Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
vdebate 1nc

vdebate 1nc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 43|Likes:
Published by Jonathan Chou

More info:

Categories:Types, Speeches
Published by: Jonathan Chou on Apr 05, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
VDEBATE 1NC
ONCASE STUFF
ADVANTAGE 1: IRAN PROLIFERATION
TURN: In response to his Kahili 2010 card:The United States¶ military presence is actually currently warding off Iran¶s growing nuclear arsenal.
 
The Obama administration is intensifying pressure on Iran by increasing its missile defences in
 
 
the Middle East to defend against potential missile strikes in the region by Tehran, it emerged today.
 
US Boosts missile presence in Gulf as warning to Iran,
The Guardian,
January 31,
2010
 
The US military has boosted the capability of land-based Patriot defensive missiles in several Arab
 
nations in the Gulf, and one official told the Associated Press the navy was also increasing the presence
 
of ships capable of knocking out hostile missiles in flight.
 
 
The move ± reported in several US newspapers this morning ± appears to be a deliberate attempt by the
 
 
White House to ratchet up pressure on Iran ahead of attempts to increase sanctions against the country.
 
 
The US is reappraising its Iran policy after months of unsuccessful diplomatic moves, and is attempting
 
 
to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, believed to
 
 
control a covert nuclear arms programme, the New York Times reported.
 
Last week, in his state of the union speech, Barack Obama spoke of "consequences" if Iran failed to
 
comply with UN demands to stop nuclear fuel production.
 
 
VDEBATE 1NC
In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination.
 
 
Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-
 
 
rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To
 
preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps purchase, their own nuclear 
 
weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain
 
 
a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony
 
would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well
 
as gain leverage over the United States and other oil-importing nations. H
 
egemony over the Persian Gulf 
 
 
by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination
 
 
because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace
 
 
process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the
 
 
Israelis.
 
The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf 
 
would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid
 
involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living.
 
 
Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps
 
reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total
 
imports and exports are equal to a quarter of the U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary
 
adjustments might be high.
 
 
The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of 
 
 
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means of their delivery. Already several rogue states such as
 
North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only
 
increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous
 
world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would
 
increase accordingly. I
 
f this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United
 
 
States, would be harmed.
 
Losing the Moment? The United States and the World after the Cold War, Zalmay
Khalilzad,
Washington
 
Quarterly Reader, Order and Disorder after the Cold War, editor Brad Roberts,
1995,
p. 60
 
And, US presence is key to deterring Iran from nuclear weapons. Withdrawing incurs many impacts.
 
 
VDEBATE 1NC
ADVANTAGE 2: TERRORISM THINGY
In response to his Turner 2006 card:Al Qaeda is not just biding its time. His evidence is from 2006 and Al Qaeda wouldve attacked by now.MUELLER 2006
(John,
Pr
ofesso
r
of 
P
olitical
S
cience
 
at
O
hio
S
tate
U
nive
r
sity,
F
o
r
eign
A
ffai
r
s,
S
ep/
O
ct)
 
A
nothe
r
common
 
explanation
 
is
 
that
 
al
aeda
 
is
 
c
r
aftily
b
iding
 
its
 
time.
Bu
t
w
hat
 
fo
r? T
he
9
/
11
attacks
 
 
took
 
only
 
a
b
o
u
t
 
t
w
o
 
yea
r
s
 
to
 
p
r
epa
r
e
.
T
he
 
ca
r
ef 
u
lly
 
coo
r
dinated,
 
ve
r
y
 
dest
ru
ctive,
 
and
 
politically
 
p
r
od
u
ctive
 
te
rr
o
r
ist
 
attacks
 
 
in
M
ad
r
id
 
in
2004 w
e
r
e
 
conceived,
 
planned
 
r
om
 
sc
r
atch,
 
and
 
then
 
exec
u
ted
 
all
w
ithin
 
six
 
months
;
 
the
b
om
b
s
w
e
r
e
 
set
 
off 
 
less
 
than
 
t
w
o
 
months
 
afte
r
the
 
conspi
r
ato
r
s
 
p
ur
chased
 
thei
r
fi
r
st
 
s
u
pplies
 
of 
 
dynamite,
 
paid
 
fo
r w
ith
 
hashish.
 
(
S
imila
r
ly,
T
imothy
M
c
V
eigh's
 
attack
 
in
O
klahoma
C
ity
 
in
1995
took
 
less
 
than
 
a
 
yea
r
to
 
plan.)
 
G
iven
 
the
 
ext
r
eme
 
p
r
ovocation
 
of 
 
the
 
invasion
 
of 
Ir
aq
 
in
 
 
2003
,
 
one
w
o
u
ld
 
think
 
that
 
te
rr
o
r
ists
 
might
b
e
 
inclined
 
to
 
shift
 
thei
r
timeta
b
le
 
into
 
highe
r
gea
r
.
A
nd
 
if 
 
 
they
 
a
r
e
 
so
 
patient,
w
hy
 
do
 
they
 
contin
u
ally
 
claim
 
that
 
anothe
r
attack
 
is
ju
st
 
a
r
o
u
nd
 
the
 
co
r
ne
r?
I
t
w
as
 
in
 2003
that
 
al
aeda's
 
top
 
leade
r
s
 
p
r
omised
 
attacks
 
in
Au
st
r
alia,
B
ah
r
ain,
E
gypt,
I
taly,
 
Japan,
 
Jo
r
dan,
Kuw
ait,
ata
r
,
S
a
u
di
Ar
a
b
ia,
 
the
U
nited
 S
tates,
 
and
Y
emen.
T
h
r
ee
 
yea
r
s
 
late
r
,
 
some
b
om
b
s
 
had
 
gone
 
off 
 
in
S
a
u
di
Ar
a
b
ia,
E
gypt,
Y
emen,
 
and
 
Jo
r
dan
 
(as
w
ell
 
as
 
in
 
the
u
nlisted
Tur
key)
 bu
t
 
not
 
in
 
any
 
othe
r
of 
 
the
 
explicitly
 
th
r
eatened
 
co
u
nt
r
ies.
 
T
hose
 
attacks
w
e
r
e
 
t
r
agic,
bu
t
 
thei
r
spa
r
seness
 
co
u
ld
b
e
 
taken
 
as
 
evidence
 
that
 
it
 
is
 
not
 
only
A
me
r
ican
 
ala
r
mists
w
ho
 
a
r
e
 
given
 
to
 
ext
r
avagant
 
h
u
ffing
 
and
 
p
u
ffing.
 
Even if the Al Qaeda do have plans, they cant get nuclear weapons by any meansFROST 2005
(Ro
b
in,
 
teaches
 
political
 
science
 
at
S
imon
Fr
ase
r U
nive
r
sity,
Br
itish
C
olom
b
ia,
Nu
clea
rT
e
rr
o
r
ism
 
afte
r 9
/
11
,
A
delphi
P
ape
r
s,
D
ecem
b
e
r
)
 
N
onetheless,
 
the
r
e
 
is
 
conside
r
a
b
le
 
evidence
 
that
 
m
u
st
 
info
r
m
 
this
 
spec
u
lation
 
and
 
na
rr
o
w
its
r
ange.
 
 
F
i
r
st,
 
the
r
e
 
a
r
e
 
technical
 
conside
r
ations.
A
ssem
b
ling
 
eno
u
gh
 
fissile
 
mate
r
ial
 
fo
r
even
 
the
 
c
ru
dest
 
 
n
u
clea
r
device
and
 
the
 
amo
u
nts
 
needed
 
va
r
y
 
inve
r
sely
w
ith
 
sophistication
 w
o
u
ld
b
e
 
ve
r
y
 
diffic
u
lt
 
 
and
 
p
r
o
b
a
b
ly
 
ext
r
emely
 
expensive
 
fo
r
a
 
te
rr
o
r
ist
 
o
r
ganisation.
T
he
 
theo
r
etical
 
kno
w
ledge
 
and
 
p
r
actical
 
 
skills
r
eq
u
i
r
ed
 
to
 
design
 
and
bu
ild
 
a
 
n
u
clea
r w
eapon
 
a
r
e
 
of 
 
a
 
high
 
o
r
de
r
,
w
hile
 
setting
u
p,
 
eq
u
ipping
 
and
 
 
s
u
ccessf 
u
lly
 
ope
r
ating
 
an
u
ndetecta
b
le
 
clandestine
w
eapons
 
la
b
o
r
ato
r
y
w
o
u
ld
b
e
 
diffic
u
lt
 
and
 
expensive,
 
 
even
 
fo
r
the
b
est-f 
u
nded
 
te
rr
o
r
ist
 
o
r
ganisation.
Au
m
S
hin
r
ikyo,
w
hich
 
ope
r
ated
r
elatively
 
openly
u
nde
r
Japanese
 
la
w
s
r
ega
r
ding
r
eligio
u
s
 
o
r
ganisations
 
that
 
made
 
it
 
all-
bu
t-
u
nto
u
cha
b
le,
 
and
w
hich
 
had
 
a
 b
illion-dolla
r w
a
r
chest,
 
gave
u
p
 
the
 
attempt
 
to
 
develop
 
a
 
n
u
clea
r w
eapon
 
ve
r
y
 
ea
r
ly
 
on
 
in
 
the
 
p
r
ocess,
 
p
r
efe
rr
ing
 
to
w
o
r
k
w
ith
 
chemical
 
and
b
iological
 
agents
 
instead.
T
he
 
evidence,
 
m
u
ch
 
of 
 
it
 
admittedly
 
negative,
 
s
u
ggests
 
that
b
 
u
ying
 
o
r
stealing
 
a
 
u
nctional
 
n
u
clea
r w
eapon
w
o
u
ld
b
e
 
an
 
even
 
mo
r
e
 
diffic
u
lt,
 
 
pe
r
haps
 
impossi
b
le,
 
task.
Nu
clea
r w
eapons
 
a
r
e
 
g
u
a
r
ded
 
like
 
national
 
t
r
eas
ur
es;
 
indeed,
 
n
u
clea
r
 
w
eapons
 
a
r
e
 
in
 
some
 
sense
 
national
 
t
r
eas
ur
es,
 
sym
b
ols
 
of 
 
national
 
st
r
ength
 
and
 
mode
r
nity
b
o
u
ght
 
at
 
 
immense
 
cost.
N
o
 
state
 
that
 
possessed
 
them,
w
hethe
r
esta
b
lished
 
o
r r
og
u
e,
w
o
u
ld
b
e
 
likely
 
to
 
hand
 
 
ove
r
s
u
ch
w
eapons
 
to
 
te
rr
o
r
ists
u
nless
 
they
w
e
r
e
 
acting
 
as
 
me
r
cena
r
y
 
agents
 
of 
 
the
 
state
 
itself.
T
he
 
th
r
eat
 
of 
 
n
u
clea
r r
etaliation,
 
even
 
if 
 
the
 
possi
b
ility
 
of 
 
t
r
acing
 
the
w
eapon
b
ack
 
to
 
its
 
so
ur
ce
w
e
r
e
 
tho
u
ght
 
to
b
e
 
lo
w
,
 
sho
u
ld
b
e
 
eno
u
gh
 
to
 
dete
r
any
r
ational
 
state
 
r
om
u
sing
 
a
 
n
u
clea
r w
eapon
 
against
 
anothe
r
n
u
clea
r
-
w
eapon
 
state,
 
o
r
a
 
co
u
nt
r
y
u
nde
r
the
 
p
r
otection
 
of 
 
one.
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->