color][/b] [b]Stirewalt on [/b][b]November 23, 2010[/b] Today's Power Play: Attack Makes North Korea a Foreign Policy Priority by Chris Stirewalt | November 23, 2010 Read more: [url]http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/23/todays-power-play-attack-makes-north-korea-foreign-policy-priority#ixzz16SlA3xyX[/url] [b][u]The North and South have skirmished over this island and the ones around it before. There were flare-ups in 1999, 2002 and November 2009. But the engagements were between the two navies and had limited casualties[/u][/b]. These confrontations were not unlike the interaction between American and Soviet forces in hot spots during the Cold War -- a little breast beating and turf establishment [b][u][color=black]Now, we have an artillery barrage aimed at civilian villages.[/color][/u][/b][color=black] [/color][color=black]Casualty reports are so far unreliable, but the most credible local outlets say that some 60 homes are ablaze. Dozens of soldiers from the South may be injured and at least two might be dead. [/color][b][u][color=black]The South responded with its own artillery and, possibly, a fighter jet strike against the Northern battery. [/color][/u][/b][color=black]The incident apparently began with South Korean military exercises off the islands. It comes at a bad moment[/color][color=black]. [b][u]Still hanging over the relationship between North and South is the sinking of the Cheonan in March. The torpedoed warship took 46 sailors down with it. There has yet to be any resolution of the incident.[/u][/b] [/color][color=black]The [/color][color=black]U.S.[/color][color=black] is still calling for an apology and the North has been promising a "physical" response to joint U.S.-South Korean exercises held this summer as a show of strength and solidarity. [/color][b][u][color=black]Worse, is the report from a U.S. nuclear scientist this week that [/color][/u][/b][url="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/north-korea.htm#r_src=ramp"]North Korea[/url][b][u][color=black] is making highly enriched uranium that could be exported[/color][/u][/b][color=black] [/color][color=black]to those even rogue-ier than the Johnnie Walker-swilling, Madeline Albright-twirling Kim Jong Il. We might have little to fear from the balky rockets of [/color][url="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/north-korea.htm#r_src=ramp"]North Korea[/url][color=black], even those armed with the hand-me down nukes the country got from [/color][color=black]China[/color][color=black]. But if the NorKs are selling HEU on the nuclear black market, we have a big, big problem. [/color][b][u][color=black]This all comes as an ailing Kim is looking to hand the reins over to his 27-year-old son, Kim Jong Un[/color][/u][/b][color=black].[/color] [color=black][font=Arial] [/font][/color] [font=&quot] [/font] [b]E- The [/b][b]US[/b][b] should withdraw the ground components of the [/b][b]US[/b][b] Forces [/b][b]Korea[/b][b]. The continued existence of US forces allows [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b] to dictate [/b][b]US[/b][b] involvement in attacks and by just leaving air and naval forces the [/b][b]US[/b][b] would be more able to deter agression.[/b] [b]Stanton[/b][b] 10[/b] [color=#262626]It's Time for the U.S. Army to Leave [/color][color=#262626]Korea[/color][color=#262626] [/color][b][color=#394265]Joshua Stanton: After 60 Years, It's Time We Should Withdraw[/color][/b][b][color=#262626] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/11/opinion/main6386737.shtml[/url][/color][/b] [color=#262626][font=&quot]Proceeding against the advice of my cardiologist, I must concede that for once, Ron Paul is actually on to something. [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]The ground component of U.S. Forces Korea[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot], which [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]costs U.S. taxpayers [/font][/color][/u][/b][font=&quot][url="http://www.freekorea.us/2007/09/24/some-usfk-stats-and-history/"]billions of dollars[/url][/font][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] a year to maintain[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot], [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]is an equally unaffordable political liability on the South Korean street. [/font][/color][b][u][font=&quot]We should withdraw it[/font][color=#262626][font=&quot].[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot] Every Saturday night off-post brawl is a headline in the muck-raking Korean press, for which the American soldier is inevitably blamed, and for which angry mobs perpetually demand renegotiations of the Status of Force Agreement to give Korea’s [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://freekorea.us/?p=5877"]not-even-remotely-fair[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] judicial system more jurisdiction over American soldiers. [/font][/color][font=&quot]The South Korean people do not appreciate the security our soldiers provide. [url="http://freekorea.us/2005/08/07/signs-of-the-times-so-this-is-why-i-spent-four-years-in-korea/"]The way some of them treat our soldiers[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] ought to be a national scandal. Many off-post businesses don’t even let Americans through their front doors. The degree of anti-Americanism in [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] is sufficient to be a significant force protection issue in the event of hostilities. [/font][/color][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot] does not have our back. [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot] made much of the fact that it sent 3,000 soldiers to [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot], where they [url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050128-korea-iraq.htm"]sat behind concrete barriers[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] in a secure Kurdish area of [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot], protected by peshmerga, making no military contribution and taking no combat casualties. Their contribution to the effort in Afghanistan has been [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://www.freekorea.us/2009/05/05/south-korea-always-there-when-they-need-us/"]negligible[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot], which is more than can be said of their contribution to the Taliban (previous President Roh Moo Hyun reportedly paid them a ransom of up to [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://freekorea.us/2007/09/01/a-death-in-the-alliance/"]$20 million[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] in 2007 to free South Korean hostages who took it upon themselves to charter a shiny new bus to bring Christianity to Kandahar). [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] has been an equally [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://freekorea.us/2005/03/30/the-death-of-alliance-part-vi-2/"]unsteady ally[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] against [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]China[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]. [/font][/color][b][u][font=&quot]The American security blanket has fostered a state of national adolescence by the South Korean public.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]Too many of them ([url="http://freekorea.us/2001/08/16/ofk-archive-anti-americanism-in-koreathe-statistical-record/"]some polls[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] suggest most) see [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]America[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] as a barrier to reunification with their ethnic kindred in the North. Maybe nothing short of a North Korean attack on the South can encourage more sober thinking by South Koreans about their own security, but I suspect a greater sense of self-reliance and even vulnerability might. [/font][/color][font=&quot]During my service in [/font][font=&quot]Korea[/font][font=&quot], as [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] taxpayers subsidized [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot]’s defense, [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot] subsidized Kim Jong Il’s potential offense with [url="http://freekorea.us/2006/09/08/the-seven-billion-dollar-man/"]billions of dollars[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] in hard currency that sustained the very threat against which we were ostensibly helping to defend. [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] never made [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]North Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]’s disarmament a condition of this aid. Instead, that aid effectively undermined [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] and U.N. sanctions meant to force [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]North Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] to disarm. [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://www.freekorea.us/2010/04/10/some-brief-thoughts-on-the-end-of-kumgang/"]What does South Korea have to show[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] for this colossal outlay now. [/font][/color][font=&quot]Because [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot], now one the world’s wealthiest nations, expects up to 600,000 American soldiers to arrive protect it from any security contingency, successive South Korean governments actually [url="http://freekorea.us/2006/07/12/sticker-shock-a-post-usfk-south-korea-must-do-less-for-more/"]cut their nation’s defense[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] rather than modernizing it and building an effective independent defense. Consequently, [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] still has a 1970-vintage force structure, designed around a 1970-vintage threat, equipped with 1970-vintage weapons. This is partly the legacy of ten years of leftist administrations, but[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [b][u]it’s[/u][/b] [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]also [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]the legacy of military welfare that allowed [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] to defer upgrading its equipment,[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot] [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]building a professional volunteer army, and organizing an effective reserve force to deal with security contingencies.[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [b][u]Worst of all, South Korea diverted billions of dollars that should have been spent on modernizing its military into regime-sustaining aid to Kim Jong Il, to be used[/u][/b], [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]as far as anyone knows, [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]for nukes, missiles, artillery, and pretty much everything but infant formula.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot] [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]To this day, [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] continues to resist accepting operational control over its own forces in the event of war. [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]The [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] Army presence in [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]Korea[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] is an anachronism, defending against the extinct threat of a conventional North Korean invasion. The far greater danger is that if Kim Jong Il assesses our current president as weak, he will choose more limited or less conventional means to strike at our soldiers and their families.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot] [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]Given the reported [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://www.freekorea.us/2010/02/21/were-the-taliban-casing-yongsan/"]presence of Taliban operatives[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] in [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]Seoul[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot], he might even plausibly deny responsibility for an attack. Thus, while I don’t go so far as to accept the Princess Bride Doctrine (”never get involved in a land war in Asia”), I do not believe it is wise for us [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]to have our forces within easy artillery range of Kim Jong Il[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot],[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] such that[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [b][u]he may freely choose the time, place, and manner of our involvement [/u][/b][/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]I offer two qualifications here. First, this is not to suggest that we unilaterally abrogate the alliance with [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot].[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [b][u]Our air and naval installations in [/u][/b][/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]Korea[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] provide [/font][/color][/u][/b][font=&quot][url="http://freekorea.us/2006/01/21/the-death-of-an-alliance-part-30/"]useful power-projection capability[/url][/font][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] and are far more secure, ironically, than our many scattered and isolated Army posts. [/font][/color][/u][color=#262626][font=&quot][/font][/color][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot]Here is the Iraq aff ... read at every other tournament this year (the inherency cards change each week but this is a basic structure): [/font][/color] [b]Observation 1- Despite claims to fully withdraw, the most recent plan will retain troops in [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] for decades.[/b] [b][font=&quot]Watson 10[/font][/b] [color=#262626][font=&quot]Paul Joseph Watson
[/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://www.prisonplanet.com/"]Prison Planet.com[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot]
Friday, [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]August 13, 2010[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [url]http://www.prisonplanet.com/iraqs-top-general-u-s-troops-should-stay-until-2020.html[/url][/font][/color] Iraq’s top general has called for U.S. troops to stay in the country until 2020, a telling reminder that [b][u]President Barack Obama’s supposed withdrawal more than seven years after the 2003 invasion is nothing more than a publicity stunt, with tens of thousands of [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] forces remaining as a residual occupying army for decades to come.[/u][/b] “At this point, the withdrawal is going well, because they [u.S. forces] are still here,” Lt. Gen. Babakir Zebari told a news conference in the Baghdad. “But the problem will start after 2011.” “If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians, ‘the U.S. army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020,’” he said. [b][u][color=#262626]Despite public pronouncements by Obama that a plan to fully withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 is in progress, the details of the agreement actually establish a permanent presence of a sizable occupying force in perpetuity.[/color][/u][/b] [b][color=#262626]Thus the plan:[/color][/b] [b][color=#262626]The [/color][/b][b][color=#262626]United States[/color][/b][b][color=#262626] Federal Government will order an immediate withdrawal of all [/color][/b][b][color=#262626]US[/color][/b][b][color=#262626] troops from the [/color][/b][b][color=#262626]Republic[/color][/b][b][color=#262626] of [/color][/b][b][color=#262626]Iraq[/color][/b][b][color=#262626]. Funding, enforcement, administration, and logistics will be through necessary means. We will clarify our intent.[/color][/b] [b][font=&quot]Advantage 1- OIL[/font][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]First, despite monthly fluctuations in oil prices, it is still on an upward trend.[/font][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]Yonan [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]8/14/10[/font][/b][b][font=&quot][/font][/b] Costs also rise on the neighbor islands as the price of crude oil continues upward By Alan Yonan Jr. POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Aug 14, 2010 [url]http://www.staradvertiser.com/business/businessnews/20100814_oahu_prices_reach_2_year_high.html[/url] [b][u][font=&quot]Crude oil prices, while fluctuating from month to month, have been on an upward trend during the past year. The benchmark contract on the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]New York[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] Mercantile Exchange closed at $75.39 yesterday, up 7 percent from $70.52 in August 2009. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]"[/font][font=&quot]Fortunately, [/font][b][u][font=&quot]the price of oil[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]is well below the $147-a-barrel high of late summer 2008. But it [/font][b][u][font=&quot]is still high,[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]"[/font][font=&quot] said HECO spokesman Peter Rosegg. In September 2008 the electricity rate for [/font][font=&quot]Oahu[/font][font=&quot] was 32.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.[/font] [font=&quot] [/font] [b]And we are on the brink. Small increases in oil prices now could cause the Federal Reserve to engage in quantitative easing to stop deflation. This would crush the economy.[/b] [b]Schiff 10[/b] [font=&quot]Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital Peter Schiff: Preventing a devastating decline in the dollar [/font][font=&quot]8/10/10[/font][font=&quot][/font] [font=&quot]http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20100810/FREE/100819996[/font] But [b][u]the oil market holds far more near-term significance.[/u][/b] On Monday, oil busted through the $80 price ceiling that had held since May.[b][u] Any additional breaks to the upside would be extremely significant and could potentially send crude up to the mid-$90s before another correction takes hold. The danger for the dollar is that rising oil prices could be considered one of the unforeseen "negative shocks" of which Fed President Bullard warns, triggering a new round of inflation. If the government fears the "recovery" will be derailed by higher energy prices, then look for quantitative easing to become the driving force of our economic policy. The Fed will perversely argue that rising oil prices are deflationary, as they will cause cash-strapped consumers to reduce spending on other goods[/u][/b]. In reality, higher oil prices are merely evidence of the inflation the Fed itself has been creating. [b][u]Instead of solving our problems, quantitative easing could tip the dollar into a death spiral. [/u][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]Economic turmoil causes war. The longer the recovery takes the more likely war is.[/font][/b] [font=&quot] [/font] [b][color=black][font=&quot]Haniff 09[/font][/color][/b] [color=black][font=&quot]Financial crisis bigger threat than Al Qaeda, says US intelligence czar, Aziz Haniff, the National Affairs Editor and Chief Diplomatic and Political correspondent of India Abroad--the oldest and largest circulating South Asian newspaper in North America and the largest outside of India.He has been covering Washington for over 18 years since joining India Abroad and over the years has scored many scoops and done tons of exlusives, including interviews with presidents, prime ministers, cabinet ministers, and US and South Asian lawmakers., [url]http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2009/feb/15bcrisis-financial-crisis-bigger-threat-than-al-qaeda-says-us-intel-chief.htm[/url][/font][/color] [b][u][font=&quot]The plunging global economy is an even bigger threat to the United States' national security than the al Qaeda terrorist network or proliferation of weapons of mass destr[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]uction[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot],[/font][font=&quot] according to America's new intelligence czar.Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the Obama administration's Director of National Intelligence, in his first appearance before the US Congress, stated,[/font][font=&quot] "[/font][b][u][font=&quot]The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]." [/font][font=&quot]Traditionally, US intelligence chiefs always preface their opening remarks with either terrorist or nuclear proliferation threats, but Blair's first sentences in his testimony before the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was about the economy.Blair said, "The crisis has been going on for over a year, and economists are divided over whether and when we could hit bottom. Some even fear that the recession could further deepen and reach the level of the Great Depression." "Of course,[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]all of us recall the dramatic political consequences wrought by the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Europe[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], the instability, and high levels of violent extremism," he said. "Though we don't know its eventual scale, it already looms as the most serious global and economic and financial crisis in decades,[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]"[/font][font=&quot] he added. Blair pointed out, "Industrialised countries are already in recession and growth in emerging market countries, previously thought to be immune from industrialised countries' crises, has also faltered, and many are in recession as well." "Even China's dynamic growth engines have taken a hit as they grapple with falling demand for their exports and slowdown in foreign direct investment and portfolio investments," he said. Blair served notice that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging market nations over the next year, prompting additional countries to request International Monetary Fund or other multilateral or bilateral support." [/font][font=&quot]"[/font][b][u][font=&quot]Time is probably our greatest threat[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]," [/font][font=&quot]he said. [/font][b][u][font=&quot]"The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to US' strategic interests."[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]Blair added, "Roughly, a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instabilities such as government changes because of the current slowdown."[/font] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]Independently, rising oil prices also increase food prices. This causes mass starvation.[/b] [b][font=&quot]Mark 06[/font][/b] Will the End of Oil Be the End Of Food? By Jason Mark, AlterNet co-author, with Kevin Danaher, of "Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power." He is researching a book about the future of food Posted on August 31, 2006, Printed on August 19, 2010 [url]http://www.alternet.org/story/41023/[/url] For farmers like Randall, today's challenges may be tomorrow's crises. The problems of coping with [b][u]high oil prices reveal how utterly dependent our food production system is on nonrenewable fuels.[/u][/b] As long as oil is plentiful, that dependence isn't a concern. But in some circles fears are growing that [b][u]if global petroleum production begins a steady decline, our entire food system will be strained, testing our ability to feed ourselves.[/u][/b]"How dependent on oil is our food system?" Richard Heinberg, a leading "peak oil" scholar and the author of [url="http://alternet.bookswelike.net/isbn/0865715297"]The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies[/url] said in an interview. "Enormously dependent. Fatally dependent, I would say." Of course, you won't find any oil on your dinner plate, but [b][u]petroleum and other fossil fuels are inside of every bite you eat. About one-fifth of all [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] energy use goes into the food system. [/u][/b]The synthetic nitrogen fertilizers that are essential for high crop yields are a byproduct of natural gas. Gasoline and diesel fuels power the combines that rumble through the grain fields. Countless kilowatts of electricity are burned up in the factories that process all of the packaged goods that line the supermarket shelves. And then there's the gasoline required simply to get food to market. We now have a globalized food system, one in which the typical American meal travels 1,500 miles from farm to fork. Organic products -- though they may have a more sustainable veneer -- are in many respects no different; 10 percent of organic products come from abroad. Without oil, we would all be on one harsh diet. [b][u]"We've created an agricultural system where, on average, for every energy of food calorie we produce, we need to expend about 10 calories of fossil fuels,[/u][/b]" Heinberg said. Such an imbalance would not be worrisome if there were an inexhaustible supply of oil. But, as every child learns in elementary science class, petroleum is a nonrenewable resource. A heated debate is under way about when that resource will begin to decline. Some say that we have already passed the summit of peak oil and point to a leveling of global petroleum production as proof. The U.S. government argues that we have decades before oil extraction begins to decline. Others calculate that we will hit the peak oil mark sometime in the next 10 years. Regardless of when exactly oil production starts to drop, it's clear that in this century humanity will have to learn to live without cheap, abundant oil. What this means for our food system is also up for debate. At the very least, [b][u]costlier oil will lead to more expensive food,[/u][/b] especially for processed[b][u] and [/u][/b]packaged goods. At the very worst, peak oil [b][u]could seriously disrupt agriculture,[/u][/b] especially in highly industrialized nations like the United States, where food systems are heavily reliant on oil. "This era of increasing globalization of our food supply is going to draw to a close here in the next decade or so," Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association, said. "I think it (eventual oil scarcities) is going to mean the end of importing billions of dollars of food from overseas[b][u]. [/u][/b][b][u]It's going to mean the end of relatively cheap food in the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] And it's going to mean a significant increase in starvation and malnourishment across the world."[/u][/b][b] [/b] [b]And even small increases in food prices put food out of reach for over 1 billion people. [/b] [b]Power 96[/b] Tampa Tribune ‘96 [Paul Power Jr., “Grain shortage growing problem,” Jan 20, LN] There are more people in this world than ever, but less grain to feed them. That's kindled fears of a world food crisis, a problem Florida may help prevent. Poor weather, drought, political unrest and [b][u]economic shifts[/u][/b] have decreased planting, pushing world grain reserves to record lows. Meanwhile, the world's population grew by 100 million, to 5.75 billion in 1995 - a record increase. Now, miners in West Central Florida are digging out phosphate more quickly, so it can be used to make fertilizer. Analysts are warning about the increasing possibility of flood or drought in the world's food-producing regions. That [b][u]can push food prices much higher, both here and abroad, and even cause famine in the poorest countries. [/u][/b]U.S. food prices may rise more than 4 percent this year, ahead of the rate of inflation. "Conditions today indicate that there is at least some vulnerability in the food supply," said Sara Schwartz, an agricultural economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Corn and soybean production plunged last year in the United States, she said. Wet weather slowed grain planting in the United States and Canada. Elsewhere, drought and civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa cut production to 20 percent below normal. The European Union has less than one quarter of the grain reserves it held in 1993. The amount of corn expected to be available in the United States by summer - when corn is harvested - was trimmed by crop forecasters this week to 507 million bushels, the lowest in 20 years. On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institutein Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersennoted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. [b][u]"Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food[/u][/b],"he said. "[b][u]Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the[/u][/b] developing [b][u]world who live on a dollar a day or less." [/u][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]Withdrawing from [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] would drop oil prices. Experts agree that withdrawing troops from [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] would reduce oil prices because of reduced supply threats and a stronger dollar.[/b] [b]Lindorff 08[/b] [font=&quot]Want Cheaper Gas and Oil? End the Damned Wars! by Dave Lindorff Philadelphia-based journalist. [url]http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/17/9017[/url][/font] One analyst, [b][u]economist Ismael Hussein-Zadeh, a professor of economics at [/u][/b][b][u]Drake[/u][/b][b][/b][b][u][font=&quot]University[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]in [/font][font=&quot]Des Moines[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Iowa[/font][font=&quot], has a different explanation for the price rise, and American motorists and homeowners should pay close attention. "Oil prices have gone from the mid $20 range in the fall of 2002 to $127 yesterday -- a rise of $100/barrel in just over five years," he says. "And the bulk of that increase can be attributed to the [/font][font=&quot]US[/font][font=&quot] wars in [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][font=&quot], and to the threats of war against [/font][font=&quot]Iran[/font][font=&quot]." Hussein-Zadeh's analysis[/font] [b][u]looks[/u][/b] [b][u]at a number of ways that the[/u][/b] Bush/Cheney [b][u]wars have contributed to rising oil prices. Chief among these are two factors: the threat to supplies, particularly from the [/u][/b][b][u]Persian Gulf[/u][/b][b][u] region[/u][/b] from which 20 percent of the world's oil supplies come,[b][u] and a falling dollar, because oil is priced in dollars, and as it loses value, oil producing countries raise their prices to compensate[/u][/b]. In an article titled "Worried About the Price of Gas? End US Wars," Hussein-Zadeh writes, "Soon after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the price of oil began to escalate in tandem with the escalation of war and political turbulence in the Middle East." Furthermore, he says, "Anytime there is a renewed US military threat against Iran, fuel prices move up several notches." If the US were to actually make good on Bush's and Cheney's threats to attack Iran, in Hussein-Zadeh's view "the sky would be the limit" to oil prices, with $200/barrel being a starting point. [b][u]The dollar's fall, too, is significantly a result of the [/u][/b]wars-particularly the[b][u] Iraq War, [/u][/b]he says.[b][u] That war has been costing the US $200 billion a year, all in borrowed funds. That in itself is a huge hole that has to be funded by borrowing from [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u], [/u][/b][b][u]Japan[/u][/b][b][u], [/u][/b][b][u]Saudi Arabia[/u][/b][b][u] and other nations. But as Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the true cost of the [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] War, when interest on debt, health costs of injured veterans and other long-term costs are factored in, is more like $3 trillion and rising.[/u][/b] And when currency speculators and traders -- the ones who really set the value of the dollar -- make their bets, they're looking at that bigger number, not the little one. Moreover, [b][u]it's not just oil that has been driven up in price because of the war. As energy costs have gone up, so has the cost of food, in no small part because most fertilizer is oil-based, and because transportation costs are also largely a reflection of oil prices[/u][/b][b][u].[/u][/b] [font=&quot]As well, to the extent that American's food is imported, they are paying in shrinking dollars, whose value is being driven down because of the war. Hussein-Zadeh says the Bush/Cheney administration and its neoconservative war promoters have worked hard to offer other more benign explanations for the crippling rise in energy prices, and food prices. As he puts it: Neoconservative forces in and around the Bush administration and beneficiaries of war dividends -- wishing to deflect attention away from war as the main culprit for the skyrocketing energy prices -- tend to blame secondary or marginally relevant factors: OPEC, China and India for their increased demand for energy, or supply-demand imbalances in global markets. Whatever the contributory role of these factors, the fact remains that the current oil price hikes started with the beginning of the Bush administration's wars against [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][font=&quot]. Furthermore, a closer examination of these factors reveals that their roles in the current price inflation of oil have been negligible. Common sense bears him out here. China's and India's economies have indeed been growing rapidly, and with them, demand for oil, but over the past five years, oil prices have risen 400%, and the same cannot be said for demand. Even if Chinese and Indian growth figures of 7-9 percent per year were accurate (and there is reason to believe they are grossly inflated), that at best would amount to perhaps a 50% increase in economic activity over five years. In fact, during this time more efficient energy use in the developed countries has largely offset much of the increasing demand for oil in China and India, and even in China and India, much of the energy growth has involved replacing inefficient vehicles and power plants with more efficient ones, so oil consumption isn't rising in lock step with economic growth[/font]. [b][u]The answer then, to rising oil prices, is obvious then[/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot].[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]It is not some silly two-month moratorium on federal taxes-what Sen. McCain referred to, in a candid moment, as a "little gift" to American vacationers. Nor is it opening up the Artic refuge to drilling -- a move that would take years to lead to any significant new supply, and which in any case would have minimal impact on overall supply, or on prices. Nor is it opening up the Strategic Oil Reserve -- another drop in the barrel. Nor is it hammering OPEC to boost production -- something they have already done. No, it is much simpler. As Hussein-Zadeh puts it: The political implications of this discussion are clear[/font][font=&quot]:[/font] [b][u]to bring down the prices of fuel and food requires bringing home the troops. By lowering the energy costs of production and transportation this will help save our own and many other economies from the plagues of inflation and stagnation. It will bring relief to hundreds of millions worldwide who are burdened by crippling energy bills and the crushing costs of feeding their families. [/u][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]And history is on our side. When countries withdraw from [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] oil prices drop. [/b][b]Turkey[/b][b] proves this is true.[/b] [b]Wilen 07[/b] John Wilen, AP Business Writer Oil falls as Turks withdraw from Iraq 12/18/07 ://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-12-17-3815204975_x.htm [b][u]Oil prices fell Tuesday after Kurdish officials said Turkish troops that entered [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] early Tuesday have returned to [/u][/b][b][u]Turkey[/u][/b][b][u], reducing worries that the conflict would cut oil supplies from the region[/u][/b]. Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the regional Kurdistan government, told The Associated Press that the Turkish troops had withdrawn. Earlier they had gone about 1 1/2 miles into northern Iraq in an operation against Kurdish rebels. The Iraqi government said it was an unacceptable action that would lead to "complicated problems."[b][u] The threat of[/u][/b] just such[b][u] a Turkish incursion into [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] was one of the many factors behind oil's rise to near $100 a barrel in November.[/u][/b] While oil futures have since retreated from those highs on a view that global supplies of crude are growing as demand is falling, concerns about supply disruptions remain high.[b][u] Oil prices jumped more than $2 earlier Tuesday before news of the Turkish withdrawal "threw cold water on the rally,"[/u][/b] said Addison Armstrong, director, exchange traded markets at TFS Energy Futures LLC in Stamford, Conn. Light, sweet crude for January delivery fell 14 cents to settle at $90.49 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after trading as low as $88.88 when the Turkish withdrawal was announced. Analysts attributed some of Tuesday's price volatility to the January contract's expiration. February crude fell 97 cents to settle at $90.08 a barrel on the Nymex. [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]Advantage 2. [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] Civil War[/font][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]First, [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]US[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] military presence in [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] is intensifying the prospects of civil war in [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/b][b][font=&quot].[/font][/b] [font=&quot]Englehardt 8[/font] [font=&quot](Tom, Teaching Fellow at UC-Berkeley and Co-founder of The American Empire Project, Nation Report’s Tom Dispatch, 3/20)dc[/font][font=&quot][/font] No[b], the [/b]U.S. military does not stand between Iraq and civil war: As with fragmentation, the U.S. military's presence has, in fact, been a motor for civil war in that country. The invasion and subsequent chaos, as well as punitive acts against the Sunni minority, allowed Sunni extremists, some of whom took the name "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia," to establish themselves as a force in the country for the first time. Later, U.S. military operations in both Sunni and Shiite areas regularly repressed local militias -- almost the only forces capable of bringing some semblance of security to urban neighborhoods -- opening the way for the most extreme members of the other community (Sunni suicide or car bombers and Shiite death squads) to attack. It's worth remembering that it was in the surge months of 2007, when all those extra American troops hit Baghdad neighborhoods, that many of the city's mixed or Sunni neighborhoods were most definitively "cleansed" by death squads, producing a 75-80% Shiite capital. Iraq is now embroiled in what Juan Cole has termed "three civil wars," two of which (in the south and the north) are largely beyond the reach of limited American ground forces and all of which could become far worse. The still low-level struggle between Kurds and Arabs (with the Turks hovering nearby) for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in the north may be the true explosion point to come. The U.S. military sits precariously atop this mess, at best putting off to the future aspects of the present civil-war landscape, but more likely intensifying it. [font=&quot] [/font] [b]Iraq[/b][b] civil war would escalate to nuclear war.[/b] [b]Corsi 07[/b] Jorome Corsi, Writer for WorldNetDaily. 1/8/07. World Net Daily, “War with Iran is Imminent.” [url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669[/url] [b][u]If a broader war breaks out in Iraq[/u][/b], Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, [b][u]it will only be a matter of time before [/u][/b][b][u]Israel[/u][/b][b][u] and the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] have no choice but to invade [/u][/b][b][u]Syria[/u][/b][b][u]. The [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] war could quickly spin into a regional war,[/u][/b] with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons. With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? [b][u]If we get more deeply involved in [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u], [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u] may have their moment to go after [/u][/b][b][u]Taiwan[/u][/b][b][u] once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war[/u][/b], much as World Wars I and II began [font=&quot] [/font] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]Fortunately, ONLY A COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL SOLVES. Troop presence guarantees a delay in reconciliation and saps [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]US[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] international diplomatic effectiveness. The day we withdraw we begin to solve.[/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]Richardson[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] 07[/font][/b] [font=&quot]Why We Should Exit Iraq Now Bill Richardson Governor of New Mexico [/font][font=&quot]Saturday, September 8, 2007[/font][font=&quot] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702063.html[/url][/font] [b][u]Those who think we need to keep troops in [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] misunderstand the [/u][/b][b][u]Middle East[/u][/b][b][u].[/u][/b] I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that [b][u]only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long. Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u], reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.[/u][/b] The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. [b][u]The day we leave, this myth collapses,[/u][/b] and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. [b][u]Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists[/u][/b] who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq. [b]And only a full withdrawal without pre-conditions will work. Anything else will cause policy paralysis.[/b] [b]Odom, a professor at Yale, 06[/b] [font=&quot]How to cut and run from Iraq [/font][font=&quot][/font][font=&quot] William E. Odom senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University., Los Angeles Times-Washington Post [/font][font=&quot][/font][font=&quot] Published: 00:00 November 4, 2006 [url]http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/how-to-cut-and-run-from-iraq-1.264456[/url][/font] [b][u]The [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] upset the regional balance in the [/u][/b][b][u]Middle East[/u][/b][b][u] when it invaded [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u].[/u][/b] Restoring it requires bold initiatives, but "cutting and running" must precede them all. [b][u]Only a complete withdrawal of all [/u][/b][b][u]US[/u][/b][b][u] troops - [/u][/b]within six months and[b][u] with no preconditions - can break the paralysis that enfeebles our diplomacy.[/u][/b] And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public. Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the president's conjured set of illusions: that we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq; creating democracy there; preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; making Israel more secure; not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in vain; and others. But reality no longer can be avoided. [b][u]It is beyond US power to prevent bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighbouring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Moqtada Al Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread of instability beyond Iraq. [/u][/b] [b][u][color=black][font=&quot] [/font][/color][/u][/b] [b][u][font=&quot] [/font][/u][/b] [b][font=&quot]We must act now. Delaying the process will be seen as a betrayal, will embolden terrorists, and will cause any achievements in [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] to be lost. [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]Jarrar 10 [/font][/b] [font=&quot](Raed, Senior Fellow, Peace Action, The Progressive, May[/font][font=&quot] 26, [/font][font=&quot][url]http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/26-1[/url][/font][font=&quot]) SM[/font][font=&quot][/font] [b][u][font=&quot]While most Iraqis would agree that [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] is still broken, delaying [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]or canceling[/font][b][u][font=&quot] the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] troop removal will definitely not be seen as "flexibility," but rather as a betrayal [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]of promises. Iraqis believe that prolonging the military occupation will not fix what the occupation has damaged, and they don't think that extending the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] intervention will protect them from other interventions[/font][font=&quot]. The vast majority of Iraqis see the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] military presence as a part of the problem, not the solution[/font][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]Linking [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]withdrawal to conditions on the ground creates an equation by which further deterioration in [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] will automatically lead to prolonging the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] military presence. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]Some of the current Iraqi ruling parties want the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] occupation to continue because they have been benefiting from it. [/font][font=&quot]Some regional players, including the Iranian government, do not want an independent and strong [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] to re-emerge[/font][font=&quot]. And other groups, including[/font][b][u][font=&quot] Al Qaeda, would gladly see the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]United States[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] stuck in the current quagmire, losing its blood, treasure and reputation[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]Connecting the pullout to the prevalent situation would be an open invitation to those who seek an endless war to sabotage [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] even further, and delaying it will send the wrong message to them[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]. [/font][font=&quot]By contrast,[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]adhering to the current time-based plan would pull the rug from under their feet and allow Iraqis to stabilize their nation[/u][/b], [b][u]a process [/u][/b][/font][font=&quot]that may take many years but[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]that cannot begin as long as [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]'s sovereignty is breached by foreign interventions.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]If the Obama administration reneges on its plans, it will effectively reward those responsible for the bloodshed and further embolden them. Such a decision would most likely have serious ramifications for the security of [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] troops in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], and will impede the security and political progress in the country[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]And[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]delaying the U.S. pullout will not only harm the U.S. image around the world, [/u][/b][/font][font=&quot]which Obama has been trying hard to improve[/font][b][u][font=&quot], but it will also be the final blow to U.S. credibility in Iraq. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]The mere promise of a complete withdrawal has boosted Iraqi domestic politics and enhanced the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] perception in the country[/font][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]Unless Obama delivers on his promises, many of these achievements will be lost, and [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] will be sent back to square one[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]. [/font] [b]The war in [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] is waged through a racist ideology. We must individually call on the government to end the war to end racism. [/b] [b]Hudgson 10[/b] Imperialism, Islamophobia, and Torture By Adam Hudson, published October, 2010 [url]http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=893[/url] [b][u]Racism is not just an individual problem of prejudice or hate. It is an ideology used to justify systems of hegemony and oppression. It creates a binary between the Self and the Other[/u][/b]. The Self is ascribed all positive aspects of humanity, such as rationality, intelligence, high culture, and credit for creating the benefits of modern civilization.[b][u] The Other is ascribed all negative aspects of humanity, such as irrationality, primitivity, criminality, and barbarity. By categorizing certain groups as inferior “others”, hegemonic powers rob those people of their humanity, thus, making it easier to commit acts of brutality against them for imperial interests. Racism, under the banner of “manifest destiny”, was used to justify the genocide[/u][/b] committed against the Native Americans that made room for American territorial expansion. [b][u]Racism was used to justify the enslavement of millions of black Africans whose free labor was exploited to work on plantations and build the American economy. Despite the advancements made during the civil rights movement, racism still exists in many areas of American life[/u][/b], such as the disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos in prison, de facto housing segregation, inequality in the education system, and police brutality committed against people of color. Some of the most recent cases of police brutality were the deaths of 22-year-old Oscar Grant in Oakland[url="http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=893#_edn16"][xvi][/url] and 7-year-old Aiyana Jones in Detroit[url="http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=893#_edn17"][xvii][/url] – both of whom were African-American. [b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s wars against[/u][/b] Afghanistan and[b][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] serve to maintain American global hegemony and access to key resources such as oil. The racist dehumanization of Muslims[/u][/b], Arabs and South Asians[b][u] is committed to justify America’s wars and acts of torture primarily against people from countries whose populations are predominantly Muslim and black and brown-skinned, such as Iraq,[/u][/b] Afghanistan, and Yemen. [b][u]It is not difficult to witness the manifestations of Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism in American society.[/u][/b] It exists within the media and underlies the sophistry of politicians and leading intellectuals. Muslims, Arabs and South Asians are always suspected of being terrorists, similar to how black and Latino people are suspected of being drug-dealers, gang members and criminals. Racism is the fundamental ideological motivation behind America’s wars and use of torture. [b][u]The key task now is to end [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s use of torture and, more broadly, eliminate racism and imperialism; a daunting task but a necessary one, nevertheless. First, it is important for everyone, of all races, to see and treat every other person as a human being. Despite our cultural differences, we are part of one human family. Second, it is crucial that we hold our political leaders accountable for authorizing acts of torture and starting wars.[/u][/b] At Stanford, we can start by pressuring our government to hold current Professor and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and other government officials, accountable for authorizing torture and engaging in aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, it is vital that we work to build institutions that foster peace instead of war and sustain humanity rather than destroy it. [b][u]To build a better future for humanity is by no means an easy task. But a million-mile journey begins with one step. Let’s make that first step.[/u][/b] [b]The sole reason that the [/b][b]US[/b][b] is in [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] is for democracy promotion. However, this effort is failing. There are many warrants as to why this will never work.[/b] [b]Layne 10[/b] [url="http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing"]Who Lost Iraq and Why It Matters: The Case for Offshore Balancing[/url] August 19, 2010 [b][i][font=&quot]Christopher Layne [/font][/i][/b][i][font=&quot]holds the Mary Julia and George R. Jordan professorship of international affairs at [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]Texas[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]A & M[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]University[/font][/i][i][font=&quot]’s [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]George[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]H.[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]W.[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]Bush[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]School[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] of Government and Public Service [url]http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing[/url][/font][/i] [font=&quot]The neoconservative conclusion—that the key lesson learned from the Iraqi disaster is “next time do it right”—is fundamentally wrong. The [/font][font=&quot]United States[/font][font=&quot] still would have failed in [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] even if American policy had been executed flawlessly[/font].[b][u] The correct lesson from [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] is “next time, don’t do it.” [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] policies of regime change and democracy promotion at the point of a bayonet almost never succeed. The problems began with the real reasons that the administration went to war[/u][/b]: pursuit of regime change and [b][u]democratization in [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]Although the administration repeatedly claimed a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/113 and exaggerated and intentionally miscalculated the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), President Bush himself has made it clear he did not embark on war because of these imagined provocations. In a December 2005 speech, after conceding that prewar intelligence estimates about Iraqi WMD were “wrong,” Bush said that “it wasn’t a mistake to go into [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot]. It was the right decision to make.... We are in [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] in its place.” Doubtless the United States and the world would be better off if brutish rulers like Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamic clerics who rule Iran were deposed and replaced by democratic governments. However, as former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft has observed[/font][b][u][font=&quot],[/font][/u][/b][b][u] “in the process of trying to do it you can make the [/u][/b][b][u]Middle East[/u][/b][b][u] a lot worse.”4 [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u]’s track record in democracy promotion and nation-building is not encouraging. Since the early 1990s, the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] has attempted to implant democracy—without any notable success[/u][/b]—[font=&quot]in [/font][font=&quot]Panama[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Somalia[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Haiti[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Bosnia[/font][font=&quot], Kosovo, and [/font][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][font=&quot]. [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] efforts to assist post-Soviet [/font][font=&quot]Russia[/font][font=&quot]’s democratization, a key American aim since the Cold War’s end, also have been disappointing. The two cases where the [/font][font=&quot]United States[/font][font=&quot] did succeed, in [/font][font=&quot]Germany[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Japan[/font][font=&quot] after World War II, highlight the unique circumstances required for a democratic transition under a foreign power’s military occupation. Both Axis powers were utterly defeated and surrendered unconditionally; both were occupied by an overwhelming number of American (and, in [/font][font=&quot]Germany[/font][font=&quot]’s case, Allied) troops; and both were incapable of resisting the occupying authorities. “Whereas warweary Germans and Japanese recognized the need for an occupation to help them rebuild,” observes [/font][font=&quot]Georgetown[/font][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]University[/font][font=&quot] professor David Edelstein “a significant portion of the Iraqi people have never welcomed the U.S.-led occupation as necessary[/font].” [b][u]In fact, [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] met none of the criteria transitologists (scholars who study the processes of transition from authoritarian or totalitarian rule to democracy) believe are required for a successful democratic transition: a modern market-based economy, absence of hostility between ethnic or religious groups, a political culture that is hospitable to democracy, and a vibrant civil society.[/u][/b] As the RAND Corporation’s Andrew Rathmell (who served in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad) has observed,[b][u] “[/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] was not a promising environment for achieving the goal of building a peaceful, democratic, free-market nation. [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] had failed to develop into a cohesive nationstate[/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot];[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] its state structures had the form but not the substance of a modern state; its economy was in poor shape; and its society had endured almost half a century of debilitating violence.”7 In these respects, [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] was completely unlike [/font][font=&quot]Germany[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Japan[/font][font=&quot] in 1945.[/font] [b][u]The Bush administration should have known that it could not succeed in democratizing Iraq because of the plethora of authoritative prewar evidence that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was bound to result in geopolitical disaster.[/u][/b] [b][u][font=&quot] [/font][/u][/b] [b]And the promotion of democracy leads to conflict. [/b] [b]Gartzeka et al 10[/b] International Crises and the Capitalist Peace Authors: Erik Gartzkea; University of California, San Diego b University of Maryland, J. Joseph Hewittb Volume [url="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=t713718605%7Etab=issueslist%7Ebranches=36#v36"]36[/url], Issue [url="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g922333675"]2 [/url]April 2010 [url]http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a922330932&fulltext=713240928[/url] The democratic peace is important, not just because it is a rare “lawlike” relationship in international relations, but also because of the hope it provides to many that the world can become a more peaceful place. [b][u]It should not be surprising that the good news of democratic peace has been widely embraced by academic researchers, the policy community, and by interested observers. Nevertheless, the merit of an idea in an empirical science must rest in its observed impact more than its abstract virtue. This study contributes to a small but growing body of literature casting doubt on the robustness of the democratic peace observation. It has been known for some time that democracies are only peaceful in pairs. Other research has shown that the democratic peace is even more exclusive than previously imagined, limiting the finding to developed democracies[/u][/b] ([url="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a922330932&fulltext=713240928#CIT0025"]Hegre 2000[/url]; [url="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a922330932&fulltext=713240928#CIT0038"]Mousseau 2000[/url]). We take this insight full circle, demonstrating that it is economic development and market freedoms, rather than political liberty, that precipitate interstate peace. It should be emphasized that the capitalist peace is an equally optimistic discovery. The fact that free markets and prosperity reduce the impetus to war means that the liberal peace still obtains, though with a considerably different causal logic and set of empirical precursors. Indeed, a liberal economic peace may be even more sustainable and transportable to the broader international community than is liberal government.[b][u] Promoting democracy, even imposing it as some have advocated (or pursued), is not likely to reduce interstate conflict.[/u][/b] [b][u]While democracy is certainly desirable in its own right, democratizing for peace appears to be based on a misconception, and may even lead to a weakening of the actual determinants of liberal peace. If democracy leads to an expression of popular preferences in places where these preferences are incompatible with [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] or other Western interests, then it should not be surprising to find that democratization can actually increase interstate conflict.[/u][/b] The United States may be best advised to focus on promoting economic development and free markets. As we have shown, these are the more proximate causes of cooperation among states in the modern world, and may themselves help to promote democracy. [b] [/b] [b] [/b] [b]The [/b][b]US[/b][b] should withdraw all troops from [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] because it has been a failure.[/b] [b]Layne 10[/b] [url="http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing"]Who Lost Iraq and Why It Matters: The Case for Offshore Balancing[/url] August 19, 2010 [b][i][font=&quot]Christopher Layne [/font][/i][/b][i][font=&quot]holds the Mary Julia and George R. Jordan professorship of international affairs at [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]Texas[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]A & M[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]University[/font][/i][i][font=&quot]’s [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]George[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]H.[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]W.[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]Bush[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]School[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] of Government and Public Service [url]http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing[/url][/font][/i] [b][u]The administration’s current policies will magnify difficulties in the [/u][/b][b][u]Middle East[/u][/b][b][u]. [/u][/b]Rather than seeking regime change in Iran, Washington should attempt to reach a diplomatic modus vivendi with Tehran. [b][u]In [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u], the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] should disengage its troops from combat operations and withdraw all of its forces as expeditiously as logistical constraints permit.[/u][/b] To the extent it is necessary to prevent foreign jihadists from entering Iraq, or pursue terrorist targets there, Washington should rely on airpower based over-the-horizon, not on ground troops. If the Democratic-controlled Congress and public opinion fail to force the Bush administration to reverse its course[b][u] the[/u][/b] next [b][u]administration must move swiftly to extricate the United States from Iraq.[/u][/b] Here are the cites for the nite raids aff (read by Jamie/ Shane at MSHSAA and by Allison and Cassandra at NFL): [b]Contention 1- Inherency- The use of night raids in [/b][b]Afghanistan[/b][b] has increased since General Petraeus has taken control of the military.[/b] [b]Linkins 11[/b] Jason Linkins [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/michael-hastings-afghanistan-petraeus_n_817798.html"]Michael Hastings On Afghanistan: Petraeus Is Pursuing A 'Failed Strategy'[/url] First Posted: 02/ 2/11 [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/michael-hastings-afghanistan-petraeus_n_817798.html[/url] [b][u]Taking over from McChrystal, Petraeus moved quickly to institute his own, more aggressive version of COIN[/u][/b] [b][u]-- one that calls for lots of killing, lots of cash and lots of spin. He loosened the restrictions McChrystal had placed on the rules of engagement,[/u][/b] giving U.S. soldiers the green light to use artillery, destroy property and defend themselves more vigorously. He drastically upped the number of airstrikes, launching more than 3,450 between July and November, the most since the invasion in 2001. He introduced U.S. tanks into the battle, unleashed Apache and Kiowa attack helicopters,[b][u] and tripled the number of night raids by Special Forces.[/u][/b] The fighting was calculated to force the Taliban to the bargaining table and reduce NATO casualties, which soared to 711 last year -- the highest of the war. [b]Thus the plan: The [/b][b]United States[/b][b] federal government, specifically President Obama, will order an immediate cessation of night raids as a part of the [/b][b]US[/b][b] military presence in [/b][b]Afghanistan[/b][b]. Administration, enforcement, funding, and logistics of the plan will be through necessary mean. Contention 2- Stability[/b] [b]First, night raids are perceived by the [/b][b]Afghanistan[/b][b] population to be fraught with abuse. Even if these allegations aren’t true, propaganda by the insurgents will push Afghan citizens into protests. Stopping each night raid is critical. [/b] [b][font=&quot]Gaston and Horowitz 10[/font][/b] Erica Gaston and Jonathan Horowitz on behalf of the Open Society Institute (OSI) and Susanne Schmeidl from The Liaison Office (TLO). Research was carried out jointly between OSI and TLO.Strangers at the Door Night Raids by International Forces Lose Hearts and Minds of Afghans A case study by the Open Society Institute and The Liaison Office February 23, 2010 [url]http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/articles_publications/publications/afghan-night-raids-20100222/a-afghan-night-raids-20100222.pdf[/url] [b][u][color=black][font=&quot]The practices inherent in night raids—an intrusion into the home at night, interactions with women of the family—clash with fundamental notions of privacy.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot] Afghans believe that women‘s quarters are sacrosanct and should not be touched by outsiders. Some women interviewed feared that they would be sent to hell for looking at the international forces or being seen by them during these raids.16 [/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]Because these operations are so offensive to Afghan communities, reports of misconduct during night raids are especially prone to exaggeration. During the discussion groups, interviewees gave accounts of international forces tearing or chopping the Holy Quran[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot] [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]with an ax, taking women away in helicopters and returning them dead, and shooting babies or children at point-blank range.[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot] [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]Even if some of these and other stories are due to insurgency propaganda, Afghans are ready to believe them.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot] T[/font][/color][color=black][font=&quot]he perception is that forces willing to conduct night raids as a matter of standard protocol would also be willing to engage in other outrageous acts during these raids.[b][/b]While many claims go unsubstantiated and others are simply false, international and Afghan military forces should not ignore that they are built upon a reality of abuse, and that even the [/font][/color][color=black]―[/color][color=black][font=&quot]unbelievable[/font][/color][color=black]‖[/color][color=black][font=&quot] [/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]allegations shape the way Afghan communities understand the conflict. Whether propaganda, exaggeration, or fact, complaints about night raids spread rapidly through communities provoking extreme reactions.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot] [b][u]Following allegations that international forces violated the Holy Quran in a search operation in Wardak in October, 15 public demonstrations were organized countrywide[/u][/b][/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]. [/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot]Furthermore, such experiences create (or add to the already)[/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot] negative perceptions of international forces, sometimes pushing individuals toward outright support for insurgents[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot]. As one interviewee suggested, [/font][/color][color=black]―[/color][color=black][font=&quot]If someone is handcuffed in front of women, he would see no other way left, but to head towards the mountains [to fight with the insurgents].[/font][/color][color=black]‖[/color][color=black][font=&quot]18[/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot] Each night raid that takes place reinforces these perceptions and gives fresh fodder to insurgent propaganda.[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][font=&quot] And [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] is on the brink of collapse since the Egyptian riots. A small scale protest, like one against night raids, could spill over into total instability in [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] in under 3 hours. [/font][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot][/font][/color][/u][/b] [b][font=&quot]Hazem 11[/font][/b] [font=&quot]Najeeb [/font][font=&quot]Rehan Hazem[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][font=&quot] after [/font][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][font=&quot], February 7[/font] [font=&quot]http://himalmag.com/blogs/blog/2011/02/07/afghanistan-after-egypt/[/font] [b][u][font=&quot]Most people in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] are waiting for something to ignite a large-scale chaos. It could be anything, a small protest or a leader who is willing to lead them to a protest[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [b][u]A retired general,[/u][/b][/font][font=&quot] who refrained from being named, indirectly [/font][b][u][font=&quot]said that he had the power to destroy the government in just three hours[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]. ‘But I must say the current situation in Afghanistan and the lack of efficient leaders have forced me to just watch from the long distance,’ he said before adding, [/font][b][u][font=&quot]‘The uprising in Egypt is the holy youth’s rebellion. It has an ability to change the perspective of every youth in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]Gen Taqat, however, advises Afghan youth to be cautious. ‘We are not in [/font][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][font=&quot],’ he says, [/font][b][u][font=&quot]‘[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] is highly vulnerable. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]If we take inspiration from [/font][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][font=&quot] and let the chaos drive President Hamid Karzia away, will there be anyone left to lead us? [/font][b][u][font=&quot]It’s dangerous to think of replicating the Egyptian scenario here in Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]. Our community is very backward. We still depend on the UN and the [/font][font=&quot]United States[/font][font=&quot] to implement a regular government.’[/font] [font=&quot]All eyes are fixed on today’s [/font][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][font=&quot]. Now that the authoritarian regimes in some Arab countries are facing their fall one after the other, naturally, [/font][b][u][font=&quot]the question arises whether something similar will occur in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]. Political analysts do fear that if the people of [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] focus on the reasons of the current instability and uprising in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], they may follow suit and stand against their government.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] Only time can tell.[/font] [font=&quot] [/font] And instability in Afghanistan spills over to the entire world. RTT News 9 (Global Financial Newswires, [url]http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1144493[/url], AD: 7/8/10) jl (RTTNews) - Ahead of President Barack Obama's announcement concerning new troop levels in [url="http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1144493"][color=windowtext]Afghanistan[/color][color=windowtext][img=file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ROBERC%7E1.022/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif][/color][/url] Tuesday night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke Monday night at Gotham Hall in New York City, where she argued that instability in regions like Afghanistan still represent a threat to U.S. security. "We have seen in recent weeks that the stability of countries far away like Afghanistan and Pakistan is directly connected to our own national security," Clinton said. She added, "As long as countries like that struggle to control their borders, extend their sovereignty, the door is open to the bad actors who today are more empowered because of the tools of globalization, the instant communication, the weapons of such greater force and magnitude than what came before." Clinton called it "imperative" to look at the "syndicate of terrorism that operates out of the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan." Specifically, she noted al-Qaida as "being the head of the table of this syndicate of terrorism" and argued that if they and a group like the Taliban can maintain a safe haven in the region, "then terrorists will continue to use that territory to plan future attacks on us." [font=&quot] [/font] [b][font=&quot]Contention 3- Torture and international law[/font][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]First, the use of night raids by the [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]United States[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] is based on a flawed system. Many of the houses that are raided are raided due to incorrect information. This hinders the ability of the international system to set up appropriate international laws and results in the torture of those detained through night raids. [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b][font=&quot]Gaston and Horowitz 10[/font][/b] [font=&quot]Erica Gaston and Jonathan Horowitz on behalf of the Open Society Institute ([/font][font=&quot]OSI[/font][font=&quot]) and Susanne Schmeidl from The Liaison Office (TLO). Research was carried out jointly between [/font][font=&quot]OSI[/font][font=&quot] and TLO.Strangers at the Door Night Raids by International Forces Lose Hearts and Minds of Afghans A case study by the Open Society Institute and The Liaison Office February 23, 2010 [url]http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/articles_publications/publications/afghan-night-raids-20100222/a-afghan-night-raids-20100222.pdf[/url][/font] [font=&quot]Almost two years later, Alston‘s critiques are still relevant. Those leading[/font][b][u][font=&quot] night raids are often Special Operations Forces (SOF) operating out of regional commands, rather than from the local ISAF base or PRTs.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] Though efforts have been made to better incorporate SOF into the chain of command in 2009, the local ISAF commanders are often still ignorant as to what raids occur in their area of operations, and which forces are conducting them. During a November 19, 2009 meeting between the Regional Command North and humanitarian and development actors in Kunduz, one of the ISAF military officials voiced his frustration with recent US military/special forces activities in the area for not sharing any details about their operation, adding [/font][font=&quot]―[/font][b][u][font=&quot]ISAF cannot influence anything the US Military/Special Forces do[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot]‖[/font][font=&quot]22 Highlighting the concern about raids carried out by SOF, independent monitors in southern Kandahar and Helmand province noted that recently some raids have been carried out by ISAF rather than SOF, and that it is easier to raise concerns and track those who are accountable for these ISAF-led raids.2 [/font][b][u][font=&quot]The lack of visibility over those conducting raids also weakens the potential for innocent families who are harmed to receive appropriate apologies or compensation, as was recommended in General McChrystal‘s assessment on the military strategy in Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].24 So far, ISAF has failed to set up a comprehensive system of compensation in Afghanistan, and instead it is up to the discretion of individual troops involved in a given incident.25 When those troops are not local to an area, or are not identifiable within the chain of command – as often happens in the case of night raids – there is almost no chance for affected civilians to receive an apology or to have their losses recognized or compensated.26[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]There also appears to be insufficient accountability for and verification of the intelligence that led to many of these raids. Many people detained during night raids said they were targeted because their rivals or enemies deliberately passed misinformation to international forces[/u][/b][/font][font=&quot]. Though these allegations are hard to confirm, the fact that many detainees are soon released without charge, the frequency of wrongful aerial bombings, and the underlying local dynamics of many Afghan regions lend credibility to these claims. As one shopkeeper from Paktia described, [/font][font=&quot]―[/font][font=&quot]The Afghan National Army and[/font][b][u][font=&quot] the international forces have raided my house six times. Every time they searched my house,[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot] they could not find anything and apologized after the search operation and told me that wrong intelligence had been given to them Research in other insurgency and civil war contexts has found that the motivations for informants to pass tips to one side or the other are often personal.28 Given this empirical research and the history of ethnic and tribal rivalries in Afghanistan, it is not surprising that many tips leading to night raids would be driven by personal motivations of the informant.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] While some tips are true, others are not. For this reason, stronger mechanisms for verifying information are imperative given the impact of these practices.[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]Afghans point to these raids and complain that international forces operate under a culture of impunity. These critiques are not surprising, given the lack of visibility over how raids are authorized and which forces conduct them, and the absence of a mechanism to refer and address complaints about conduct after the fact. The civilian and military strategies in [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] both emphasize the importance of rule of law and stronger government accountability for long-term stability. Reports of abuse and concerns about the lack of accountability for these raids, reinforce, rather than correct, existing flaws in the Afghan detention and justice system.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] With the international community spending billions of dollars annually to improve rule of law,[/font][b][u][font=&quot] international forces are working at cross-purposes by not having in place a serious system for accountability that can respond to night raids that result in abuse, property destruction, wrongful detentions, and the denial of due process.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][i][font=&quot]e) Conduct of Afghan National Security Forces, Irregular Militias, and Other Afghan Actors [/font][/i][font=&quot] One of the positive reforms made by the July 2009 tactical directive was to have the involvement of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) at all raids, a step that many Afghan communities requested.[/font] [font=&quot]Unfortunately, however,[/font][b][u][font=&quot] some of the benefits of this positive reform are undermined by allegations of abuse by Afghan forces or officials during the raids or afterwards during detention. When international forces detain individuals, they will often hand them over to Afghan institutions (Afghan National Police (ANP), Afghan National Army ([/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]ANA[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]) or the National Directorate of Security (NDS)), which are plagued with corruption and allegations of torture or other mistreatment.29 Those detained by international forces frequently reported having to pay a bribe worth several thousand U.S. dollars to secure their release.[/font][/u][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]Additionally, credible international law is critical to appropriately respond to genocide.[/b] [b]Slovic 9[/b] Paul Slovic Decision Research and University of Oregon. 10/15/09 [url]http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/Slovic.HC2009Oct28.pdf[/url] [b][u]Drawing upon behavioral research and common observation, we argue here that we cannot depend only upon our moral intuitions to motivate us to take proper action against genocide[/u][/b] and mass abuse of human rights. [b][u]This places the burden of response squarely upon moral argument and international law.[/u][/b] The genocide convention was supposed to meet this need but it has not been effective. [b][u]It is time to reexamine this failure in light of the psychological deficiencies described here and design legal and institutional mechanisms that will compel us to respond to genocide with a degree of intensity that is commensurate with the high value we place on individual human lives.[/u][/b] [b][u] [/u][/b] [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b] [b]And, genocide is the worst possible impact. [/b] [b]Lang 03[/b] ‪Act and idea in the Nazi genocide By Berel Lang professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan, 2003, pg 12-13 Before considering further the two primary factors in the concept of genocide (the specification of the group and the intention related to its destruction), it is important to recognize the implied relation between these factors, on the hand, and the likely agents of genocide, on the other. That genocide entails the destruction of a group does not imply that the act of genocide itself must be the act of a group; but the practical implementation of a design for genocide would almost necessarily be so complex as to assure this. Admittedly; the same technological advances that make genocide increasingly possible as a collective action also have increased the possibility that an individual acting alone could initiate the process. ([b][u]When the push of a single button can produce cataclysmic effects, we discover an order of destruction-“omnicide[/u][/b]”-even larger than genocide.)'1' [b][u]But the opprobrium attached to the term “genocide” seems also to have the connotation of a corporate action--as if this act or sequence of acts would be a lesser fault, easier to understand if not to excuse if one person rather than a group were responsible for it. A group (we suppose) would be bound by a public moral code; decisions made would have been reached collectively; and the culpability of individual intentions would be multiplied proportionately.[/u][/b] Admittedly, corporate responsibility is sometimes invoked in order to diminish (or at least to obscure) individual responsibility; so, for example, the “quagmire” effect that was appealed to retrospectively by defenders of the United States’ role in Vietnam. But [b][u]for genocide, the likelihood of its corporate origins seems to accentuate its moral enormity: a large number of individual, intentional acts would have to be committed and the connections among them also affirmed in onder to produce the extensive act. Unlike other corporate acts that might be not only decided on but carried out by a single person or small group of persons, genocide in its scope seems necessarily to require collaboration by a relatively large number of agents acting both collectively and individually. [/u][/b][b]Furthermore, torture is a moral issue. Regardless of the benefits that can be gained it should be evaluated as worse than murder.[/b] [b]Kleinig 05[/b] [font=&quot]JOHN KLEINIG Director of the Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics and Professor of Philosophy in the Department of aw & Police Science, John Jay College of Criminal JusticeTicking Bombs and Torture Warrants 622 [url]http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/dlr/docs/vol10-iss2/vol10-2-13.pdf[/url][/font] [font=&quot]Nevertheless, a defender of the argument’s secondary application might seek to rationalize its expansion as follows.[/font] [b][u]The important thing about the primary argument is its heuristic value: it provides a set of considerations under which torture will be justified. But once we have allowed this, the real question will not: Is torture ever justified? but: In what situations is torture justified?[/u][/b] [font=&quot]Where is the line to be drawn? [/font][b][u]Once we have freed ourselves from the shackles of absolute prohibitions, we can consider less stringent circumstances, in order to determine whether under these circumstances, too, torture might be justified[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]Do we need to be talking about 3 million lives or will 1 million do, 100 thousand, 100, 10, or even 1? We can also talk about probabilities – whether one needs to know (in some especially strong sense – sub specie aeternitatis) that there is a bomb, that Dr Doom will talk, that he will tell the truth, that we can find the bomb in time, that it can be deactivated, and so on, or is it enough that we are only 99% certain or 90% or just have reason to believe it very likely? And so on.[/font] [font=&quot]We can envisage a range of consequences, probabilities, and coercive measures, impacting on each other. Thus, a lesser degree of coercion might be compatible with a lower probability of evil occurring, provided the evil is serious enough[/font][font=&quot]. [/font][b][u]How we respond to such possibilities will depend partly on what we see to be the specific evils associated with torture – with whether they go so fundamentally to what we take to be the constraints of morality and civilization that only – if at all – the most extreme circumstances could be allowed to override or compromise them, or whether, like most other moral considerations, those relating to torture must take their place with others in the competitive and uncertain jostle for a morally acceptable solution[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]And, if the latter, we need to have some sense of how the jostle is to be brought into some sort of order. [/font][b][u]If what makes torture wrong must compete with other considerations, we can see the slipperiness of the slope we’re on – not just a theoretical slipperiness but also a practical one, for wherever the ticking bomb argument has been wheeled in to justify torture, however defined, its actual scope has expanded[/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot].[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] This may appear to be a contingency, manageable through closer oversight, but before I consider that, let me first review some of the basic issues. Why is torture such a problem? And[/font] [b][u]why should we even be tempted to put it in a special moral category of its own[/u][/b]? [font=&quot]Further, what kind of a warrant does the ticking bomb argument give us for inflicting it?[/font] [b][u]Put summarily, as it has to be here, the torture of a human being represents the most invasive attack on his/her dignity of which we are capable.[/u][/b] [font=&quot]Not only does it represent what Henry Shue calls an “assault on the defenseless,” itself an act of presumptuous domination, but[/font] [b][u]it threatens and undermines the very characteristics that constitute our human distinctiveness, and attacks them in a way that does not merely extinguish them – as killing does – but in a way that humiliates, degrades, and perverts[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]Even more than that (and this, perhaps, is what makes its evil distinctively repulsive, most obviously – though not only – in the case of interrogatory torture), it seeks to turn its victim against him- or herself. The pain that is suffered or the suffering that is undergone, most assuredly the victim’s own pain or suffering, betrays him or at least seeks to betray him. His resistance – including that which is most individually and distinctively him – is captured and exploited by the torturer and turned against him; his tormentor commandeers him and – through his bodily and/or mental anguish – seeks to have him betray who he most deeply is. The torturer takes something that is central to a person’s individuality – whether it is universally possessed, like his body (though it is his body), or more particularized, such as his loves or religious commitments, and uses them against him. Our deepest self is made to cry out to us to accede to the torturer’s demands. Of course, torture also has other things to be said against it. Not only does it humiliate those who suffer it, it also brutalizes those who inflict it and those who tolerate it. It signifies something about a society that is prepared to use it, and it formally sanctions its use by any who consider their cause important enough. It corrupts as well as diminishes[/font].[b][u] But its most distinctive horror is the way in which it turns the individual against [/u][/b]himself [b][u][themself]*, demoralising [/u][/b]him[b][u] [them]*. That is one reason why the effects of torture can be so lasting. In a morally significant sense, torture represents a worse invasion of our humanity than killing or even murder[/u][/b].[b] Contention 4- Solvency[/b] [b]The plan solves. The [/b][b]United States[/b][b] should stop night raids. Without the plan there will continue to be tensions in [/b][b]Afghanistan[/b][b].[/b] [b]Riechmann 10[/b] [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/14/karzai-us-should-reduce-intensity-_n_783202.html"]Karzai: U.S. Should Reduce Intensity, Stop Night Raids In Afghan War[/url] [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/14/karzai-us-should-reduce-intensity-_n_783202.html"]DEB RIECHMANN[/url] | 11/14/10 [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/14/karzai-us-should-reduce-intensity-_n_783202.html[/url] Afghan President Hamid Karzai said[b][u] the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations, especially night raids that fuel anti-American sentiment and could embolden Taliban insurgents[/u][/b]. Karzai's remarks in an interview Saturday with The Washington Post come as the international military coalition has stepped up pressure on insurgents at the same time that the president has set up a peace council in hopes of reconciling with the top echelon of the Taliban. [b][u]"The time has come to reduce military operations,[/u][/b]" Karzai said in the interview. "[b][u]The time has come to reduce the presence[/u][/b] of, you know, boots[b][u] in [/u][/b][b][u]Afghanistan[/u][/b][b][/b]... to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life." Karzai also said he met with one or two "very high" level Taliban leaders about three months ago, but described a peace process in its initial stages – one that amounts to little more than "the exchange of desires for peace." He said, however, that he believes Taliban leader Mullah Omar has been informed of his discussions. He said the Taliban share his feeling that the nine-year-old war has taken too high a toll on the people of Afghanistan. "They feel the same as we do here – that too many people are suffering for no reason," Karzai said. "Their own families are suffering." Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, claims the 30,000 U.S. reinforcements and thousands of troops dispatched to the war this past year have made substantial progress in beating back the insurgency, although the coalition is not claiming victory. In the past three months, more than 300 insurgent leaders have been captured or killed, more than 850 lower-level militants have been killed and at least 2,170 foot soldiers have been apprehended. Karzai said [b][u]the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] should end the rising number of Special Operations forces night raids that aggravate Afghans and could strengthen the Taliban insurgency. [/u][/b]He said he wants American troops off the roads and out of Afghan homes and that the long-term presence of so many foreign soldiers will only make the war worse. "I don't like it in any manner and[b][u] the Afghan people don't like these raids in any manner," Karzai said. "We don't like raids in our homes. This is a problem between us and I hope this ends as soon as possible. ... Terrorism is not invading Afghan homes and fighting terrorism is not being intrusive in the daily Afghan life."[/u][/b] A senior official with the military coalition's headquarters in Kabul said Sunday that the coalition share's Karzai's concerns and has discussed the issue with him on many occasions. "However, the use of intelligence-driven, precision-targeted operations against high-value insurgents and their networks remains a key component of our comprehensive civilian-military counterinsurgency operations," the official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss Karzai's remarks. [b][u]"These operations are conducted in full partnership with the government of [/u][/b][b][u]Afghanistan[/u][/b][b][u] and they include Afghan forces on each operation.[/u][/b] There is no question that they are having a significant impact on insurgent leadership and its networks. I will check with Chas/ Madz about getting the Japan sites up soon.
  2. There is a possibilty that West Plains runs Japan. But West Plains, Waynesville, and Camdenton are only in our NFL district.
  3. Quarters- Jeff City A D. Marshfield B (FA) Carthage B D. Nixa A Marshfield A (JR) D. Greenwood A (CR) Carthage A (FL) D. Neosho A Sems- Marshfield A (JR) D. Carthage A (FL) Carthage B D. Jeff City A Finals- Marshfield A (JR) D. Carthage B
  4. The date has been moved! October 15th and 16th. Who is planning on attending?
  5. Flows- Tara(Kickapoo) and Thomas (....Thomas) Waldo voted for Central I believe.
  6. R-tothe-shawna

    Ozark NFL

    Rounds will start with I.Es. Also, there is an EXTREME shortage of judges rigth now. It's possible that they may flight I.Es or something crazy odd like that. I think from then they will alternate. Long ass weekend.
  7. Judges are looking good. Not perfect, but good.
  8. There's always the possibility of defining the sell and manufacture of hemp as a versitle material. This money distribution it causes could be like "farming" or something similar. Just like the textile businesses boosted the economy when they first came out. Maybe state it as there is large income coming from the sell as is, and that poverty pushes individuals into alternative income (Hemp). By legalizing it can then be in the marketplace and taxed to increase the economy. Idk, I may be totally wrong but just a thought.
  9. Marshfield will have four teams as a def., maybe more but I am unsure- Champ: Johnson/ Rowe- Domestic Workers Aurther/ Freeman- Breaking New Andrews/ Johnson- Breaking New Reg: Kreins/ Lathem- Housing or Breaking New Always possibilities of other M-Town stuff, as usual.
  10. Your ability to use a laptop and think fast while focusing on typing out your flow is probably the make or break. Paperless is a great way to debate, but I tried flowing on a laptop a couple of times at camp and I missed my arrows too much. Easier to draw lines than to retype; if you're really efficient than it doesn't really matter. If you want to learn, I taught myself by flowing outrounds that I didn't break.
  11. My debate partner and I yell almost on a daily basis and I hated her when we were younger. I love her to death now, but it will always play out the way you make. Also, don't turn every little thing into a debate; people will hate you because it's annoying. If you act like a normal humyn then for the most part it'll work out about as well as the personalities would work out in any other close setting. Yelling helps... a lot. It prevents build-up of negativity. =)
  12. "The redhead acted like a redhead." "The redhead knew too much about this alternative energy bubble. Not related to hydro-cars. I don't understand why she didn't talk about the topic."
  13. R-tothe-shawna

    Nixa

    I think Myra Stewart/ Savannah Wells running Homeowner Vouchers is a possibility as well. Soory Taylor, I forgot that one.
×
×
  • Create New...