| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,33 @@ |
|
1 |
+====Their fear of "aggression" causes us to fight defensive wars, which causes more casualties and failure==== |
|
2 |
+Robert Tracinski, Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "The Prophets of Defeatism," Ayn Rand Institute, March 16, 2002, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1491, UK: Fisher |
|
3 |
+Why does the press systematically ignore America's history of military success, obsessing instead over |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+AND |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+the war will end in failure. On their terms, it would. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+====Resolve is the THE determiner of American hegemony – it’s key to deterrence and conflict effectiveness – anything else just prolongs violence==== |
|
12 |
+**Eyago ‘5 **7 / 8 / 05 Political Commentary – Sound Politics Reporter ~~http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004721.html, Sound Commentary on Current Events in Seattle, Puget Sound and Washington State~~ |
|
13 |
+Finally, I am angry at those who undermine our efforts to conduct this war |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+AND |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+our public leaders. What they do for political gain is completely unconscionable. |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+ |
|
21 |
+====That’s key to solve great power war and existential governance crises==== |
|
22 |
+**Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth ’13** (Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College "Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment," International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51) |
|
23 |
+A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+AND |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85 |
|
28 |
+ |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+ |
|
31 |
+====TURN: War engenders worse forms of oppression and suppression of rights==== |
|
32 |
+**Goldstein 1**—Prof PoliSci @ American University, Joshua, War and Gender , P. 412 |
|
33 |
+First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace. Many peace scholars and activists support the approach, "if you want peace, work for justice". Then if one believes that sexism contributes to war, one can work for gender justice specifically (perhaps among others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings strategic allies to the peace movement (women, labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices cause war. The evidence in this book suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influences wars' outbreaks and outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices. So, "if you want peace, work for peace." Indeed, if you want justice (gener and others), work for peace. Causality does not run just upward through the levels of analysis from types of individuals, societies, and governments up to war. It runs downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes toward war and the military may be the most important way to "reverse women's oppression/" The dilemma is that peace work focused on justice brings to the peace movement energy, allies and moral grounding, yet, in light of this book's evidence, the emphasis on injustice as the main cause of war seems to be empirically inadequate. |