DA Elections Impacts Scholars 20

8/14/2019 DA Elections Impacts Scholars 20

1/21

WNDI 2008 1Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Elections DA Impacts Scholars...................................................................................................................................1

Elections DA Impacts Scholars .....................................................................................................1

A2: Health Care .........................................................................................................................................................3

A2: Health Care ............................................................................................................................3

A2: CTBT ...................................................................................................................................................................4

A2: CTBT ......................................................................................................................................4

A2: Leadership ...........................................................................................................................................................5

A2: Leadership ..............................................................................................................................5

A2: Space ...................................................................................................................................................................6

A2: Space .......................................................................................................................................6

A2: Pakistan ...............................................................................................................................................................7

A2: Pakistan ..................................................................................................................................7

A2: Military Readiness ..............................................................................................................................................8

A2: Military Readiness .................................................................................................................8

A2: Military Readiness...............................................................................................................................................9

A2: Military Readiness ..................................................................................................................9

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan .............................................................................................................10

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan .............................................................................10

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan..............................................................................................................11

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan ..............................................................................11

Obama Good: Iran Strikes ........................................................................................................................................12

Obama Good: Iran Strikes .........................................................................................................12

Obama Good: African Relations ..............................................................................................................................13

Obama Good: African Relations ...............................................................................................13

Obama Good: China Relations ................................................................................................................................14

Obama Good: China Relations ..................................................................................................14

Obama Good: China Relations.................................................................................................................................15

Obama Good: China Relations ...................................................................................................15Obama good: Australia Relations.............................................................................................................................16

Obama good: Australia Relations ...............................................................................................16

Obama Good: NPT ...................................................................................................................................................17

Obama Good: NPT .....................................................................................................................17

Obama Good: Kyoto ................................................................................................................................................18

Obama Good: Kyoto ...................................................................................................................18


2/21


McCain Bad: Iran Strikes .........................................................................................................................................19

McCain Bad: Iran Strikes ..........................................................................................................19

Obama Bad: European Relations .............................................................................................................................20

Obama Bad: European Relations ..............................................................................................20

Obama Bad: Social Security ....................................................................................................................................21

Obama Bad: Social Security ......................................................................................................21


3/21


A2: Health Care

Obama wont pass universal health careHerb Deninberg. Supplying answers on the bear market, Obama and blood pressure 7/14/08.

Question: You always say that the great health-care reformers (such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama)

should solve one tiny health-care problem before disrupting the whole system with a total reform. Inother words, they should prove their competence by executing a small reform before they go for the bigone. Exactly where would you recommend they start? Answer: With Mr. Obama, I'd recommend he releasehis full health records, in view of his background of smoking, doping, and boozing, and as he's running forpresident. But the media gave him a free pass when he released virtually nothing. But to answer yourquestion, here's a good starter. A recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, foundonly one in 10 adult Americans have all the skills needed to manage their health. How about teaching theother nine what they need to know. Or how about getting doctors to wash their hands. Neither Hillary norBarack, when it comes to healthcare reform, have demonstrated they can even walk, yet they want to

fly to the moon by adopting universal health care. I'm sure their version would break the bank and the

system.

Universal health care will inevitably fail

Michael Hampton. Universal health care has failed again, 3/2/07.

Most Americans, not knowing any better, think universal health care is a really good idea.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing. To see exactly what American universal health care will look like,one needs look no farther than the smaller version of universal health care which already exists. A recentNew York Times/CBS News poll shows that 55 percent of Americans think the most important

domestic issue is making health insurance available to all Americans, and 64 percent said the federal

government should provide it, the Times reported Friday. And it sounds great. Everybody would finallyget all the health care they could possibly ever want, and it wouldnt cost anything. At least, thats what weretold. Okay, maybe taxes would go up a little bit, theyll admit when pressed. But itll be so much betteronce everyone gets free medical care and doctors no longer get paid exorbitant rates. But before wejump headlong into universal health care, just because it sounds so good, we should have some idea whatwere getting into. Universal health care is a national tragedy wherever it has been tried, resulting in

needless death and suffering as fewer and fewer people actually get anything resembling health carefrom the national health bureaucracy. The reason for this is simple: no government can effectively run

a social program. Indeed, theres no need to leave the country to see what universal health care would looklike. You need go no farther than Building 18 of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., thenations so-called leading military hospital.


4/21


A2: CTBT

CTBT bad for United StatesThe Heritage Foundation. Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse IdeaToday 06/29/07.

For both procedural and substantive reasons, the Senate should oppose ratification of the CTBT. The

Senate rejected ratification in 1999 for good reasons, and those reasons are still pertinent today. Further, theeffectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrence posture has declined in recent years for reasons of atrophywithin the weapons complex and changing international circumstances. The United States has no marginfor error in maintaining its national security in the context of its nuclear deterrent. Senate consent tothe ratification of the CTBT entails nothing less than gambling with the survival of the United States .

CTBT has fundamental flawsThe Heritage Foundation. Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse IdeaToday 06/29/07.

Persistent Problems with the CTBT. Substantively, the shortcomings of the CTBT that the Senate found in1999 persist today. The requirements of the treaty have not changed in any way since 1999, and theUnited States security continues to require a nuclear arsenal that is safe, reliable, and militarily

effective. Such an arsenal depends on preserving the option to conduct explosive tests of the weapons

already in the arsenal for the purpose of developing new weapons to meet new requirements . CTBTratification by the United States and its entry into force would lead to the same unacceptable outcomes thatcaused the Senate to reject the treaty in 1999.

The US signing the CTBT would destroy national securityRobert R. Monroe. Nuclear testing realities The Washington Times. 12/4/07.

Reality No. 1 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would do unbelievably grave damage to U.S. nationalsecurity. Nuclear weapons exist - tens of thousands of them. More states now have them than ever before,and they're being improved. A whole world of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is just around the corner.More than half the world's population lives in states that have nuclear weapons, and other states and

terrorist organizations are striving to acquire them, and use them. The U.S. will continue to face seriousnuclear weapon threats for generations to come. Our very lives will depend upon our ability to developnew nuclear weapon strategies and advanced nuclear weapons to deter these threats. Our survival will

depend on our nuclear technology being superior to that of anyone else in the world, decade afterdecade. This will certainly require testing, which the CTBT would deny.

Ratifying the CTBT increases proliferationRobert R. Monroe. Nuclear testing realities The Washington Times. 12/4/07.

Reality No. 3 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would increase proliferation. Some 30 states (e.g.,Japan, Germany) depend upon the U.S. nuclear umbrella rather than having their own nuclear forces. Ifwe ratify the CTBT, denying ourselves the ability to transform our arsenal, the failure of our once-credibledeterrent will force our allies and friends to develop their own nuclear weapons.


5/21


A2: Leadership

Obama lacks experienceAshley C. Stinnett. Can Americans really trust Barack Obama? The Herald Dispatch. 07/02/08.

In this day and age of exit polls and data analysis, it seems only fair to point out an ongoing struggle the

Barack Obama campaign has yet to overcome: So many Americans are leery of his inexperience as aUnited States senator. Many will recall not too long ago, Obama was merely a state representative inIllinois. He was propelled to his current office after serving many years in his home state. Like mostfreshman senators, Obama quickly began learning the ups and downs of national politics. He beganshaking hands with prominent political leaders while memorizing the names of top lobbyists. Of course,anyone who keeps up with national level politics realizes if an individual serves in Washington for more thana week, he or she will be introduced to lobbyist sharks really soon. It's all part of the game. Now begins thetroubling part. Within a year of entering office, Obama made the conscious decision to run for president. Hebegan collecting names of influential people, all the while making phone calls to big-money donors. This istypical behavior of anyone who seeks a major office. Obama spent the majority of 2007 launching his bidto become president. The young statesman began traveling and reaching out to millions. His campaignbecame more of a rock concert aimed at energizing minorities, youth voters and blue-collar workers.Although everything seems to be going well, his many faults, not to mention the bizarre company he

keeps, begin to surface.

No president, even Obama could restore US credibilityJohn Brown. After the honeymoon. Electing Barack Obama president won't be enough to improve America'sstanding in the world 6/26/08.

The new administration should also not give overseas audiences the false hope that its arrival on theworld scene will mean a sudden, drastic departure from the policies of Bush, despite his low reputationat home and abroad. The American political system, which leads presidential candidates to adopt "centrist"positions, leaves the options for restructuring American foreign policy limited. This includes Iraq, afiasco that will take years to settle.

Obamas military and political inexperience would render him an ineffective president

MICHAEL GOODWIN. HE'S GOT A LOT TO LEARN. McCain's exposing Obama's weaknesses on nationalsecurity,06/01/08.

Even before he clinches the nomination, a flurry of McCain attacks over Iran, Iraq, Cuba and militaryleadership has exposed Obama 's soft underbelly on national security. The effective barrage is atestament to how the primary battles never tested the rookie Democrat on whether he is ready to becommander in chief. In Prof. McCain's class, Obama is slowly making progress, but remains far belowgrade average. It's not certain he can catch up by November's final exam, where the threshold issue is thepublic's confidence a candidate can and will defend America. Perceived weakness is a disqualifier. Theproblem for Obama, beyond his lack of experience, is that his instincts are those of the Perfect Liberal

by way of Harvard Law School. Like Bill Clinton's clumsy attempts to salute when he first won the

Oval Office, Obama exhibits discomfort about things military. He is a peacenik by gut and, as criticsnote, drew the wrong lessons about Cold War talks JFK and Ronald Reagan had with the Soviets. That didn'tmatter during the primary battle, where Obama 's early opposition to Iraq was a defining difference against

Hillary Clinton. But doubts about his national security bona fides are already a handicap in the nascentgeneral election. McCain, showing it is never too early to shape the battlefield to match your strengths, hasripped into Obama on a daily basis. Truth be told, Obama has presented him with a target-rich environment.The first opening surfaced in a July 2007 debate, when Obama was asked if he would, withoutpreconditions, meet in the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba andNorth Korea. Obama promptly and famously said, "I would."


6/21


A2: Space

Obama Supports NASAEun Kyung Kim. Obama says he'll support NASA programs, 07/29/08. < http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/NEWS01/80729090/1075>

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate BarackObama pledged his commitment to NASA in

a statement his campaign released Tuesday congratulating the agency on its 50th anniversary. Thedeclaration may surprise many NASA supporters. Earlier in his campaign, the Illinois senator said he wouldrather see money budgeted for Constellation, the program to replace the aging shuttles, go instead towardeducation reform. Yet, Obama said he would support the agency if elected this fall. I believe we needto revitalize NASAs mission to maintain Americas leadership, and recommit our nation to the space

program, and as President I intend to do just that, he said. Obama took aim at the current Washingtonestablishment and the Bush administration for failing to give NASA the sufficient support it hasneeded.

NASA is setting the global standard on researchNASA. The Good, the Bad and the Ozone, 06/04/04. < http://www.nasa.gov/missions/earth/f-ozone.html>

NASA's Aura is going to keep tabs on both types ofozone. It's a spacecraft that will provide us the firstcomprehensive global view of the Earth's atmosphere, an essential stepping stone to better

understanding the Moon, Mars and beyond. The launch of Aura is a challenging endeavor, a mission on thecutting edge of scientific discovery characteristic of the Agency's legacy of ground-breaking

exploration.

NASA is key to Mars ExplorationNASA. NASA 101: from vision to reality, No date given. < http://legislative.nasa.gov/NASA_101_brochure.pdf>

Announced in 2004, the Vision for Space Exploration communicates the United States and NASAscommitment to a long-term robotic and human program to explore the solar system, starting with areturn to the moon that will ultimately enable the future exploration of Mars and other destinations. TheVision affirms our commitment to human space exploration and gives NASA a new focus and clearobjectives. It is affordable and sustainable and maintains the highest levels of safety. It has beenendorsed by bipartisan majorities of the U.S. Congress.


7/21


8/21


A2: Military Readiness

Obama calls for troops to withdraw from IraqBrian DeBose. Obama calls for complete withdrawal by end of '08, The Washington Times. 09/13/07.

Sen. BarackObama yesterday called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq at asteady pace, with all combat troops either at home or redeployed elsewhere by December 2008. "We

must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops inmore volatile areas until later, but our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigadeseach month," Mr. Obama said. A day after hearing the progress report from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus toCongress, Mr. Obama rejected the general's recommendations and said Iraq's government has failed to meetits own goals. His withdrawal proposal reinforces the Iraq war as the major battleground among theDemocratic presidential candidates, who have spent the campaign competing with each other for supportfrom the party's antiwar voters.

Troops being deployed in Iraq hurts military readinessRichard Cowan. US House approves 2008 troop withdrawal from Iraq, 03/23/07.

But House Democrats, geared up for battle with Bush in the final two years of his presidency, disagreed.Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who says the war has sapped military readiness, said,"We're going to make a difference ... We're going to bring those troops home ." Rep. David Obey of

Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said a vote for the bill would mean "thatwe're going to end the permanent, long-term, dead-end baby-sitting service . That's what we are trying todo." All but two House Republicans voted against the bill, which they say will tie the military's hands andinvite failure.

Military readiness has been harmed because of IraqMaking up for lost time in Iraq, < http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/pdf/prosperity_agenda.pdf>

How the United States extricates its troops from Iraq will impact its broader efforts to restore its

position of leadership in the world. The pace and manner in which it does so will be one of the mostimportant decisions of the next president and Congress. The capabilities of the Iraqi police and securityforces will play a major role in that decision, as will their allegiances and motivation. However, removingtroops from Iraq should be only one part of the debate. The United States also needs to determine how it willmarshal its considerable economic and diplomatic powers to get Iraqi leaders, countries in the region, and

other global powers to do their share and shoulder a greater part of the burden to help Iraq achieve a degreeof stability and a semblance of prosperity. America s military readiness has been harmed by five yearsof continuous deployments, and its image is in tatters as a result of mistakes made in the Iraq War. Agrowing bipartisan consensus has pragmatically recognized that the United States cannot afford to simplystay the course and continue to go it mostly alone in Iraq.

Obama would increase US troops by 92,000Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of SanFrancisco, where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. Barack Obama on Diplomacy,01/17/08. Indeed, Obama has promised to enlarge the size of theuniformed armed forces by more than 92,000 troops. Given that the United States surrounded by twooceans and two weak friendly neighbors is essentially safe from any potential conventional attack,this position inevitably raises the question of what he intends to do with that expanded military capability.


9/21


A2: Military Readiness

Readiness is key to deter global conflicts and maintain US leadership

Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FDCH, February 5, 1998Maintaining a high state of readiness to execute the military tasks assigned by the National Command Authoritiesremains our first and most important priority. U.S. military forces remain the best equipped, best trained and mostcapable of any in the world. Our military power, in conjunction with a strong, dynamic economy and skilled diplomacy, guarantees that

American citizens and territory are protected and that our standard of living and our democratic values are maintained. Our ability to

maintain strong, capable forces throughout the globe, backed up by flexible, strategically deployable forcesfrom CONUS, makes us the preeminent military power in the world. This ability to selectively apply militaryforces anywhere in the world is a major stabilizing factor in international affairs and a key component in

American world leadership. Since the end of the Cold War, we have used our military forces more frequently to support our securityinterests and conduct major operations where U.S. leadership was needed. There is no question that more frequent deployments affect readiness. We arebeginning to see anecdotal evidence of readiness issues in some units, particularly at the tactical level of operations. At the operational and strategic levels,however, we remain capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict. Readiness issues have our full attention, and we are workingaggressively to refine and improve our mechanisms for tracking readiness and, with Congressional support, for correcting the readiness shortfalls we haveidentified. While we are undeniably busier and more fully committed than in the past, the U.S. military remains fully capable of executing the NationalMilitary Strategy with an acceptable level of risk. I can assure the Congress that we are not returning to the 1970's. We are fundamentally healthy and willcontinue to report our readiness status to the Congress and American people with candor and accuracy. Contingency operations not funded in the defensebudget continue to impact on how we allocate resources within the military. The extension of operations in Bosnia and increased tensions in the Gulf haveresulted in unfunded contingency requirements in FY98. In addition, the FY99 budget does not explicitly fund Bosnia contingency requirements. To ensureadequate funding for readiness and normal operations this year, we will request supplemental appropriations in accordance with Congressional language.

Without timely relief, we will be forced to absorb these costs from operations and maintenance accounts, to the detriment of overall readiness. Tempo, thepace of peacetime activities of the force, is another major concern for senior military leaders. The reality of our current tempo is that we are doing moreoperations with a smaller force. While our overall force structure has declined by approximately one third since FY88, our requirements across a broadrange of military operations have greatly increased. On any given day more than 40,000 personnel are participating in ongoing named operations and manymore are away from home supporting other routine, yet no-less demanding, requirements. Unchecked, high tempo may lead to both near-term and long-term readiness concerns. In the near-term, increased tempo contributes to lost training opportunities and accelerated wear on equipment. In the long-term,increased tempo has its greatest impact on our people, by negatively impacting their quality of life and jeopardizing our ability to attract and retain qualitypeople. We have implemented several initiatives to better manage the increased tempo brought on by a changed security environment and our strategy ofengagement. The Joint Staff has led an effort to control selected Low Density/High Demand assets through the Global Military Force Policy (GMFP). Inaddition, a 15% man-days reduction in the Joint Exercise Program through FY98 has been directed, and we are studying further reductions now. Otherongoing efforts include the increased use of Reserve Component assets; global sourcing; increased use of contractors and allied support; use of like systems(i.e. EP3s in lieu of RC135s); and the Joint Monthly Readiness Review (JMRR), which includes tools to provide better visibility and management ofpotential tempo problems. Managing the pace of operations betteris directly related to improving personnel readiness - the linchpin of a trained andready force. We place our people in a demanding environment that subordinates them to national and professional requirements. Their commitment isaround the clock. Our standards are high, and we demand frequent, personal sacrifices from them, sometimes to the extent of risking their lives. Attractingand retaining the right people, and developing them as joint warfighters, is as important as anything else we do in the readiness arena.

Readiness is key to maintain credibility, peace, and stability

Admiral Harold Gehman Jr., Vice Chief Of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy, FNS, April 17, 1997Well-trained people, operating modern, well-maintained equipment in the right numbers, constantly

patrolling the world's trouble spots, are the trademarks of your Navy. Readiness is ultimately thefoundation for maintaining the credibility of our forces as an instrument of foreign policy and nationalresolve. Today, our Navy remains forward deployed and ready to protect America's interests both at homeand abroad. Our Naval forces are poised to transition instantly from maintaining peace to deterring crises toresolving conflict. We believe that ourreadiness is well understood by potential enemies and willgive them pause; thus accomplishing our most important objectives, the deterrence of conflict and thepreservation of peace and stability.


10/21


Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan

Obama is key to Japan relationsREIJI YOSHIDA. Obama scores big in Japan portion of global primary, Times Japan Times.02/19/08.

U.S. Sen. BarackObama won an overwhelming majority of the votes cast at polling stations in Japan

during the first-ever global primary for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lauren Shannon,chairwoman of Democrats Abroad in Japan, said Monday that Obama's victory here was due in part to hismulticultural background and overseas experience. "That means a lot to a lot of us," she told a newsconference at the Japan National Press Club in Tokyo. Shannon is a supporter of Obama. Obama won 83percent of the votes cast Feb. 5 in Tokyo, around 80 percent in Kyoto and 70 percent in Nagoya,Shannon said. The numbers from the three polling stations do not include votes coming in via the Internet orfax. The final tally will not be available until after Thursday, Shannon said.

Obama, Japan is key to Barak Obamas support internationallyDAVID MCNEILL. Citizens of Obama are backing their man, The Irish Times. 02/27/08.

JAPAN: Four hours from Tokyo and a long, long way from Washington DC , a Japanese town has pickeda candidate to win the US presidential election, and it's not Hillary Clinton. The former first lady may oncehave had supporters in the remote fishing town of Obama, population 32,000, on the Japan Sea coast,

but the best of luck finding them. Just two months since realising that their town shared a name with theman who may well become the first black US president, the citizens of Obama are among his most

fervent supporters. Pictures of Barack Obama hang in pachinko parlours and restaurants, "I LoveObama " T-shirts have been cranked out by the hundreds and a song eulogising the dashing senator's charmsis in the can. This is the place to come in Japan for Obama burgers, sweet-bean buns and fish burgers.Even the town mayor backs the man from Illinois. A supporters club made up mainly of housewives thatmeets daily to plan strategy has no doubts at all that their work counts. "Ever since we started backing him hehas been winning," says Satoko Udagawa. "It could be just a coincidence but we don't think so." Win or lose,she says the supporters plan a trip to see their idol in America. Serendipity has lent a hand to the unlikelycampaign. Apart from that name, supporters have noted that the senator shares a birthday - August4th - with the town's "chopstick day", founded to commemorate its most famous product: lacqueredchopsticks. The town sent a set to Obama last year with a note in English from mayor Toshio Murakami,which said: "I am glad if you use it habitually." Obama has at least heard about the little corner of Japan

backing him for the world's most powerful job, although he has yet to stop by. He told Japanese TV in 2006that his passport was stamped by a man who looked up and told him he was from the town. It was the

start of what may become a beautiful relationship. A viewer told the town office about the coincidenceand the campaign was launched, slowly. "At first we thought Mrs Clinton might win so we weren't soenthusiastic," says Murakami. To those who would accuse him of opportunism, the mayor has the perfectanswer: President Obama 's policies would be good for the town. A vocal critic of Japan's hardline policiestoward North Korea, which incidentally is closer to Obama than Tokyo, the mayor believes the newpresident will bring stability to the region. "I heard Mr Obama say he will talk to North Korea," saysthe 75-year-old. "If he does, China and South Korea will also take note, and relations with Japan willimprove." That means more chopstick exports to Asia and more tourists to Obama, but the mayor sayssomething bigger is at stake. "I believe MrObama is a man of peace, someone who will help the worldand also help save the environment. We're proud to back him."


11/21


Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan

The US/Japan alliance is key to preventing several scenarios of nuclear war in Asia

INSS Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 10/11/2000,http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SR_01/SR_Japan.htm

Major war in Europe is inconceivable for at least a generation , but the prospects for conflict in Asia are-far fromremote. The region features some ofthe worlds largest and most modern armies, nuclear-armed majorpowers, and several nuclear-capable states.Hostilities that could directlyinvolve the UnitedStatesin a majorconflict could occur at a moments noticeon the Korean peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait. The Indian-subcontinent is a major flashpoint. In each area, war has the potential of nuclear escalation. In addition,lingeringturmoil in Indonesia, the world fourth-largest nation, threatens stability in Southeast Asia. The United States istied to the region by a series of bilateral security alliances that remain the regions de facto security architecture. In this promising but

also potentially dangerous setting, the U.S.-Japan bilateral relationship is more important than everwith the worldssecond-largest economy and a well-equipped and competent military , an as our democratic ally, Japanremains the keystone ofthe U.S. involvement in Asia. The U.S.-Japanalliance is central to Americas globalsecurity strategy.

Dooming relations means they cant solve the case relations are key to heg

Joseph P. Keddell Jr., Specialist in Japanese Politics, Faculty of Law at Tokyo University and Tohoku University,

1993, The Politics of Defense in Japan: Managing Internal and External Pressures, pg. 200The maintenance of bases in Japan has been important to the United States for two reasons. First is thebases' .geostrategic location. Such bases had served during the Cold War to help contain the Soviet Unionmilitarily and were deemed useful for blocking Soviet forces that were trying to move from Vladivostok tothe Sea of Japan and Pacific Ocean in the event of war. The U.S. bases in Japan are also considered useful inthe post-Cold War era for deploying U.S. forces to cope with the increased likelihood ofregional conflictsfollowing the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Continuing instability in Indochina and the potential for increased

tensions in Northeast Asia following the demise ofaging leaderships in North Korea and Chinaincrease the value of these bases to the United States, as does the loss ofthe U.S. air and naval bases in thePhilippines. Second is the cost effectiveness of such bases. Japan furnishes military bases to the UnitedStates at no charge and continues to increase its share of financing base costs. For instance, by 1990 theJapanese government had increased its coverage of U.S. base costs in Japan to over 50 percent.106Thegovernment views its financing of the costs of U.S. military facilities in Japan as a means of ensuring

continuation of the U.S. security guarantee.

The alliance is key to preventing a China/Taiwan conflict

Ted Osius, US Foreign Service Regional environmental affairs officer for Southeast Asia and the Pacific 2002,The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance: Why it Matters and How to Strengthen It, pg. 23

To deter conflict, the United States discourages Taipei from declaring independence and Beijing from forcibly attempting to uniteTaiwan with the mainland. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States supplies Taiwan with weapons necessary for defense

against the mainland.3 Given China's size and resources, however, Taiwan cannot achieve security based solely

on independent military capabilities. Taipei relies on Beijing's fear that the United States would defend it

in the event of a cross-strait conflict. Because U.S. forward-deployed forces are in Japan, Taiwan also depends on a

strong and stable U.S.-Japan alliance.

US-Sino conflict over Taiwan causes global nuclear conflict

Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5/14/2001, TheNation, Pg. 20

China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that Chinasminuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaicChinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinesecivil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a

war that no wanted, a misstepin Taiwanby any side couldbring the United States and China into a conflict thatneither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that

China is the worlds most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easilyescalate into a nuclear holocaust.However, given the nationalistic challenge to Chinas sovereignty of any Taiwanese attemptto declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on Chinas borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SR_01/SR_Japan.htmhttp://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SR_01/SR_Japan.htm


12/21


Obama Good: Iran Strikes

Obama opposes striking IranBarakObama. BARACK OBAMAS PLAN TO SECURE AMERICA AND RESTORE OUR STANDING, 2008.

Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we

should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it wasreckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran.

Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress including Kyl-Lieberman gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.


13/21


Obama Good: African Relations

Because of his heritage, Obama gives hope to AfricaThe Namibian. Africa; Obama 's Triumph Provides A Moral Lesson About Democracy, Africa News 07/11/08.

On a more familiar note, many have commented that with BarackObama technically clinching the

Democratic Party nomination it is worth noting what an exceptional moment this is for the UnitedStates. Thinking about this in America's racial historical context, it is indeed extraordinary. Inparticular, the polls say he is the odds-on favourite to become the next President. It is also an extraordinarymoment for Africa as a result of Obama 's late Luo father from the little village of Nyangoma-Kogelo inKenya. Much of the simplistic discussion around Senator Obama in Africa has been an exchange of

what Obama could do for Africa as the first black President of the United States.


14/21


Obama Good: China Relations

Obama perceive as good in China, would help improve relationsGreg Torode. Friend or Foe? South China Morning Post. 03/07/08.

the three, Senator Obama is the least known in the region. Regional governments are building a picture ofthe charismatic, eloquent senator from Illinois. Already, senior US-based Chinese diplomats have met

him on several occasions, talking with him about China's role in Africa and other regional issues. He hascourted Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and is soon expected to meet Japanese and Koreanenvoys. "Those who have met him walk away simply stunned at his grasp of the region and hisintelligence," said one Asian diplomat. "The word is: he's got it ... drive, judgment and charm." OneWashington source who is very familiar with Senator Obama 's approach to Asia, said this weekthecandidate was seeking to offer a significant change in presidential tone and style in his dealings with

regional leaders - part of his wider effort to rebuild US diplomacy . While strengthening andbroadening traditional alliances and engaging new potential regional friends across a deeper range of

issues, Senator Obama would offer a distinct alternative to the unilateralism of the Bush era. He

would also seek to display a new American "humility" - something that may also set him apart from hisrivals for the White House. "Whether we are talking to friends and allies or more difficult regimes, we needto show we are listening as part of that engagement. Obama is very serious about this," said the source."That humility doesn't mean he doesn't want to lead. If anything, it means that he wants our leadership on

issues to be more responsive, realistic and respected. I think we are talking about a marked change in toneand style ... he's a reconciler. We are confident regional leaders will come to respect his integrity ... it issomething that is at the core of his political makeup."

Maintaining US-Sino ties is crucial to prevent escalation over Taiwan.Paul Kerr, research analyst at the Arms Control Association. International Security, Taiwan: Maintain the CurrentAmbiguity. Volume 1, Number 1 - Fall 1999. http://www.csis.org/pubs/prospectus/99FallKerr.html

Stable U.S.-China relations can also help prevent Chinese aggression towards Taiwan . The bottom line is

whether or not Beijing can be persuaded to accept the status quo between the two countries. The U.S. commitment to Taiwan

inextricably links relations between Taipei and Beijing to the relationship between Beijing and

Washington. If the PRC perceives other areas of its relationship with the United States to be strong, such as

U.S.-China trade and negotiations over China's membership in the WTO, it has less incentive to disrupt the status quo in

the Taiwan Strait. Provocative U.S. actions may lead Beijing to believe that it has little to gain by

maintaining peaceful relations with the United States.

Taiwan conflict causes nuclear war. text modified

Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5/14/2001, TheNation, Pg. 20

China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that Chinasminuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic

Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads).Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinesecivil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince inSarajevo led to a war that no wanted, a misstep inTaiwanby any sidecould bring the United States and China into aconflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan andprobably endin a Chinese victory, given that China is the worlds most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor.

More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear [war] holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge toChinas sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on Chinas borders

have virtually no deterrent effect.


15/21


Obama Good: China Relations

US-China relations are crucial to regional stability.David Shambaugh, Director of the China Policy Program @ George Washington University. International Security,Volume 29, Issue 3, Winter2005. China Engages Asia.http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/views/articles/shambaugh/20050506.pdf

On balance, this complex relationship is characterized by substantial cooperation on bilateral, regional, and global issues. While not afull condominium of two-power domination, and occasionally displaying traditional balance of power features, Sino-American

cooperation is a significant feature of the current Asian order. Even the absence of Sino-American antagonism is animportant factor. While some Asian countries may hedge against either U.S. or Chinese domination, and adroitly acquire whatever

resources and benefits they can from both China and the United States, every country (except perhaps North Korea) seeks a

stable, cooperative Sino-American relationship. Should Beijing and Washington one day confront each

other, all of these regional states would be put in the awkward position of having to choose sidesand this

they seek to avoid at all costs.

Strong US-China ties are preventing a global economic collapse now.

LA Times, 7/18/05Ties between the U.S. and China are far more extensive. Chinese immigrants have played a key role in the American high-

tech boom and have served as a bridge between the two countries. Trade between the U.S. and China has grown thirtyfold

in the last decade, propelled by global retailers and producers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., shifting production from other low-costcountries to China. China has become the world's top destination for foreign funds. Last year, that country received nearly $61 billion inforeign investment and more than half of that country's exports are from factories owned by foreigners. China has also become the

fastest-growing market for many U.S. industries such as high-tech and natural resource extraction. Low-cost goods from China

keep U.S. inflation down, while Chinese buying of U.S. Treasury securities helps keep American

mortgage rates down. If China's growth were to slow significantly, it could trigger a global slowdown

and major disruptions in key U.S. industries dependent on Chinese imports or components. "Until recently, wewere not very dependent on China at all," said Edward Gresser, a former Clinton administration trade official and analyst with theProgressive Policy Institute, a Democratic think tank. "Now, we're relying heavily on China as a source of finance for our growth and

our budget deficit." With so much at stake in its dealings with China, the United States must walk a tightrope --

encouraging China to move forward with economic and political reforms without triggering a costly

confrontation.
http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/views/articles/shambaugh/20050506.pdfhttp://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/views/articles/shambaugh/20050506.pdf


16/21


Obama good: Australia Relations

Obama would lead to more US Australia cooperationPhillip Coorey. Clinton embraces PM, Obama praises Howard's end, Sydney Morning Herald. 04/2/08.

THE US Democratic presidential frontrunner, Barack Obama, has not forgotten John Howard 's attack onhim more than a year ago and raised it yesterday during a lengthy phone conversation with Kevin Rudd. Mr

Rudd, in Washington, spoke with Senator Obama for about 30 minutes after meeting the otherDemocrat candidate, Hillary Clinton. Early this morning, Mr Rudd was scheduled to meet the Republicanpresumptive nominee, John McCain. Sources familiar with the Obama phone call said the Illinois Senatorraised Mr Howard's attack as he congratulated Mr Rudd on becoming Prime Minister. In February lastyear, a day after Senator Obama launched his presidential campaign, Mr Howard said Senator Obama 'sIraq policy made both him and the Democrats al-Qaeda's party of choice. The controversial comment wasconstrued as potentially damaging to the alliance and prompted Senator Obama to challenge Mr Howard tosend 20,000 more troops if he was so serious about Iraq. Following yesterday's phone call, Senator Obamareleased a lengthy statement saying Mr Rudd's "progressive" policy agenda suited "this new chapter

in US-Australia relations". "His progressive domestic policy agenda, innovative and realistic

diplomacy, and optimistic vision enrich the already solid base of our bilateral dialogue, reminding us

that we can accomplish more when we listen to our friends and allies than when we lecture them."

US/Australian relations are the lynchpin of South Asian stabilityAlexanderDowner, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Australia-United States Alliance and East Asian

Security, Speech at the University of Sydney conference, 29 June 2001http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/speeches/foreign/2001/010629_fa_us_alliance.html

I want to put to rest this evening a view we hear from time-to-time in the media and elsewhere which argues that the ANZUS Treaty andthe alliance is no longer relevant to Australia's interests with the end of the Cold War, or that it somehow imposes unacceptable trade-

offs in Australia's relations with the Asia Pacific region. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forging and maintaining

strong relations with one country or region does not mean neglecting any other country or region. To suggest thatthe depth and strength of our alliance with the US somehow weakens or compromises our ties with the Asia Pacific is nonsense. In fact,

ANZUS was seen from the outset as a means of enhancing our ties with the region: Percy Spender, who

pushed so strongly to conclude the ANZUS Treaty, did so with a clear and expressed conviction that Australias

destiny was bound up with Asia. He saw the Australia US alliance as a linchpin for stability in the

region. On the eve of his departure for the Colombo Conference in January 1950, Spender said that Australia and the United

States of America are the two countries which can, in co-operation one with the other, make the greatestcontribution to stability and to democratic development ofthe countries ofSouth-East Asia. This was 13 months beforethe crucial Canberra negotiations at which the fundamentals of ANZUS were hammered out. And the preamble to the treaty itself notedthe desire of the parties to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific Area. The contemporary argument in favour of ANZUS and theAustralia-US alliance doesn't rest fundamentally on the genuinely close emotional and cultural links between the two countries - as

important and long-standing as they are - but on the continuing congruence of Australian and US national interests

and values in so many areas. In short, it is mutually beneficial. Let me make four key points in support of my argument. First,from the outset, ANZUS was conceived as a security pact flexible enough to be relevant to a range of challenges. Initially, this wasAustralias concern to be protected against the threat of a militarily resurgent Japan. Then, in the Cold War, it was protection against thethreat of Communist expansionism. Now, in what President Bush has recently described as an era in which the threats come from

uncertainty, it provides a bedrock of certainty and security on which both Australia and the United States

know theycan always rely.

South Asian conflict ensures nuclear winter

Ghulam Nabi Fai, Kashmiri American Council, July 8, 2001, Washington TimesThe foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with aunilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, adisputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan.

It has ignited two war s between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could

trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe . The United States would enjoy no

sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The director of central intelligence, the Defense

Department, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India

and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles.Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-offConvention.


17/21


Obama Good: NPT

Obama supports the NPTDr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco,where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. Barack Obama on Diplomacy, 01/17/08.

In a break with the other leading presidential contenders, Obama supports the United States commitmentunder the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate nuclear stockpiles .However, although the United States possesses by far the largest number of nuclear weapons and deliverysystems on earth, Obama hasnt indicated support for any unilateral American initiatives to move the processforward, such as cuts in weapons or delivery systems where the United States has a qualitative advantage.


18/21


Obama Good: Kyoto

Obama would ratify the Kyoto ProtocolDr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco,where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. Barack Obama on Diplomacy, 01/17/08.

In addition to calling on the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, Obama hascalled for a series of policy initiatives to bring developing countries into the global effort to develop

alternative sources of energy and prepare for the ravages of a changing climate, including funding toleverage the investment and venture capital needed to expand the developing worlds renewable energy

portfolio. Despite his emphasis on climate change as a national security issue, however, manyenvironmentalists find that his proposals do not go nearly far enough


19/21


McCain Bad: Iran Strikes

McCain will use military force against Iran

The Associated Press. "Giuliani, McCain: U.S. should prepare to use force against Iran." 10/16/07

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.html(CVD)

Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain said Tuesday they would beprepared as president to use military force against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons .Giuliani characterized Iran as a state sponsor of terror that is seeking nuclear weapons and said Tehran needsto understand how the United States would respond to that development. "Anybody who wants to bepresident of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to useAmerican military power," the former New York City mayor said. "But as president, you can't hesitate to dothat, if it's in the best interest of the United States." "You have to stand up to dictators and tyrants andterrorists," he added. "Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps you safe." On Iran specifically, Giuliani said,"We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president, I guarantee you we will neverfind out what they would do with nuclear weapons because they're not going to get them." Said

McCain, "At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons." The

presidential candidates spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Last week, Giuliani reiterated during apresidential debate his stance in favor of a military option against a nuclear Iran. On another subject,Giuliani said he would not negotiate with the Palestinians on the situation in the Middle East until twoconditions are met: acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and a good-faith effort to stopterror. "If they do those two things and mean it, then of course we can negotiate," Giuliani said. "We wouldlike to have peace. But we don't want to have a peace in which we are taken advantage of. We don't want tohave a peace in which Americans and Israelis are getting killed. And we certainly don't want to create anotherterrorist-supporting state. We have too many of them already."

McCain likes the Beach Boys and will bomb Iran

CNN "McCain sings 'Bomb, bomb Iran." 4/19/07http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007 /04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html (CVD).WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At a town hall meeting in South Carolina Wednesday, Arizona Sen. John

McCain was asked if there is a plan to attack Iran. McCain began his answer by changing the words toa classic Beach Boys' song. "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" the Republicanpresidential candidate said. Then, he sang. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He finished hisanswer by discussing the Iran's nuclear ambitions and the country's desire to wipe Israel off the map toemphasize the real dangers that it poses to the world.

McCain WILL order Iranian missile strikes and mass bombing strikes

Arnaud de Borchgrave, Specialist in International Affairs. "Israel: We Will Strike Iran Alone."Newsmax. 7/26/08http://www.newsmax.com/borchgrave/israel_iran_nuclear/2008/06/26/107691.html (CVD)

If, on the other hand,John McCain moves into the White House on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2009, hepresumably would approve of Israeli bombing raids and cruise-missile strikes against Iran's nascent

nuclear weapons capability. There is only one thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has said, and thatis an Iranian nuclear bomb.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.htmlhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007%20/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.htmlhttp://www.newsmax.com/borchgrave/israel_iran_nuclear/2008/06/26/107691.htmlhttp://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007%20/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.htmlhttp://www.newsmax.com/borchgrave/israel_iran_nuclear/2008/06/26/107691.html


20/21


Obama Bad: European Relations

Obama would not live up to European expectations and hurt relationsDenis MacShane; MacShane is Labour Member of Parliament for Rotherham and a former minister for Europe.Welcome To Natoland, Newsweek. 02/04/08.

Of all the lazy thinking in Europe's capitals, the laziest is the notion that the next U.S. administration

will usher in a new era of sweetness and light in transatlantic relations . Nothing could be further fromthe truth. BarackObama is the darling of the anti-Bush crowd in Europe. But in his book "The Audacityof Hope" he declares, "We have the right to take unilateral action to eliminate an imminent threat toour security." Obama insists that the U.N. Security Council should not have a veto "over our actions ."He even offers an old metaphor as he accuses Russia and China of seeking "to throw their weight around,"which means "there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. Thiswill not change. Nor should it."


21/21


Obama Bad: Social Security

Obama would raise taxes to support social securityTEDDY DAVIS. Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike, 09/22/07.

Sen. BarackObama, D-Ill., is considering a major tax hike on the rich to shore up the nation's Social

Security system. Obama Iowa "If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to allearnings and not just the first $97,000," Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, "we could eliminatethe entire Social Security shortfall." Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday'sQuad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillionover 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would bepaid by employees and half would be paid by employers.

Tax hike to support Social Security would tank the economyMichael Tanner. The Democrats Want to Raise Social Security Taxes, No date given.

Moreover, raising the tax cap would not just impact the super rich, as is often argued, but would fall mostheavily on the upper middle class. Some 9.2 million Americans would see their taxes increased . Roughlythree quarters are managers or other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. 16 percent work

in sales or office occupations, while the remainder includes teachers, nurses, truck drivers, farmers, andpolice officers. Small businesses would be particularly hammered: about one-third of the workersaffected by raising the cap would be small business owners. Eliminating the cap would saddle theUnited States with the highest marginal tax rate in the world, higher even than countries like Sweden.Studies suggest that it would cost the United States as much as $136 billion in lost economic growth overthe next 10 years, and as many as 1.1 million lost jobs. In exchange for this economic catastrophe, wewould gain surprisingly little in terms of Social Security's finances. Even the most drastic, and politicallyunlikely proposal -- completely eliminating the cap without allowing any additional credit towardbenefits -- would result in only eight additional years of cash-flow solvency. Rather than beginning to runa deficit in 2017, Social Security would continue to run a surplus until 2025. That's very little gain for somuch pain. Nor would eliminating the cap address Social Security's other problems. It would not enableworkers to decide how their money is invested. It would not allow low- and middle-income workers toaccumulate a nest egg of real, inheritable wealth. It would not improve Social Security's rate of return for

younger workers.

Documents

DA Elections Impacts Scholars 20