165
UK Fellows 2006 Fisher MK document.doc ***Militarism Good/Pacifism Bad/Terrorism Bad***........................1 Militarism Inevitable...................................................2 Militarism Inevitable...................................................3 Terrorism Inevitable....................................................4 Violence Inevitable.....................................................5 Violence/War Inevitable – Human Nature..................................6 Militarism Good – Terrorism Bad.........................................7 Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad..........................................8 Militarism Good – Diplomacy Bad.........................................9 Militarism Good – Terrorism............................................10 Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad......................................11 Militarism Good – Violence Good........................................12 Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad......................................13 Militarism Good – Would’ve Prevented Wars..............................14 Militarism Good – Peace................................................15 Militarism Good – Moral................................................16 Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad......................................17 Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary...................................18 Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now.......................................19 Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary...................................20 Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad.........................................21 Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad.........................................22 Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary...................................23 Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now.......................................24 Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad......................................25 Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (1/2).....................................26 Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (2/2).....................................27 Militarism Good – Killing Necessary....................................28 Militarism Good – Violence Solves Evil.................................29 Militarism Good - Pacifism Bad (1/2)...................................30 Militarism Good - Pacifism Bad (2/2)...................................31 Militarism Good – Violence Key to Solve Terrorism......................32 Militarism Good – Terrorism............................................33 Militarism Good – War Inevitable Despite Alternative...................34 Militarism Good – Must Uphold American Values..........................35 Militarism Good – Moral Certainty Key to WOT...........................36 1

TheTruth K Impact Turns

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK Fellows 2006 Fisher

MK

document.doc

***Militarism Good/Pacifism Bad/Terrorism Bad***.......................................................................................1Militarism Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................2Militarism Inevitable...........................................................................................................................................3Terrorism Inevitable............................................................................................................................................4Violence Inevitable..............................................................................................................................................5Violence/War Inevitable – Human Nature..........................................................................................................6Militarism Good – Terrorism Bad.......................................................................................................................7Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad.........................................................................................................................8Militarism Good – Diplomacy Bad.....................................................................................................................9Militarism Good – Terrorism............................................................................................................................10Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad...............................................................................................................11Militarism Good – Violence Good....................................................................................................................12Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad...............................................................................................................13Militarism Good – Would’ve Prevented Wars..................................................................................................14Militarism Good – Peace...................................................................................................................................15Militarism Good – Moral...................................................................................................................................16Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad...............................................................................................................17Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary.............................................................................................................18Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now.............................................................................................................19Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary.............................................................................................................20Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad.......................................................................................................................21Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad.......................................................................................................................22Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary.............................................................................................................23Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now.............................................................................................................24Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad...............................................................................................................25Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (1/2)...................................................................................................................26Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (2/2)...................................................................................................................27Militarism Good – Killing Necessary................................................................................................................28Militarism Good – Violence Solves Evil...........................................................................................................29Militarism Good - Pacifism Bad (1/2)...............................................................................................................30Militarism Good - Pacifism Bad (2/2)...............................................................................................................31Militarism Good – Violence Key to Solve Terrorism.......................................................................................32Militarism Good – Terrorism............................................................................................................................33Militarism Good – War Inevitable Despite Alternative....................................................................................34Militarism Good – Must Uphold American Values..........................................................................................35Militarism Good – Moral Certainty Key to WOT.............................................................................................36Militarism Good – Peace/Societal Reconstruction............................................................................................37Militarism Good – A2 WOT Is Indefinite.........................................................................................................38Militarism Good – Annihilation Good/Appeasement Bad................................................................................39Militarism Good – Critical to Public Support...................................................................................................40

Index Continues…

1

Page 2: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK Fellows 2006 Fisher

MK

document.doc

Terrorists Bad....................................................................................................................................................41Appeasing Terrorists More Terrorism..........................................................................................................42Appeasing International Feelings More Terrorism......................................................................................43Appeasement Bad..............................................................................................................................................44Appeasing International Feelings More Terrorism......................................................................................45Appeasing Terrorists More Terrorism..........................................................................................................46A2 WOT Causes Recruitment/Resentment.......................................................................................................47A2 Muslim Resentment (1/2)............................................................................................................................48A2 Muslim Resentment (2/2)............................................................................................................................49A2 World Opinion Means We Shouldn’t Act...................................................................................................50A2 WOT Fuels Terrorism..................................................................................................................................51A2 Must Identify Root Causes..........................................................................................................................52A2 You Say All Muslims Are Terrorists...........................................................................................................53Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................54Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................55Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................56Pacifism Bad – A2 We Allow Violence In Extreme Circumstances................................................................57Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................58Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................59Pacifism Bad – Non-Violence Fails..................................................................................................................60Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................61Pacifism Bad - Their Argument = Dictator Propaganda...................................................................................62Pacifism Bad......................................................................................................................................................63Non-Violence Permutation................................................................................................................................64***Imperialism/Multiculturalism***................................................................................................................65Not Imperialist...................................................................................................................................................66Not Imperialist...................................................................................................................................................67Not Imperialist – A2 We Force Our Culture Unto Others................................................................................68Not Imperialist – Prefer our evidence................................................................................................................69Imperialism Good – A2 Should Appease States...............................................................................................70Imperialism Good - Proliferation......................................................................................................................71Multiculturalism Bad – Destroys Western Culture...........................................................................................72Multiculturalism Bad - Extinction.....................................................................................................................73Multiculturalism Bad – West is Best.................................................................................................................74Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................75Multiculturalism Bad – Double Standard..........................................................................................................76Multiculturalism Bad.........................................................................................................................................77Multiculturalism Bad – Racist...........................................................................................................................78Multiculturalism Bad – Racist...........................................................................................................................79Multiculturalism Bad – A2 West Is Best Is Imperialist.....................................................................................80Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................81Multiculturalism Bad – Intellectuals Must Advocate Western Values.............................................................82Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................83Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................84Multiculturalism Bad – Racist...........................................................................................................................85

2

Page 3: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK Fellows 2006 Fisher

MK

document.doc

Multiculturalism Bad – Destroys Autonomy.....................................................................................................86Multiculturalism Bad – Racist...........................................................................................................................87Multiculturalism Bad - Conformity...................................................................................................................88Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best.................................................................................................................89Multiculturalism Bad – Indoctrination..............................................................................................................90

Index Continues…

3

Page 4: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK Fellows 2006 Fisher

MK

document.doc

***A2 The Other***.........................................................................................................................................91A2 Obligation to the Other................................................................................................................................92A2 Obligation to the Other (1/2).......................................................................................................................93A2 Obligation to the Other (2/2).......................................................................................................................94A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO 1NC............................................................................................................95A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO 1NC Alternative.........................................................................................96A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Destroys Progressive Politics.....................................................................97A2 Obligation to the Other - A2 Given Permission to Speak For Others/Others Can’t Speak for Themselves98A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Link: Speaking About the Other................................................................99A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Link: Reading Text..................................................................................100A2 Obligation to the Other – A2 “You’re Nihilist”........................................................................................101A2 Obligation to the Other – A2 “No Alt”......................................................................................................102A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Hierarchies Link.......................................................................................103***Nuclear Weapons/Fear Good***...............................................................................................................104Nuclear Weapons Good - Nationalism............................................................................................................105Nuclear Weapons Good...................................................................................................................................106Nuclear Weapons Good – Pacifism Bad.........................................................................................................107Nuclear Weapons Good...................................................................................................................................108Nuclear Weapons Good...................................................................................................................................109Nuclear Weapons Good – Consequences Key................................................................................................110Fear Good – The Futterman Card....................................................................................................................111Fear Good........................................................................................................................................................112Fear Good........................................................................................................................................................113***Miscellaneous***......................................................................................................................................114A2 Zero Point of Holocaust.............................................................................................................................115A2 Realism Iraq/Vietnam...........................................................................................................................116A2 Realists = Neocons....................................................................................................................................117A2 Civilian Casualties Bad..............................................................................................................................118A2 Civilian Casualties Bad..............................................................................................................................119A2 Civilian Casualties Bad..............................................................................................................................120Good/Evil Definitions Good............................................................................................................................121National Self-Interest Good.............................................................................................................................122Military Unpredictable Violence Good...........................................................................................................123Gaza Withdrawal/Israel Softline Bad..............................................................................................................124Atomic Bomb Good.........................................................................................................................................125

4

Page 5: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

***Militarism Good/Pacifism Bad/Terrorism Bad***

1

Page 6: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Inevitable

Militarism is entrenched in society – it is a cornerstone in our history and is believed to help the economyDr. Joel Kovel, Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard College, “The United States Military Machine,” Chronogram Magazine, November 21, 2002, http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2003/02/roomforaview/index.html, UK: Fisher

The United States has always been a bellicose and expansive country, built on violent conquest and expropriation of native peoples. Since the forming of the American republic, military interventions have occurred at the rate of about once a year. Consider the case of Nicaragua, a country utterly incapable of being any kind of a threat to its giant northern neighbor. Yet prior to the Sandinista revolution in 1979 (which was eventually crushed by us proxy forces a decade later), our country had invaded Nicaragua no fewer than 14 times in the pursuit of its imperial interests.A considerable number of contemporary states, such as Britain, South Africa, Russia, and Israel, have been formed in just such a way. But one of the special conditions of the formation of America, despite its aggressivity, was an inhibition against a military machine as such. If you remember, no less a figure than George Washington warned us against having a standing army, and indeed the great bulk of us interventions prior to World War II were done without very much in the way of fixed military institutions. However, after WWII a basic change set in. War-weary America longed for demobilization, yet after a brief beginning in this direction, the process was halted and the permanent warfare state started to take shape .In part, this was because policy planners knew quite well that massive wartime mobilization had been the one measure that finally lifted America out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. One of the lessons of that time was that propounded by the British economist John Maynard Keynes, to the effect that capitalist societies could ameliorate chronic [economic] crises by infusions of government spending. The Great War had certified this wisdom, and permanent military expenditure readily became the received wisdom. This was greatly reinforced by the drastic realignment of capitalist power as a result of the war. America was essentially the only capitalist power in 1945 that did not lay in ruins and/or have its empire shattered. The world had been realigned and the United States had assumed a global imperial role. Policy planners like George Kennan lucidly realized that this meant safeguarding extreme inequalities in wealth, which implied a permanent garrison to preserve the order of things. The notion was especially compelling given that one other state, the Soviet Union, had emerged a great power from the war and was the bellwether of those forces that sought to break down the prevailing distribution of wealth. The final foundation stone for the new military order was the emergence of frightful weapons of mass destruction, dominance over which became an essential element for world hegemony.The Iron TriangleThese factors crystallized into the Cold War, the nuclear arms race, and, domestically, into those structures that gave institutional stability and permanence to the system: the military-industrial complex (mic). Previously the us had used militarism to secure economic advantage. Now, two developments greatly transformed our militarism: the exigencies of global hegemony and the fact that militarism became a direct source of economic advantage, through the triangular relations of the mic—with the great armament industries comprising one leg, the military establishment another, and the state apparatus the third, profits, power, and personnel could flow through the system and from the system.

2

Page 7: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Inevitable

Bases are everywhereDr. Joel Kovel, Alger Hiss Professor of Social Studies at Bard College, “The United States Military Machine,” Chronogram Magazine, November 21, 2002, http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2003/02/roomforaview/index.html, UK: Fisher

US Armies Taking Root EverywhereFrom having scarcely any standing army in 1940, American armies now stand everywhere. One feature of us military policy since WWII is to make war and then stay where war was made, rooting itself in foreign territory. Currently, the us has military bases in 113 countries, with 11 new ones formed since the beginning of the War Against Terror. The us now has bases in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kurdistan, encircling China and creating new sources of military tension. On these bases, the us military has erected some 800,000 buildings. Imagine that: 800,000 buildings in foreign countries that are now occupied by us military establishments.And America still maintains large forces in Germany, Japan, and Korea, with tens of thousands of troops permanently on duty (and making mischief, as two us servicemen recently ran over and killed two Korean girls, provoking massive demonstrations). After the first Gulf War the us military became installed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, in which latter place it currently occupies one quarter of the country—750 square miles devoted to military activity. This huge investment is no doubt determined by proximity to Iraq. Again, after going to war in Kosovo, the us left behind an enormous base in a place called Bondsteel.

3

Page 8: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Terrorism Inevitable

Terrorism is inevitable – Muslim extremists are determined to fight and will continue to indoctrinate the youth that the U.S. is the cause of woeRalph Peters, Retired US Army officer, Rolling Back Radical Islam, Parameters, Autumn 2002, pp. 4-16, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/02autumn/peters.htm, UK: Fisher

You cannot win a war if you do not fight, and you cannot win a peace through inattention. In peace and war, the American response to the violent extremism that so damages the Islamic world has been as halting and reactive as it has been reluctant. We simply do not want to get involved more deeply than “necessary.” But Muslim extremists are determined to remain involved with us.We are not at war with Islam. But the most radical elements within the Muslim world are convinced that they are at war with us. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. For decades we have downplayed—or simply ignored—the hate-filled speech directed toward us, the monstrous lessons taught by extremists to children, and the duplicity of so many states we insisted were our friends. But nations do not have friends—at best, they have allies with a confluence of interests. We imagine a will to support our endeavors where there is only a pursuit of advantage. And we deal with cynical, corrupt old men who know which words to say to soothe our diplomats, while the future lies with the discontented young, to whom the poison of blame is always delicious.Hatred taught to the young seems an ineradicable cancer of the human condition. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunity, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own leaders. Above all, those futureless masses yearn to excuse their profound individual inadequacies and to explain away the prison walls their beliefs have made of their lives.

4

Page 9: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Violence Inevitable

War is war – violence will always be there – the soldier’s job is to kill the enemyRalph Peters, Retired Army officer, “In Praise of Attrition,” Parameters, Summer 2004, p. 24-32, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04summer/peters.htm, UK: Fisher

There is no better example of our unthinking embrace of an error than our rejection of the term “war of attrition.” The belief that attrition, as an objective or a result, is inherently negative is simply wrong . A soldier’s job is to kill the enemy . All else , however important it may appear at the moment, is secondary. And to kill the enemy is to attrit the enemy. All wars in which bullets—or arrows—fly are wars of attrition.Of course, the term “war of attrition” conjures the unimaginative slaughter of the Western Front, with massive casualties on both sides. Last year, when journalists wanted to denigrate our military’s occupation efforts in Iraq, the term bubbled up again and again. The notion that killing even the enemy is a bad thing in war has been exacerbated by the defense industry’s claims, seconded by glib military careerists, that precision weapons and technology in general had irrevocably changed the nature of warfare. But the nature of warfare never changes —only its superficial manifestations .The US Army also did great harm to its own intellectual and practical grasp of war by trolling for theories, especially in the 1980s. Theories don’t win wars. Well-trained, well-led soldiers in well-equipped armies do. And they do so by killing effectively . Yet we heard a great deal of nonsense about “maneuver warfare” as the solution to all our woes, from our numerical disadvantage vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact to our knowledge that the “active defense” on the old inner-German border was political tomfoolery and a military sham—and, frankly, the best an Army gutted by Vietnam and its long hangover could hope to do.

5

Page 10: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Violence/War Inevitable – Human Nature

Humans have a will to survive – they will do whatever necessary to ensure that survivalVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “Postmodern War,” City Journal, February 8, 2005, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson020805.html, UK: Fisher

Yet lost in all this confusion is the recognition that the essence of war remains unchanged—the use of force to eliminate an adversary, coerce an opponent to alter his behavior, or prevent annihilation. Technology, modern social theory, the ease and luxury of the West—these are simply the delivery systems that change with the ages, but do not alter or affect the substance of conflict. In our present context, all our concern about American combat casualties would vanish should there be another mass murder similar to 9/11. Like ancient man, postmodern man is hardwired to survive , and thus really will use his full arsenal when faced with the alternative of extinction. Should we lose the stock exchange or the White House, there would be almost no calls for restraint against states that harbored or aided the perpetrators, on the logic that every terrorist must sleep, eat, and use an ATM card somewhere. But what about the far more likely scenario of guerrilla wars and counterinsurgency? In such lesser conflicts, the human desire for victory still trumps most other considerations. The hysteria over the Iraqi war in the 2004 election did not really result from a failure to find weapons of mass destruction or to publicize a clear link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. These were issues raised after the fact for political purposes during a campaign that happened to coincide with a change in American perceptions as the war’s rocky aftermath unfolded. After all, on the eve of the invasion over 65 percent of Americans supported the war, and three weeks later, when Saddam’s statue fell, support was nearing 70 percent. The current depressing debate about preemption, allies, WMD, and al-Qaida ties originated in the subsequent inability of the United States to project a sense of absolute victory in the postbellum occupation, as looting led to terrorist reprisals, an insurgency, and televised beheadings.

6

Page 11: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Terrorism Bad

Ideology breeds terrorism and will continue to indefinitely – only way to prevent future acts of violence is hard-line militarism by the United StatesAlex Epstein, Graduate of Duke University, BA Philosophy, Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, “Fight the Root of Terrorism With Bombs, Not Bread,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 14, 2005, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11243, UK: Fisher

The pernicious idea that poverty causes terrorism has been a popular claim since the attacks of September 11. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has repeatedly asked wealthy nations to double their foreign aid, naming as a cause of terrorism "that far too many people are condemned to lives of extreme poverty and degradation." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees: "We have to put hope back in the hearts of people. We have to show people who might move in the direction of terrorism that there is a better way." Businessman Ted Turner also concurs: "The reason that the World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don't have any hope for a better life." Indeed, the argument that poverty causes terrorism has been central to America’s botched war in Iraq--which has focused, not on quickly ending any threat the country posed and moving on to other crucial targets, but on bringing the good life to the Iraqi people. Eliminating the root of terrorism is indeed a valid goal--but properly targeted military action, not welfare handouts, is the means of doing so. Terrorism is not caused by poverty. The terrorists of September 11 did not attack America in order to make the Middle East richer. To the contrary, their stated goal was to repel any penetration of the prosperous culture of the industrialized "infidels" into their world. The wealthy Osama bin Laden was not using his millions to build electric power plants or irrigation canals. If he and his terrorist minions wanted prosperity, they would seek to emulate the United States--not to destroy it. More fundamental, poverty as such cannot determine anyone's code of morality. It is the ideas that individuals choose to adopt which make them pursue certain goals and values. A desire to destroy wealth and to slaughter innocent, productive human beings cannot be explained by a lack of money or a poor quality of life--only by anti-wealth, anti-life ideas. These terrorists are motivated by the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. This other-worldly, authoritarian doctrine views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity. Its adherents resent America's success, along with the appeal its culture has to many Middle Eastern youths. To the fundamentalists, Americans are "infidels" who should be killed. As a former Taliban official said, "The Americans are fighting so they can live and enjoy the material things in life. But we are fighting so we can die in the cause of God." The terrorists hate us because of their ideology--a fact that filling up the coffers of Third World governments will do nothing to change. What then, can our government do? It cannot directly eradicate the deepest, philosophical roots of terrorism; but by using military force, it can eliminate the only "root cause" relevant in a political context: state sponsorship of terrorism. The fundamentalists' hostility toward America can translate into international terrorism only via the governments that employ, finance, train, and provide refuge to terrorist networks. Such assistance is the cause of the terrorist threat--and America has the military might to remove that cause. It is precisely in the name of fighting terrorism at its root that America must extend its fist, not its hand. Whatever other areas of the world may require U.S. troops to stop terrorist operations, we must above all go after the single main source of the threat--Iran. This theocratic nation is both the birthplace of the Islamic Fundamentalist revolution and, as a consequence, a leading sponsor of terrorism. Removing that government from power would be a potent blow against Islamic terrorism. It would destroy the political embodiment of the terrorists' cause. It would declare America's intolerance of support for terrorists. It would be an unequivocal lesson, showing what will happen to other countries if they fail to crack down on terrorists within their borders. And it would acknowledge the fact that dropping bombs, not food packages, is the only way for our government to attack terrorism at its root.

7

Page 12: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad

Hardline militarism is the best alignment – pacifism has emboldened and strengthened enemies, must shift from this dangerous trendAlex Epstein, Graduate of Duke University, BA Philosophy, Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, “Peacenik Warmongers,” Ayn Rand Institute, December 9, 2002, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7458, UK: Fisher

We do not need to predict or deduce the consequences of pacifism with regard to terrorism and the nations that sponsor it, because we experienced those consequences on September 11. Pacifism practically dictated the American response to terrorism for more than 23 years, beginning with our government's response to the first major act of Islamic terrorism against this country: when Iranian mobs held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days at the American embassy in Tehran. In response to that and later terrorist atrocities, American Presidents sought to avoid military action at all costs--by treating terrorists as isolated criminals and thereby ignoring the role of the governments that support them, or by offering diplomatic handouts to terrorist states in hopes that they would want to be our friends. With each pacifist response it became clearer that the most powerful nation on Earth was a paper tiger--and our enemies made the most of it . After years of American politicians acting like peaceniks, Islamic terrorism had proliferated from a few gangs of thugs to a worldwide scourge--making possible the attacks of September 11. It is an obvious evasion of history and logic for the advocates of pacifism to label themselves "anti-war," since the policies they advocate necessarily invite escalating acts of war against anyone who practices them . Military inaction sends the message to an aggressor--and to other, potential aggressors--that it will benefit by attacking the United States. To whatever extent "anti-war" protesters influence policy, they are not helping to prevent war; they are acting to make war more frequent and deadly, by making our enemies more aggressive, more plentiful, and more powerful. The only way to deal with militant enemies is to show them unequivocally that aggression against the U nited States will lead to their destruction. The only means of imparting this lesson is overwhelming military force--enough to defeat and incapacitate the enemy . Had we annihilated the Iranian regime 23 years ago, we could have thwarted Islamic terrorism at the beginning, with far less cost than will be required to defeat terrorism today. And if we fail to use our military against state sponsors of terrorism today, imagine the challenge we will face five years from now when Iraq and Iran possess nuclear weapons and are ready to disseminate them to their terrorist minions. Yet such a world is the goal of the "anti-war" movement. The suicidal stance of peaceniks is no innocent error or mere overflow of youthful idealism. It is the product of a fundamentally immoral commitment: the commitment to ignore reality--from the historical evidence of the consequences of pacifism to the very existence of the violent threats that confront us today--in favor of the wish that laying down our arms will achieve peace somehow. Those of us who are committed to facing the facts should condemn these peaceniks for what they really are: warmongers for our enemies.

8

Page 13: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Diplomacy Bad

Diplomacy only serves to embolden terrorists and strengthen opposition to US policies – a commitment to hardline militarism is critical to saving livesRobert 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 Road Map to Hell,” Ayn Rand Institute, June 2, 2003, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7779, UK: Fisher

There is a reason we keep getting the same failed peace plan, with the same results. Nothing else is possible, once we accept the vicious policy of negotiating with terrorists. Legitimate diplomacy can only take place between those who are open to settling their differences through persuasion and who recognize each other's right to live. Yet for decades the Palestinians have consistently adopted brute force and mass murder as their primary means of pursuing their "diplomatic" goals. And their ultimate goal has never changed: they seek the destruction of Israel. All attempts to negotiate an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict have merely illustrated the destructive consequences of sacrificing justice to diplomacy . Justice demands that one judge rationally the character and conduct of those one deals with, rewarding the good and punishing the evil. To insist on diplomacy as an unqualified virtue--regardless of the nature and conduct of one's foe--does not save lives or resolve conflicts; it merely rewards and emboldens the aggressors . Why should they end terrorism, when it proves, time and time again, to be an effective means of extorting concessions? This is why it would have been absurd for America to negotiate with al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein. It is also why America should not pressure Israel, our loyal ally in a treacherous region, to negotiate with its terrorist enemies. Peace requires, not the accommodation of the terrorists' demands, but the total and ruthless elimination of the terrorists and those who support them. We should be pressuring Israel, not to surrender to terrorism, but to continue the war on terrorism--to continue it throughout Gaza and the West Bank, and to take it to the planners and suppliers of terrorism in Lebanon and Syria. This is the only road to peace: to abandon diplomacy and destroy the terrorists.

9

Page 14: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Terrorism

Hardline militarism is critical in the War on Terror – only way to prevent terrorists from getting stronger and obtaining deadlier weapons; Weakness allows violence Islam to thriveDr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, holds a B.Sc. in civil engineering and an MBA and Ph.D. in finance from the University of Texas at Austin and Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior fellow at ARI, “The Foreign Policy of Guilt,” The Ayn Rand Institute, August 1, 2005, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11269&news_iv_ctrl=1509, UK: Fisher

Until the West asserts its moral right to exist , we will not be safe from Islamic totalitarianism. In the aftermath of the bombings in London, Prime Minister Tony Blair has asked the British people to remain calm and maintain their daily routines; the terrorists win, he says, if one gives in to fear. This, you may remember, was also George W. Bush's response after Sept. 11, when he called on Americans to return to our shopping malls and not be afraid. But we should be afraid--precisely because of Blair's and Bush's policies. We face an enemy, Islamic totalitarianism, committed to our deaths. Its agents have shown an eagerness to kill indiscriminately in London, Madrid, New York and elsewhere, even at the cost of their own lives. They continually seek chemical and nuclear weapons ; imagine the death toll if such devices had been used in London's subway bombings. In the face of this mounting threat, what is our response? Do we proudly proclaim our unconditional right to exist? Do we resolutely affirm to eradicate power base after power base of the Islamic totalitarians, until they drop their arms, and foreign governments and civilian populations no longer have the nerve to support them? No. Blair's response to the London bombings, with Bush and the other members of the G8 by his side, was, in meaning if not in explicit statement, to apologize and do penance for our existence. Somehow we in the West and not the Palestinians--with their rejection of the freedoms attainable in Israel and their embrace of thugs and killers--are responsible for their degradation. Thus, we must help build them up by supplying the terrorist-sponsoring Palestinian Authority with billions in aid. And somehow we in the West and not the Africans--with their decades of tribal, collectivist and anticapitalist ideas--are responsible for their poverty. Thus we must lift them out of their plight with $50 billion in aid. This, Blair claims, will help us "triumph over terrorism." The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq might be considered exceptions to this orgy of penance, but that would be an error. In neither war was the aim to smash the enemy. Unlike in WWII, when the Allies would flatten cities to achieve victory, the American and British armies, by explicit order, tiptoed in the Middle East . Terrorists and insurgents went free, free to return to kill our young men, because we subordinated the lives of our soldiers to concern for the enemy's well-being and civilian casualties. Our goal was not victory but, as Bush so often tells us, to bestow with our soldiers' blood an unearned gift on these people, "freedom" and "democracy," with the hope that they would then stop killing us. According to Blair, our duty is to shower the globe with money. According to Bush, our duty is to shower the globe with "democracy." Taken together, the meaning of their foreign policy is clear. The West has no moral right to exist, because it is productive, prosperous and free; materially and spiritually, with its money and its soldiers' lives, the West must buy permission to exist from the rest of the world. But the rest of the world has an unquestionable right to exist, because it is unproductive, poor and unfree. Until we in the West reject this monstrous moral premise, we will never have cause to feel safe. What we desperately need is a leader who proclaims that the rational ideals of the West, reason, science, individual rights and capitalism, are good--that we have a moral right to exist for our own sake--that we don't owe the rest of the world anything--and that we should be admired and emulated for our virtues and accomplishments, not denounced. This leader would then demonstrate, in word and deed, that if those opposed to these ideals take up arms against us, they will be crushed. Support for totalitarian Islam will wither only when the Islamic world is convinced that the West will fight--and fight aggressively . As long as the insurgents continue with their brutal acts in Iraq, unharmed by the mightiest military force in human history, as long as the citizens of London return to "normal" lives with subways exploding all around them, as long as the West continues to negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons--as long as the West continues to appease its enemies, because it believes it has no moral right to destroy them, totalitarian Islam is emboldened. It is the West's moral weakness that feeds terrorism and brings it fresh recruits. It is the prospect of success against the West, fueled by the West's apologetic response, that allows totalitarian Islam to thrive.

10

Page 15: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad

A foreign policy dedicated to force would have been able to prevent terrorism – past acts of appeasement have served to only embolden terroristsOnkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, “Diverting the Blame for 9/11,” The Providence Journal, April 2, 2004, Originally published March 31, 2004, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8021&news_iv_ctrl=1509, UK: Fisher

Sept. 11 could have been prevented only by having a principled foreign policy. The squabbling and finger-pointing surrounding the 9/11 commission only serve to obscure the fundamental lesson of that horrific day. Whatever errors or incompetence on the part of a particular individual or intelligence agency, what made September 11 possible was a failure of policy. Our government, whether controlled by Democrat or Republican, had for decades conducted an accommodating, range-of-the-moment, unprincipled foreign policy. September 11 was not the first time America was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists engaged in "holy war" against us. In 1979 theocratic Iran--which has spearheaded the "Islamic Revolution"--stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 54 Americans hostage for over a year. In 1983 the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group Hezbollah bombed a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 servicemen while they slept; the explosives came from Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 individuals. In 2000 al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors. So we already knew that al-Qaeda was actively engaged in attacking Americans. We even had evidence that agents connected to al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And we knew in 1996 that bin Laden had made an overt declaration of war against the "Satan" America. But how did America react? Did our government adopt a principled approach and identify the fact that we were faced with a deadly threat from an ideological foe? Did we launch systematic counterattacks to wipe out such enemy organizations as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Fatah? Did we seek to eliminate enemy states like Iran? No--our responses were shortsighted and self-contradictory. To cite only a few of depressingly many examples: we initially expelled Iranian diplomats--but later sought an appeasing rapprochement with that ayatollah-led government. We intermittently cut off trade with Iran--but secretly negotiated weapons-for-hostages deals. When Israel had the courage to enter Lebanon in 1982 to destroy the PLO, we refused to uncompromisingly support our ally and instead brokered the killers' release. And with respect to al-Qaeda, we dropped a perfunctory bomb or two on one of its suspected camps, while our compliant diplomats waited for al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks to fade from the headlines. At home we treated our attackers as if they were isolated criminals rather than soldiers engaged in battle against us. In 1941 we did not attempt to indict the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor--we declared war on the source. Yet we spent millions trying to indict specific terrorists--while we ignored their masters. Despite emphatic pronouncements from Islamic leaders about a "jihad" against America, our political leaders failed to grasp the ideology that seeks our destruction . This left them unable to target that enemy's armed combatants--in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia--and the governments that assist them.

11

Page 16: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Violence Good

The War on Terror mirrors World War II – an awesome show of force is critical to make evil surrender or else we will surrender to evilRobert 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, “What a Real War Looks Like,” Ayn Rand Institute, September 14, 2001, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7386&news_iv_ctrl=1509, UK: Fisher

But, it has been asked, if we are to attack all of the nations that have harbored terrorists, are we really capable of such a massive task? The answer is that we must threaten our enemies with a level of force so awesome that no nation in the Middle East can resist us. We must be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were first employed to secure the surrender of Japan, sparing the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. If any terrorist nation chooses to resist our demands, we must be prepared to use these horrific weapons once again, with the same justification. Sparing our civilians and soldiers from mass death is precisely the purpose for which we maintain our nuclear arsenal. If we are not willing to use it now, then our nuclear deterrent becomes a hollow threat. Here the liberals will make their most dishonest objection: that the use of such massive force will merely escalate a "cycle of violence." This evades the fact that Tuesday's attacks are the result of decades of turning the other cheek to evil, a policy that merely emboldened the terrorists. This is the real "cycle of violence." Even worse, liberals will balk at the prospect of civilian casualties in enemy countries. By this standard, however, the allies could not have fought Hitler, for fear of killing German civilians. It is obvious that such a pacifist philosophy would require a total surrender to evil. Yes, a full-scale war will be horrific. But war is supposed to be horrific--so horrific that our enemies cannot endure it and will not dare to repeat it.

12

Page 17: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad

Appeasement and acquiescence to world opinion sent the message to the world that the US will not fight – this triggered continue terrorist attacksRobert 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, “Acts of War,” Ayn Rand Institute, September 11, 2001, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7384&news_iv_ctrl=1509, UK: Fisher

Our enemies have attacked the very center of our civilization. It is worse than Pearl Harbor. Our enemies have attacked, not a military base far out in the Pacific, but the very center of our civilization: our nation's political capital in Washington and its commercial capital in New York City. The scope of these attacks is not yet clear, but it is estimated that tens of thousands of Americans--most of them civilians--have been murdered. This is not the act of a few isolated terrorists. An attack of this size and scope, an attack carefully timed and coordinated across the country, is the product of a large organization that can only operate with the support and protection of a foreign government. This is not a mere criminal act. It is an act of war. These terrorists have not awakened a sleeping giant. They have attacked a complacent giant, a giant who refused to see, until it was too late, the disastrous consequences of his policies of restraint and appeasement. Americans were seduced by those who advocated a "measured" response and pinprick strikes against terrorists and the countries that support them. We allowed our judgment to be blunted by those who tell us that it is wrong ever to pronounce moral judgment, by those who say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. We cringed before unfavorable "world opinion" as if that were the worst thing we had to fear. When terrorists bombed the World Trade Center the first time, we rounded up a few of the conspirators and put them on trial--while we left the terrorist leaders and their sponsors untouched. When they bombed our embassies in Africa, killing hundreds, we sent off a few Tomahawk missiles, scaling back our attack to avoid any civilian casualties. When they bombed the USS Cole--less than a year ago--we did nothing. And for the past year, as Israel has been under relentless assault by Palestinian terrorists, we urged restraint and demanded that they negotiate with the leader who unleashed those attacks. Terrorists have been at war with the United States for years, and we have sent them a clear, consistent message: We will not fight back. Through our actions, we have assured the terrorists, and the governments that sponsor them, that they will escape retribution. That message was received and acted upon. That message must now be decisively reversed.

13

Page 18: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Would’ve Prevented Wars

Preemptive military action is the best strategy – would’ve prevented the major wars of the 20th centuryWalter Williams, bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles, “Fighting Terrorism and the Case for Pre-emption,” Capitalism Magazine, April 8, 2004, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3596, UK: Fisher

Fighting terrorism as well as rogue dictators requires a policy of pre-emption. During the 1930s, there should have been a pre-emptive strike on Nazi Germany. Had Britain and France had the guts to do that, 60 million lives lost in World War II might have been spared. After World War II, when we held a monopoly on nuclear weapons, we should have told the U.S.S.R. that if it started making nuclear weapons we'd bomb its facilities. We would have avoided Soviet adventurism and trillions of dollars fighting a cold war. Today, we should give axis-of-evil member North Korea notice to destroy its nuclear weapons or we'll do it for them.You might ask, "Williams, are you a warmonger?" No, I'm not, but here's the way I look at it. If you hate my guts and have designs to hurt me, and I see you building a cannon aimed at my house, I am not going to wait for you to finish construction.

14

Page 19: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Peace

Hardline militarism is good – World War II proves that intransigence in battle is critical to winning and assuring future peaceJohn Lewis is a Consulting Editor for The Objective Standard, a journal of culture and politics, “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima,” Capitalism Magazine, April 29, 2006, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4648, UK: Fisher

Yes, Japan was beaten in July of 1945-but had not surrendered. A defeat is a fact; an aggressor's ability to fight effectively is destroyed.Surrender is a decision, by the political leadership and the dominant voices in the culture, to recognize the fact of defeat. Surrender is an admission of impotence, the collapse of all hope for victory, and the permanent renunciation of aggression. Such recognition of reality is the first step towards a return to morality. Under the shock of defeat, a stunned silence results. Military officers no longer plan for victory; women no longer bear children for the Reich; young boys no longer play samurai and dream of dying for the emperor-children no longer memorize sword verses from the Koran and pledge themselves to jihad.To achieve this, the victor must be intransigent . He does not accept terms; he demands prostrate surrender, or death, for everyone if necessary.Had the United States negotiated in 1945, Japanese troops would have returned to a homeland free of foreign control, met by civilians who had not confronted defeat, under the same leaders who had taken them to war. A negotiated peace would have failed to discredit the ideology of war, and would have left the motivations for the next war intact. We might have fought the Japanese Empire again, twenty years later. Fortunately, the Americans were in no mind to compromise.President Truman demonstrated his willingness to bomb the Japanese out of existence if they did not surrender. The Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945 is stark: "The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan . . . Following are our terms.We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay . . . We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces . . . The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."The approach worked brilliantly. After the bombs, the Japanese chose wisely.The method was brutally violent, as it had to be-because the war unleashed by Japan was brutally violent, and only a brutal action could demonstrate its nature. To have shielded Japanese citizens from the meaning of their own actions-the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March-would have been a massive act of dishonesty. It would have left the Japanese unable to reject military aggression the next time it was offered as an elixir of glory.After the war, many returning Japanese troops were welcomed by their countrymen not as heroes, but with derision. The imperial cause was recognized as bankrupt, and the actions of its soldiers worthy of contempt.Forced to confront the reality of what they had done, a sense of morality had returned to Japan.

15

Page 20: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Moral

Militarism is the most moral choice – total victory allows the ending of dictatorships and build-up of peaceful societiesJohn Lewis is a Consulting Editor for The Objective Standard, a journal of culture and politics, “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima,” Capitalism Magazine, April 29, 2006, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4648, UK: Fisher

There can be no higher moral action by a nation than to destroy an aggressive dictatorship, to permanently discredit the enemy's ideology, to stand guard while a replacement is crafted, and then to greet new friends on proper terms. Let those who today march for peace in Germany and Japan admit that their grandparents once marched as passionately for war, and that only total defeat could force them to re-think their place in the world and offer their children something better. Let them thank heaven-the United States-for the bomb.Some did just that. Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief cabinet secretary of Japan, said after the war: "The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by Heaven for Japan to end the war." He wanted to look like a peaceful man-which became a sensible position only after the Americans had won.Okura Kimmochi, president of the Technological Research Mobilization Office, wrote before the surrender: "I think it is better for our country to suffer a total defeat than to win total victory . . . in the case of Japan's total defeat, the armed forces would be abolished, but the Japanese people will rise to the occasion during the next several decades to reform themselves into a truly splendid people . . . the great humiliation [the bomb] is nothing but an admonition administered by Heaven to our country." But let him thank the American people-not heaven-for it was they who made the choice between the morality of life and the morality of death inescapable.Americans should be immensely proud of the bomb. It ended a war that had enslaved a continent to a religious-military ideology of slavery and death.There is no room on earth for this system, its ideas and its advocates.It took a country that values this world to bomb this system into extinction.For the Americans to do so while refusing to sacrifice their own troops to save the lives of enemy civilians was a sublimely moral action. This destroyed the foundations of the war, and allowed the Japanese to rebuild their culture along with their cities, as prosperous inhabitants of the earth. Were it true that total victory today creates new attackers tomorrow, we would now be fighting Japanese suicide bombers, while North Korea-where the American army did not impose its will-would be peaceful and prosperous. The facts are otherwise. The need for total victory over the morality of death has never been clearer.

16

Page 21: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad

Appeasement has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions throughout the twentieth century – numerous examples proveWalter Williams, bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles, “The Appeasement Disease,” Capitalism Magazine, August 25, 2004, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3885, UK: Fisher

President Bush's foreign-policy critics at home and abroad share characteristics and visions that have previously led to worldwide chaos and untold loss of lives. These people believe that negotiation, appeasement and caving in to the demands of vicious totalitarian leaders can produce good-faith behavior. Their vision not only has a long record of failure but devastating consequences. During the late 1930s, France and Britain hoped that allowing Adolf Hitler to annex Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia would satisfy his territorial ambitions. This was after a long string of German violations of the terms of the Versailles Treaty ending World War I. Appeasement didn't work. It was seen as weakness, and it simply emboldened Hitler. At the Yalta Conference, near the end of World War II, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt thought they could appease Josef Stalin by giving away Eastern Europe and making other concessions that ultimately marked the beginning of the nearly half-century Cold War and Soviet/China expansionism. War-weary Westerners hoped that brutal tyrants would act in good faith. Failing to stand up to Stalin resulted in unspeakable atrocities, enslavement and human suffering.Quite interestingly, Western leftist appeasers exempted communist leaders from the harsh criticism directed toward Hitler, even though communist crimes made Hitler's slaughter of 21 million appear almost amateurish. According to Professor R.J. Rummel's research in "Death by Government," from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people , mostly its own citizens. Since 1949, communist China's Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of 35 million of its own citizens.History never exactly repeats itself, but the vision of earlier appeasers was part of the West's vision of how to deal with Saddam Hussein. After devastating defeat in the first Gulf War, Iraq agreed to coalition peace terms. After documents were signed, every effort was made by the Iraqis to frustrate implementation of the terms, particularly U.N. weapons inspections.Western appeasers, most notably Europeans, were quite willing to respond to Saddam Hussein's violation of peace terms in a fashion similar to their earlier counterparts' response to Hitler's violation of the peace terms of the Versailles Treaty. Had Britain or France launched a military attack on Germany between 1934 and 1935, when Hitler started his arms buildup in violation of the Versailles Treaty and before he fully developed his military capability, he would have been defeated and at least 50 million lives would have been spared.

17

Page 22: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary

Offensive military posture is critical to success in the War on Terrorism – their nay saying of military policies is what causes failuresRobert 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

Why does the press systematically ignore America's history of military success, obsessing instead over a few failures? Note that these failures all have the same cause: political restrictions that deprived our soldiers of the tools they needed to win.Take Mogadishu. In the "Black Hawk Down" scenario, the disaster was not caused by the mere downing of a helicopter. It was caused by the Clinton administration's refusal to authorize the use of armor and AC-130 gunships, which would have provided crucial support for our soldiers. The reason? The politicians did not want to appear to be "escalating" our involvement, for fear of sinking into a "quagmire" -- and they were afraid that the use of gunships would cause civilian casualties among the enemy.Does any of this sound familiar? These are the same demands commentators are making on our military today in Afghanistan. Win the war, but don't get involved in fighting on the ground, don't take any casualties, and above all, don't cause any civilian deaths, because that would be bad PR. The press is especially certain about this last point, because they will make sure that any civilian deaths -- an unavoidable by-product of war -- are splashed over the front pages and presented as evidence of American barbarity.Or take the other bogeyman of American military failure: Vietnam. Our military was told that it could not eliminate the source of the enemy's power by invading North Vietnam. Instead, our soldiers were ordered to fight a defensive war of attrition, while we bombed the enemy -- not to destroy his capabilities, but merely to bring him to the bargaining table. Sound familiar? This is the strategy we have helped foist on Israel in its current war with terrorists. This is why, for example, the Israelis bomb empty Palestinian Authority offices, not to kill enemy soldiers or destroy Yasser Arafat's ability to fight, but merely to "pressure" him to return to the "peace process."Similarly, commentators in the press have warned us that we have to fight the War on Terrorism with an eye on world opinion, in consultation with our squeamish European allies and our hostile Arab coalition, that we have to avoid civilian casualties and coddle al-Qaeda prisoners to maintain the "moral high ground." The only kind of war they think it is proper to wage is a restricted, non-lethal, self-effacing conflict.It is no wonder that these same people fear that the war will end in failure. On their terms, it would.

18

Page 23: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now

Gulf War I proves the importance of fully eliminating a military threat when you have the chance – must act decisively in the War on TerrorPejman Yousefzadeh, “Carl von Clausewitz's Advice: Make War, Not Love Against Terrorism,” Capitalism Magazine, August 19, 2002, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1812, UK: Fisher

So how does Clausewitz help us in our current conflict with terrorism? He reminds us that in war, we must be able to utterly and completely defeat and destroy the enemy in order to force the enemy to do our will . In making this point, Clausewitz cites the Napoleonic example, and he also brings his own words to bear on the issue:If the enemy is thrown off balance, he must not be given time to recover. Blow after blow must be struck in the same direction: the victor, in other words, must strike with all his strength... by daring to win all, will one really defeat the enemy. Why is this particular bit of advice important to remember? The answer is that in our recent past, we have not heeded Clausewitz's admonition. While it was seen as wise to end the Persian Gulf War after one hundred hours of ground combat so as to avoid dissipation of the coalition and to help engender a peace process in the Middle East, subsequent events have proven that it would have been better for the administration of President Bush the Elder to push to Baghdad and demand unconditional surrender from Iraq, and the downfall of Saddam Hussein's government. Hindsight is certainly 20/20, and a fair case may be made that in 1991, it made perfect sense not to go beyond the bounds of the UN resolutions authorizing the use of force, but after 11 years, and the death of three thousand people in one day, it should be clear to us that a mortal enemy must not be suffered to remain powerful. Rather, his strength and power must be dissipated and destroyed so that he may no longer pose a threat to American national security.We also failed to heed Clausewitz's admonition during the Clinton Administration--settling for furious yet ineffective cruise missile strikes against terrorist targets after the commission of each horrendous act of terrorism. These attacks failed to impress terrorists in the slightest, let alone destroy them. Instead, they conveyed the message that the United States was not serious about the elimination of the terrorist threat--a message that emboldened terrorists like Osama bin Laden, causing him to launch vicious terrorist operations like the bombing of the USS Cole and the commission of the acts of September 11th. As such, the United States will have to conduct its war on terrorism in a Napoleonic manner-- aiming for as complete a destruction of terrorist forces as possible . This entails ensuring that al-Qaeda no longer has a global reach, and fighting the next Persian Gulf War to total victory over Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime--a victory that would culminate with the end of the regime.

19

Page 24: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary

Current policies fail due to moral weakness – a hardline policy is critical to rooting out Islamic totalitarianism and preventing a comeback of Taliban fightersElan Journo, Senior Writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, “Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan,” Capitalism Magazine, June 6, 2006, http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4691, UK: Fisher

Victory in Afghanistan demanded two things. We had to destroy the Taliban and we had to ensure that a non-threatening, non-Islamic-warrior-breeding regime take its place. But we did not think we had a moral right to do either.Our military was ordered to pursue Taliban fighters only if it simultaneously showed "compassion" to the Afghans. The U.S. military dropped bombs on Afghanistan--but instead of ruthlessly pounding key targets, it was ordered to gingerly avoid hitting holy shrines and mosques (known to be Taliban hideouts) and to shower the country with food packages. The U.S. deployed ground forces--but instead of focusing exclusively on capturing or killing the enemy, they were also diverted to a host of "reconstruction" projects. The result is that the enemy was not destroyed and crushed in spirit, but merely scattered and left with the moral fortitude to regroup and launch a brazen comeback.Even with its hands tied, however, the U.S. military succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime--but Washington subverted that achievement, too.A new Afghan government would be a non-threat to America's interests if it were based on a secular constitution that respects individual rights. The Bush administration, however, declared that we had no right to "impose our beliefs" on the Afghans--and instead endorsed their desire for another regime founded on Ifslamic law. Already this avowedly Islamic regime has jailed an Afghan magazine editor for "blasphemy"; recently, Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity, faced a death sentence for apostasy. The new Afghan regime cannot be counted on to oppose the resurgence of Islamic totalitarianism. Ideologically, it has nothing to say in opposition to the doctrines of the Taliban (two members of the Taliban leadership are in the new government). It is only a matter of time before Afghanistan is once again a haven for anti-American warriors.

20

Page 25: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad

Commitment to militarism is necessary to prevent war, especially in the nuclear age – pacifism has allowed for the Nazis and the Imperial Japan to prosperThomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution, “Pacifism and War,” Jewish World Review, September 24th, 2001, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell092401.asp, UK: Fisher

Pacifists of the 20th century had a lot of blood on their hands for weakening the Western democracies in the face of rising belligerence and military might in aggressor nations like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In Britain during the 1930s, Labor Party members of Parliament voted repeatedly against military spending, while Hitler built up the most powerful military machine in Europe. Students at leading British universities signed pledges to refuse to fight in the event of war.All of this encouraged the Nazis and the Japanese toward war against countries that they knew had greater military potential than their own. Military potential only counts when there is the will to develop it and use it, and the fortitude to continue with a bloody war when it comes. This is what they did not believe the West had. And it was Western pacifists who led them to that belief. Then as now, pacifism was a "statement" about one's ideals that paid little attention to actual consequences. At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm "as an example to others," economist Roy Harrod asked one of the pacifists: "You think our example will cause Hitler and Mussolini to disarm?"The reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?" In other words, the issue was about making a "statement" -- that is, posturing on the edge of a volcano, with World War II threatening to erupt at any time. When disarmament advocate George Bernard Shaw was asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, the playwright replied, "Welcome them as tourists."What a shame our schools and college neglect history, which could save us from continuing to repeat the idiocies of the past, which are even more dangerous now in a nuclear age .

21

Page 26: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Pacifism Bad

Failure in the war on terror means major casualties worldwide – action in the face of threats is critical to preventing another World War IIKhoda Hafez, Department of Peace and Conflict Studies, Dhaka University, June 8th, 2004, ttp://dhaka.usembassy.gov/06.08.04_dhaka_university_peace_not_an_absence_of_war, UK: Fisher

The war against terrorism is an effort to protect from attack both the hard and soft targets – in the United States, in the former Soviet Union, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, in Spain, in Bangladesh, and elsewhere. That is why it is seen as a global war. It is not a war we chose and the engagement is frequently not on our terms. But now that we are in it, we must remain engaged to its successful completion since this is not a war that we can afford to lose . As I mentioned before, like many of you, I am a parent. Like you, I want my daughter to grow up in a safer, saner world than the one we have at the moment. The global war in which we are engaged is not a war about religious or civilizational domination. But it is as real a war as the ones formerly fought on conventional battlefields between standing armies. In waging this war, terrorists consider it a triumph if they can produce major casualties such as occurred with the death of 3,000 people from more than 80 nationalities on September 11, 2001, including more than 20 Bangladeshis, or the attack on railway facilities in Madrid resulting in the loss of more than 180 lives on March 11 of this year. Those concerned with issues of war and peace -– and that is all of us -- cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while this war is being waged. We know from the lead-up to World War II that good people cannot sit by idly while evil is being planned and perpetrated. We cannot afford to be passive and we cannot afford to be merely reactive.

22

Page 27: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Hardline Necessary

Their argument ignored reality and emphasizes fantasy – utilization of arms is necessary to bringing an end to fighting, ensuring peace in the long term – restraint invites violenceVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “Kill the Insurgents - Stop Talking,” The New Republic, June 2, 2004, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson060204.html, UK: Fisher

Most of the time in war, diplomatic machinations don't create enduring realities--events on the battlefield do. After World War I, the defeated, but not humiliated, German army that surrendered in France and Belgium provided the origins for the "stab in the back" mythology that fueled Hitler's rise to power. After World War II, by contrast, the shattered and shamed Wehrmacht in Berlin was unable to energize a Fourth Reich. George S. Patton, snarling to head for Berlin and beyond in 1945, grasped the importance of "the unforgiving minute," when military audacity can establish a fait accompli on the ground that diplomats quibble over for decades. His unfulfilled wish to take Prague meant a blank check for a late-arriving Red Army that would help ensure a half-century of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe. The labyrinth of failed plans and bad-faith deals in the Balkans led nowhere until the U.S. Air Force secured in 79 days in 1999 the capitulation of Slobodan Milosevic--the chief foreign policy achievement of the Clinton administration. Suicide bombing failed to bring Yasir Arafat what he could not obtain at Camp David only because of the skill and ingenuity of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which--through a multifaceted strategy of border fortification, proactive attacks, targeted air assassinations, and increased intelligence and vigilance--drastically curtailed the efficacy of the tactic. Arafat today is a marginalized figure not because of a belated European perception that he is corrupt and murderous, but because he was first reduced to a humiliated lord of a rubble pile--thanks to the IDF.

In our current postmodern world, we tend to deprecate the efficacy of arms , trusting instead that wise and reasonable people can adjudicate the situation on the ground according to Enlightenment principles of diplomacy and reason. But thugs like Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army and Saddam Hussein's remnant killers beg to differ. They may eventually submit to a fair and honest brokered peace--but only when the alternative is an Abrams tank or Cobra gunship, rather than a stern rebuke from L. Paul Bremer. More important, neutrals and well-meaning moderates in Iraq often put their ideological preferences on hold as they wait to see who will, in fact, win. The promise of consensual government, gender equality, and the rule of law may indeed save the Iraqi people and improve our own security--but only when those who wish none of it learn that trying to stop it will get them killed.A year ago, we waged a brilliant three-week campaign, then mysteriously forgot the source of our success. Military audacity, lethality, unpredictability, imperviousness to cheap criticism, and iron resolve, coupled with the message of freedom, convinced neutrals to join us and enemies not yet conquered to remain in the shadows. But our failure to shoot looters, to arrest early insurrectionists like Sadr, and to subdue cities like Tikrit or Falluja only earned us contempt--and not just from those who would kill us, but from others who would have joined us as well.The misplaced restraint of the past year is not true morality, but a sort of weird immorality that seeks to avoid ethical censure in the short term--the ever-present, 24-hour pulpit of global television that inflates a half-dozen inadvertent civilian casualties into Dresden and Hiroshima. But, in the long term, such complacency has left more moderate Iraqis to be targeted by ever more emboldened murderers. For their part, American troops have discovered that they are safer on the assault when they can fire first and kill killers, rather than simply patrol and react, hoping their newly armored Humvees and fortified flak vests will deflect projectiles.

23

Page 28: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – A2 End WOT Now

Ending the War on Terror now is an awful idea – hardline is necessary to preventing a slide back to geopolitical uncertaintyVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “Kill the Insurgents - Stop Talking,” The New Republic, June 2, 2004, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson060204.html, UK: Fisher

By contrast, hesitation and uncertainty would propel the sequence of events into reverse . If the humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975 helped create the landscape for the boat-people, reeducation camps, the Cambodian holocaust, the takeover of the Tehran Embassy, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Russian-sponsored insurrection in Central America, and a decade-long demoralization at home, so, in the same way, our momentum thus far has curtailed the Libyan weapons program, brought revelations of nuclear mischief from Dr. A.Q. Khan, and put Iran and Syria under scrutiny--a volcanic, not a static, situation that can as easily deteriorate as improve. The hard truth is that grand diplomacy and geopolitical calculus depend on the lethality of a few thousand American fighters in the streets of Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf. The more lethal they are today , the safer Iraqis and Americans will be in the years to come .

24

Page 29: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Appeasement Bad

Hardline militarism is critical to saving millions of lives – appeasement historically failsVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “The Fruits of Appeasement,” City Journal, Spring 2004, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hansonSpr04.html, UK: Fisher

The twentieth century should have taught the citizens of liberal democracies the catastrophic consequences of placating tyrants. British and French restraint over the occupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the absorption of the Czech Sudetenland, and the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia did not win gratitude but rather Hitler's contempt for their weakness. Fifty million dead, the Holocaust, and the near destruction of European civilization were the wages of "appeasement "—a term that early-1930s liberals proudly embraced as far more enlightened than the old idea of "deterrence" and "military readiness."So too did Western excuses for the Russians' violation of guarantees of free elections in postwar Eastern Europe, China, and Southeast Asia only embolden the Soviet Union. What eventually contained Stalinism was the Truman Doctrine, NATO, and nuclear deterrence—not the United Nations—and what destroyed its legacy was Ronald Reagan's assertiveness, not Jimmy Carter's accommodation or Richard Nixon's détente.As long ago as the fourth century B.C., Demosthenes warned how complacency and self-delusion among an affluent and free Athenian people allowed a Macedonian thug like Philip II to end some four centuries of Greek liberty—and in a mere 20 years of creeping aggrandizement down the Greek peninsula. Thereafter, these historical lessons should have been clear to citizens of any liberal society: we must neither presume that comfort and security are our birthrights and are guaranteed without constant sacrifice and vigilance, nor expect that peoples outside the purview of bourgeois liberalism share our commitment to reason, tolerance, and enlightened self-interest.Most important, military deterrence and the willingness to use force against evil in its infancy usually end up, in the terrible arithmetic of war, saving more lives than they cost . All this can be a hard lesson to relearn each generation, especially now that we contend with the sirens of the mall, Oprah, and latte. Our affluence and leisure are as antithetical to the use of force as rural life and relative poverty once were catalysts for muscular action. The age-old lure of appeasement—perhaps they will cease with this latest concession, perhaps we provoked our enemies, perhaps demonstrations of our future good intentions will win their approval—was never more evident than in the recent Spanish elections, when an affluent European electorate, reeling from the horrific terrorist attack of 3/11, swept from power the pro-U.S. center-right government on the grounds that the mass murders were more the fault of the United States for dragging Spain into the effort to remove fascists and implant democracy in Iraq than of the primordial al-Qaedist culprits, who long ago promised the Western and Christian Iberians ruin for the Crusades and the Reconquista.

25

Page 30: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (1/2)

Their kritik of terrorism ties-down the United States – preventing the action necessary to save livesVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “The Fruits of Appeasement,” City Journal, Spring 2004, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hansonSpr04.html, UK: Fisher

Rather than springing from realpolitik, sloth, or fear of oil cutoffs, much of our appeasement of Middle Eastern terrorists derived from a new sort of anti-Americanism that thrived in the growing therapeutic society of the 1980s and 1990s. Though the abrupt collapse of communism was a dilemma for the Left, it opened as many doors as it shut. To be sure, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, few Marxists could argue for a state-controlled economy or mouth the old romance about a workers' paradise—not with scenes of East German families crammed into smoking clunkers lumbering over potholed roads, like American pioneers of old on their way west. But if the creed of the socialist republics was impossible to take seriously in either economic or political terms, such a collapse of doctrinaire statism did not discredit the gospel of forced egalitarianism and resentment against prosperous capitalists. Far from it.If Marx receded from economics departments, his spirit reemerged among our intelligentsia in the novel guises of post-structuralism, new historicism, multiculturalism, and all the other dogmas whose fundamental tenet was that white male capitalists had systematically oppressed women, minorities, and Third World people in countless insidious ways. The font of that collective oppression, both at home and abroad, was the rich, corporate, Republican, and white United States.The fall of the Soviet Union enhanced these newer post-colonial and liberation fields of study by immunizing their promulgators from charges of fellow-traveling or being dupes of Russian expansionism. Communism’s demise likewise freed these trendy ideologies from having to offer some wooden, unworkable Marxist alternative to the West; thus they could happily remain entirely critical, sarcastic, and cynical without any obligation to suggest something better, as witness the nihilist signs at recent protest marches proclaiming: “I Love Iraq, Bomb Texas.”From writers like Arundhati Roy and Michel Foucault (who anointed Khomeini “a kind of mystic saint” who would usher in a new “political spirituality” that would “transfigure” the world) and from old standbys like Frantz Fanon and Jean-Paul Sartre (“to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time”), there filtered down a vague notion that the United States and the West in general were responsible for Third World misery in ways that transcended the dull old class struggle. Endemic racism and the legacy of colonialism, the oppressive multinational corporation and the humiliation and erosion of indigenous culture brought on by globalization and a smug, self-important cultural condescension—all this and more explained poverty and despair, whether in Damascus, Teheran, or Beirut.There was victim status for everybody, from gender, race, and class at home to colonialism, imperialism, and hegemony abroad. Anyone could play in these “area studies” that cobbled together the barrio, the West Bank, and the “freedom fighter” into some sloppy global union of the oppressed—a far hipper enterprise than rehashing Das Kapital or listening to a six-hour harangue from Fidel.Of course, pampered Western intellectuals since Diderot have always dreamed up a “noble savage,” who lived in harmony with nature precisely because of his distance from the corruption of Western civilization. But now this fuzzy romanticism had an updated, political edge: the bearded killer and wild-eyed savage were not merely better than we because they lived apart in a pre-modern landscape. No: they had a right to strike back and kill modernizing Westerners who had intruded into and disrupted their better world—whether Jews on Temple Mount, women in Westernized dress in Teheran, Christian missionaries in Kabul, capitalist profiteers in Islamabad, whiskey-drinking oilmen in Riyadh, or miniskirted tourists in Cairo.An Ayatollah Khomeini who turned back the clock on female emancipation in Iran, who murdered non-Muslims, and who refashioned Iranian state policy to hunt down, torture, and kill liberals nevertheless seemed to liberal Western eyes as preferable to the Shah—a Western-supported anti-communist, after all, who was engaged in the messy, often corrupt task of bringing Iran from the tenth to the twentieth century, down the arduous, dangerous path that, as in Taiwan or South Korea, might eventually lead to a consensual, capitalist society like our own. [Continues…No Text Removed]

26

Page 31: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Kritik Bad (2/2)

[Continued…No Text Removed]Yet in the new world of utopian multiculturalism and knee-jerk anti-Americanism, in which a Noam Chomsky could proclaim Khomeini’s gulag to be “independent nationalism,” reasoned argument was futile. Indeed, how could critical debate arise for those “committed to social change,” when no universal standards were to be applied to those outside the West? Thanks to the doctrine of cultural relativism, “oppressed” peoples either could not be judged by our biased and “constructed” values (“false universals,” in Edward Said’s infamous term) or were seen as more pristine than ourselves, uncorrupted by the evils of Western capitalism.Who were we to gainsay Khomeini’s butchery and oppression? We had no way of understanding the nuances of his new liberationist and “nationalist” Islam. Now back in the hands of indigenous peoples, Iran might offer the world an alternate path, a different “discourse” about how to organize a society that emphasized native values (of some sort) over mere profit.So at precisely the time of these increasingly frequent terrorist attacks, the silly gospel of multiculturalism insisted that Westerners have neither earned the right to censure others, nor do they possess the intellectual tools to make judgments about the relative value of different cultures. And if the initial wave of multiculturalist relativism among the elites—coupled with the age-old romantic forbearance for Third World roguery—explained tolerance for early unpunished attacks on Americans, its spread to our popular culture only encouraged more.This nonjudgmentalism—essentially a form of nihilism—deemed everything from Sudanese female circumcision to honor killings on the West Bank merely “different” rather than odious. Anyone who has taught freshmen at a state university can sense the fuzzy thinking of our undergraduates: most come to us prepped in high schools not to make “value judgments” about “other” peoples who are often “victims” of American "oppression." Thus, before female-hating psychopath Mohamed Atta piloted a jet into the World Trade Center, neither Western intellectuals nor their students would have taken him to task for what he said or condemned him as hypocritical for his parasitical existence on Western society. Instead, without logic but with plenty of romance, they would more likely have excused him as a victim of globalization or of the biases of American foreign policy. They would have deconstructed Atta's promotion of anti-Semitic, misogynist, Western-hating thought, as well as his conspiracies with Third World criminals, as anything but a danger and a pathology to be remedied by deportation or incarceration.

27

Page 32: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Killing Necessary

Killing the enemy in the short term is critical to winning the war in the long-termRalph Peters, Retired Army officer, “In Praise of Attrition,” Parameters, Summer 2004, p. 24-32, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04summer/peters.htm, UK: Fisher

It cannot be repeated often enough: Whatever else you aim to do in wartime, never lose your focus on killing the enemy.A number of the problems we have faced in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom arose because we tried to moderate the amount of destruction we inflicted on the Iraqi military. The only result was the rise of an Iraqi Dolchstosslegende, the notion that they weren’t really defeated, but betrayed. Combined with insufficient numbers of Coalition troops to blanket the country—especially the Sunni triangle—in the weeks immediately following the toppling of the regime, crucial portions of the population never really felt America’s power.It is not enough to materially defeat your enemy. You must convince your enemy that he has been defeated. You cannot do that by bombing empty buildings. You must be willing to kill in the short term to save lives and foster peace in the long term.This essay does not suppose that warfare is simple: “Just go out and kill ’em.” Of course, incisive attacks on command networks and control capabilities, well-considered psychological operations, and humane treatment of civilians and prisoners matter profoundly, along with many other complex factors. But at a time when huckster contractors and “experts” who never served in uniform prophesize bloodless wars and sterile victories through technology, it’s essential that those who actually must fight our nation’s wars not succumb to the facile theories or shimmering vocabulary of those who wish to explain war to our soldiers from comfortable offices.It is not a matter of whether attrition is good or bad. It’s necessary. Only the shedding of their blood defeats resolute enemies. Especially in our struggle with God-obsessed terrorists—the most implacable enemies our nation has ever faced—there is no economical solution. Unquestionably, our long-term strategy must include a wide range of efforts to do what we, as outsiders, can to address the environmental conditions in which terrorism arises and thrives (often disappointingly little—it’s a self-help world). But, for now, all we can do is to impress our enemies, our allies, and all the populations in between that we are winning and will continue to win.The only way to do that is through killing.

28

Page 33: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Violence Solves Evil

Violence is necessary to stop greater evilsJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

Now, in situations in which the bully can be overcome by violence and non-violence is hopeless, non-violence can amount to a kind of self-righteous passivity. That is, I may preserve my own sense of moral purity by adhering to non-violence, but it is sometimes far from clear that I am actually doing good. In such cases fighting is not an aggressive effort to destroy the bully, but an assertive attempt to stop the bully from bullying. World War II was ultimately that kind of moral struggle -- neither Germany nor Japan was destroyed -- they were merely forced to surrender. Now they are among the most economically powerful nations in the world. (One difference between aggressive and assertive use of military power is how you treat your opponents when you win.)So, I think it is consistent for me to save the bee and to stand up to the bully. After all, if the bee's life is worth something, so is mine, and so is that of the bully. On the international level nuclear weapons are the horrifying alternative to such assertive valuing of life. Their potential for raising the violence of World Wars to universally unacceptable levels has prevented nations, including my own, from starting one for nearly fifty years. Pax Nucleus. Dangerous, but better than another World War. And an expression of our human nature.[7]

29

Page 34: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good - Pacifism Bad (1/2)

Pacifism fails – there are individuals that enjoy inflicting violence on others – the only way to save lives is with forceDavid C. Stolinsky, “The Ugly Side of Pacifism,” October 10, 2001, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/544427/posts, UK: Fisher

Recently, however, a third variety of pacifist has appeared. They hold that though all violence is wrong, defensive violence is actually worse that aggressive violence. Instead of being passive bystanders in humanity’s struggles, these pacifists are forced by this bizarre belief to become active participants — but on the wrong side. Consider: * It is "gun control" to further restrict law-abiding citizens from buying guns, but somehow it is not "gun control" to jail armed criminals. * Opponents of capital punishment are often supporters of euthanasia and abortion-on-demand up to the ninth month of pregnancy. That is, the state’s killing convicted murderers is wrong, but doctors’ killing innocent fetuses or patients is laudable. * The murder of innocent people, even babies, results in efforts to "understand," but let someone shoot a would-be rapist or murderer, and there is prompt condemnation. * When citizens, particularly teen-agers, use a weapon to defend themselves from armed criminals, pacifists often protest, "How did the kid get access to a gun?" The armed attack didn’t upset them, but the armed defense did. * After the 1992 Los Angeles riot, journalists repeatedly told us to "understand the rage." But Korean merchants who had to defend their lives and stores were called "vigilantes." There was no effort to understand them, much less sympathize with them. * Rules were enacted to prevent the CIA from hiring informants who had records of crimes or civil-rights violations. But how can Boy Scouts infiltrate terrorist or criminal gangs? Being defended by minor criminals outraged the purists’ sensibilities, but the prospect of being attacked by major terrorists didn’t disturb them. * The military has been made "kinder and gentler" as well as smaller, though it still troubles pacifists. But the fear that it has also been made less effective appears not to trouble them. And if our military is less effective, who will keep the peace? * Opponents of a missile-defense system object strenuously that our ability to stop incoming missiles will only make things worse. Yet they object less vehemently, or not at all, when terrorist states such as Iraq and North Korea develop biologic, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction don’t scare them, but the possibility of

blocking them does. * Even the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon evoke only sadness, while suggestions that we eliminate the terrorists bring forth strong objections, often with the question, "What would Gandhi advise?"Gandhi was a great man, but we know of him only because he was fortunate enough to use his nonviolent methods against the British. Had he tried them on a more brutal foe, he would have wound up in a forgotten grave. Indeed, Gandhi advised the Jews not to resist the Nazis — perhaps the worst advice in history. Pacifists must choose their opponents with care.Pacifists narcissistically assume everyone is like them, open to reason. They lack the imagination to see that some people do not use violence as a last resort, when other methods fail, but enjoy violence — revel in it. They cannot imagine that there are people who enjoy killing, and even some who look forward to dying themselves if enough "others" die also.Many pacifists are zealous in protecting criminals’ rights, but they forget the rights of victims. Some time ago, a black store owner was robbed at gunpoint. He identified the robber, who threatened to kill him. The store owner applied for a gun permit but was denied. Later he used an unregistered gun to shoot the robber, who had been released from jail and tried to carry out his threat. The store owner was given a year in jail. Sympathy was used up on the robber — none was left for the store owner.The word "peacemaker" has two basic meanings. The first refers to one who tries to calm hostility. The second refers to the Colt .45 revolver, which may be required if the first approach fails. Both types of peacemaker are needed to keep peace in the world.Pacifists declare, "All life is precious," but what does this mean? I have seen the police photographing a corpse on a sidewalk, and two coyotes tearing apart a cat on a Los Angeles street. Every year coyotes kill many pets and occasionally attack a child, yet hunting or trapping them is illegal. In practice, "all life is precious" means that the life of a murderer is more precious than that of his victim, and the life of a coyote is more precious than that of a cat or dog. Pacifists stand aside in self-satisfied neutrality while predators roam free.Pacifism is a luxury. Like golf, it can be enjoyed by a fortunate few, while most of us face a harsher reality. Pacifists often live in safe suburbs or gated communities, so they cannot understand why anyone feels the need for self-defense. They rarely work or live in high-crime areas, as do many poor people and minorities. They need not dirty their hands with weapons; gun oil has a pleasant smell with which they are unfamiliar. They depend on the police and military to keep them safe — and then look down with contempt on their protectors, while cutting their funding and hampering them with unrealistic rules.[Continues…No Text Removed]

30

Page 35: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good - Pacifism Bad (2/2)

[Continued…No Text Removed]As has been said, it doesn’t matter how many resolutions the sheep pass in favor of vegetarianism; the only thing that matters is whether the wolves are hungry. The world is full of hungry wolves. Sheep are too stupid to know this, so sheepdogs protect them. But what if the sheep were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs, because the growls disturbed their peaceful slumbers?Rather than a coherent philosophy of nonviolence and peacemaking, today’s pacifism is merely apathy and cowardice in fancy clothes:* "Give peace a chance." To do what? Allow more thousands of innocents to be slaughtered, while we stand aside feeling superior? Is that peace? * "Let’s sit down and talk." About what? How to identify body parts? * "There is another way." What, specifically? * "Stop the cycle of violence." What cycle? We did nothing after a hole was blown in the USS Cole and 17 sailors were killed. What good did our restraint do? * "Violence never settles anything." Really? What about World War II? * "We aren’t perfect." Neither is anyone. But this does not justify blaming the victims, and it does not excuse us from our duty. Horrific as the Twin Towers atrocity was, it cannot obliterate the memory of the other 18,000 or so Americans who will be murdered this year. Violent death, crime and terrorism are realities we have been forced to face. We can no longer pretend that only others are at risk — others who live or work in "bad" parts of town.

We have been forced to face the fact that all parts of town, and of the world, can be "bad." There are people who want to see us dead. They don’t envy our free elections, free speech, religious pluralism, or women’s rights; they hate us because of these freedoms. They don’t want to take what we have; they spit on it. They don’t want to hijack our plane; they want to crash it. They want us dead. Not just soldiers. Men, women, and children. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, atheists and even Muslims who disagree with their totalitarian agenda. All of us.

31

Page 36: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Violence Key to Solve Terrorism

Violence is necessary to solve terrorismRalph Peters, Retired Army officer, “In Praise of Attrition,” Parameters, Summer 2004, p. 24-32, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04summer/peters.htm, UK: Fisher

Our military, and especially our Army, has come a long way. But we’re still in recovery—almost through our Cold War hangover, but still too vulnerable to the nonsense concocted by desk-bound theoreticians. Evaluating lessons learned in Iraq, a recent draft study for a major joint command spoke of the need for “discourses” between commanders at various levels and their staffs.Trust me. We don’t need discourses. We need plain talk, honest answers, and the will to close with the enemy and kill him. And to keep on killing him until it is unmistakably clear to the entire world who won. When military officers start speaking in academic gobbledygook, it means they have nothing to contribute to the effectiveness of our forces. They badly need an assignment to Fallujah.Consider our enemies in the War on Terror. Men who believe, literally, that they are on a mission from God to destroy your civilization and who regard death as a promotion are not impressed by elegant maneuvers. You must find them, no matter how long it takes, then kill them. If they surrender, you must accord them their rights under the laws of war and international conventions. But, as we have learned so painfully from all the mindless, left-wing nonsense spouted about the prisoners at Guantanamo, you are much better off killing them before they have a chance to surrender.We have heard no end of blather about network-centric warfare, to the great profit of defense contractors. If you want to see a superb—and cheap—example of “net-war,” look at al Qaeda. The mere possession of technology does not ensure that it will be used effectively. And effectiveness is what matters.It isn’t a question of whether or not we want to fight a war of attrition against religion-fueled terrorists. We’re in a war of attrition with them. We have no realistic choice. Indeed, our enemies are, in some respects, better suited to both global and local wars of maneuver than we are. They have a world in which to hide, and the world is full of targets for them. They do not heed laws or boundaries. They make and observe no treaties. They do not expect the approval of the United Nations Security Council. They do not face election cycles. And their weapons are largely provided by our own societies.We have the technical capabilities to deploy globally, but, for now, we are forced to watch as Pakistani forces fumble efforts to surround and destroy concentrations of terrorists; we cannot enter any country (except, temporarily, Iraq) without the permission of its government. We have many tools—military, diplomatic, economic, cultural, law enforcement, and so on—but we have less freedom of maneuver than our enemies.But we do have superior killing power, once our enemies have been located. Ultimately, the key advantage of a superpower is super power. Faced with implacable enemies who would kill every man, woman, and child in our country and call the killing good (the ultimate war of attrition), we must be willing to use that power wisely, but remorselessly.We are, militarily and nationally, in a transition phase. Even after 9/11, we do not fully appreciate the cruelty and determination of our enemies. We will learn our lesson, painfully, because the terrorists will not quit. The only solution is to kill them and keep on killing them: a war of attrition. But a war of attrition fought on our terms, not theirs.Of course, we shall hear no end of fatuous arguments to the effect that we can’t kill our way out of the problem. Well, until a better methodology is discovered, killing every terrorist we can find is a good interim solution. The truth is that even if you can’t kill yourself out of the problem, you can make the problem a great deal smaller by effective targeting.

32

Page 37: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Terrorism

Commitment to using overwhelming military force is critical to ending terrorismVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “War Will Be War: No matter the era, no matter the weapons, the same old hell,” National Review Magazine, May 6, 2002, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson050602.html, UK: Fisher

War is eternal. It is part of the human condition; it is, as Heraclitus wrote, "the father of us all." This is the first thing we must remember whenever discussion turns to "revolutions in military affairs." Some things will change, but the underlying laws and lessons that have shown themselves over millennia of warfare remain true about wars today -- and wars tomorrow.One of these key truths is that culture largely determines how people fight. The degree to which a society embraces freedom, secular rationalism, consensual government, and capitalism often determines -- far more than its geography, climate, or population -- whether its armies will be successful over the long term. Israel today is surrounded by a half-billion Middle Eastern Muslims -- and has little to fear from their conventional militaries. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have some of the most sophisticated weapons in the world; Saddam Hussein's Iraq still fields one of the largest armies; Iran boasts of spirited and fiery warriors. Israel -- not to mention the United States -- could vanquish them all. This appraisal is simply a statement of fafact; it is neither triumphalist nor ethnocentric. It recognizes that if -- for example -- Iraq were to democratize, establish a Western system of free speech and inquiry, and embrace capitalism, then Iraq too, like Taiwan or South Korea, might well produce a military as good as Israel's.Another key truth is that overwhelming force wins. Much has been made of the latest epidemic of terror and suicide bombing -- as if hijackers with tiny budgets could overcome opponents who spend trillions on defense. But history proves otherwise: Frightful terrorists such as the Jewish sicarii of Roman times, the ecorcheurs of the Hundred Years' War, and the Mahdi's dervishes in 19th-century Sudan usually petered out when they were faced with an overwhelming military force that was fighting for attractive ideas. Guerrillas, after all, require money, modern weapons, and bases in countries with friendly governments. Superpowers -- such as imperial Rome and contemporary America -- have the wherewithal to deny the terrorists access to much of this necessary support. September 11 revealed the complacency and carelessness of a democratic and affluent United States; but the relative absence of follow-up attacks -- as America systematically eradicates al-Qaeda 7,000 miles away from its shores -- suggests that a powerful state can more than handle stateless terrorists.

33

Page 38: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – War Inevitable Despite Alternative

War will never go away - their kritik risks the death of millions as they de-emphasize the importance of the military in keeping peace Victor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “War Will Be War: No matter the era, no matter the weapons, the same old hell,” National Review Magazine, May 6, 2002, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson050602.html, UK: Fisher

The first such reality is that war will not be outlawed or made obsolete. This idea is a spasm of utopian thinking on the part of elites; its only result is to get millions of less educated and less affluent innocents killed. War cannot be eliminated entirely, only avoided by deterrence. "He who wishes peace should prepare for war," runs the ancient wisdom -- and it remains true today. When America had a "Department of War," no more Americans were killed overseas than in the period after its name was changed to the less bellicose "Department of Defense" -- reminding us that we can repackage and rename conflict through euphemism and good intentions, but never really alter its brutal essence.

34

Page 39: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Must Uphold American Values

Commitment to the preservation of American values is critical to our safety – weakened faith in ourselves risks future terrorist attacksVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “War Will Be War: No matter the era, no matter the weapons, the same old hell,” National Review Magazine, May 6, 2002, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson050602.html, UK: Fisher

The second key reality is that war is not merely a material struggle, but more often a referendum on the spirit. No nation has ever survived once its citizenry ceased to believe that its culture was worth saving. Themistocles' Athens beat back hundreds of thousands of Persians; yet little more than a century later Demosthenes addressed an Athens that had become far wealthier -- and could not marshal a far larger population to repulse a few thousand Macedonians. Rome was larger, far more populous, and wealthier in A.D. 400 than in 146 B.C. -- but far more unsure about what it meant to be a Roman, and confused about whether being Roman was better than, or merely different from, being German or Persian. France, which stopped the Germans at Verdun, a quarter-century later let them romp through the Ardennes in six weeks. The more complex, expensive, and lethal our weapons become, the more we must remember that they are still just tools, whose effectiveness depends on the discipline, training, and spirit of their users.If the United States continues to believe that its culture is not only different from, but better than, those of the rest of the world -- and if it believes that its own past pathologies were symptoms of the universal weaknesses of men, rather than lasting indictments of our civilization -- we will remain as strong as we were during the wars of the 20th century. In contrast, if we ever come to believe that we are too healthy, too sophisticated, and too enlightened ever to risk our safety in something as primitive as war , then all the most sophisticated weapons of the 21st century will not save us when our hour of peril comes. And, as September 11 reminds us, that hour most surely will come.

35

Page 40: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Moral Certainty Key to WOT

Moral certainty is critical to an effective war on terrorism – lack of moral confidence breeds failureDr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, holds a B.Sc. in civil engineering and an MBA and Ph.D. in finance from the University of Texas at Austin, and Elan Journo is a senior writer for ARI, “The Timid War on Terrorism,” The Ayn Rand Institute, September 4, 2003 http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7877, UK: Fisher

To defend American lives properly, we should target not terrorism, a tactic, but militant Islam, the ideology that motivates the terrorists. But we have been flailing in unpredictable directions, unsure of where to go next, because the war lacks a clear purpose. Why? The Bush Administration lacks moral confidence. At every turn we blushingly pretended that we are fighting to liberate the oppressed Afghans or tyrannized Iraqis--anything but confess what we should proclaim loudly: that we value and seek to protect American lives . Facing the prospect of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Administration quailed. It should have asserted that, though such casualties are regrettable, they are the responsibility of the regime that initiated force against us. Instead, America was guilt-ridden, apologetic and appeasing. We are not winning the war, but we could be. Our Founding Fathers did not have even one hundredth of America's present military power, but they were armed with the conviction that political freedom is an ideal worth fighting for. Their moral certainty gave them the courage necessary to fight for their independence from England, the 18th century's lone superpower. We are at war with militant Islamists who lust for our annihilation. Our survival depends, not only on having a more powerful military, but on the courage to use our might--to act on what is morally proper--to act on our urgent need of ferocious self-defense.

36

Page 41: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Peace/Societal Reconstruction

Commitment to militarism and a willingness to kill is critical to defeating the enemy – only way to ensure peace in the long-termVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “Postmodern War,” City Journal, February 8, 2005, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson020805.html, UK: Fisher

Victory always sways the heart even of the most ardent pacifist, just as defeat and humiliation erode the will of the most zealous hawk—although it is hard to confess that most humans still think with the most primitive part of their brains. Amid all the glitter of contemporary culture and technology, the will to fight for victory remains crucial to battlefield success, an odious thought for us postmodern children of the Enlightenment, who feel we should be exempt—as too wealthy, educated, or sophisticated—ever to have to descend to the primeval swamp to destroy bin Ladin and his ilk to ensure our survival. But bin Ladin’s October infomercial mentioned truces and respites, not out of tender concern for the West, but because bin Ladin is beginning to feel, like al-Sadr, that he is going to lose.Modern Western man is faced with this awful dilemma, from which he recoils: real peace and successful reconstruction are in direct proportion to the degree that an enemy is humiliatingly defeated and so acknowledges it—the aim being that he will come to feel that he cannot go on being what he has been. To that end, absolute victory may encompass everything from Hiroshima to bombing downtown Belgrade as the price for tranquillity and a democratic and humane postbellum Japan and the Balkans. Not finishing off a defeated Republican Guard in 1991 or sparing looters in April 2003 or breaking off the siege of Fallujah in April 2004 only ensures that more corpses will pile up later . President Bush’s so-called Axis of Evil in 2002—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—all had in common unfinished business with the U.S. military that had led to a bellum interruptum of sorts. In contrast, the Grenada communists, Noriega, Milošević , and the Taliban were all defeated, and only after that were their societies rebuilt—and thus Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan now do not belong to the axis of anything. Perhaps for all the debate over how to fight irregular wars in an age of global terrorism, we would do best to recall the realistic, if inelegant, words of the owner of the Oakland Raiders, the infamous Al Davis: “Just win, baby.”

37

Page 42: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – A2 WOT Is Indefinite

Decisive military actions against enemies will end terrorism – the war is only indefinite in a world in which we become weakVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy, one war, one outcome,” National Review Online, February 21, 2003, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson022103.html, UK: Fisher

The jailing of al Qaeda, the end of the Taliban, and the destruction of Saddam's clique will convince the Arab world that it is not wise or safe to practice jihad as it has been practiced since 1979. Killing American diplomats, blowing up Marines in their sleep, flattening embassies, attacking warships, and toppling buildings will not only not work but bring on a war so terrible that the very thought of the consequences from another 9/11 would be too horrific to contemplate.Taking on all at once Germany, Japan, and Italy — diverse enemies all — did not require the weeding out of all the fascists and their supporters in Mexico, Argentina, Eastern Europe, and the Arab world. Instead, those in jackboots and armbands worldwide quietly stowed all their emblems away as organized fascism died on the vine once the roots were torn out in Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo. So too will the terrorists, once their sanctuaries and capital shrivel up — as is happening as we speak.

38

Page 43: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Annihilation Good/Appeasement Bad

Annihilation of the enemy is critical – failure risks terrorism and violence – history is on our sideVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “The Paradoxes of American Military Power: Strange new guidelines about the way we fight,” National Review Online, November 17, 2003, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson111703.html, UK: Fisher

Why? Because we are in a war that is not quite a war, but has an array of baffling rules all its own that we are only slowly grasping.The unforgiving minute. Of course, well before our pass on storming Baghdad in 1991, it was true that the failure to destroy a doomed enemy could later prove near disastrous for a victorious force. Witness the German pause outside Dunkirk when a trapped British Expeditionary Army escaped to England largely intact, or the Allied laxity in closing completely the Falaise Gap in summer 1944 that allowed thousands of Germans to escape, regroup, and attack six months later in the Bulge.Yet the conditions of the new warfare — instant and televised global media exposure, wide-scale pacifism, and postbellum terrorism — have made the need to destroy a reeling enemy before the shooting stops more critical than ever before. Conflicts proper — the period in which belligerents freely attack one another in conventional fighting — are now often brief, indeed more a matter of days or weeks than of months or years. And these windows of war per se constitute about the only time that Western forces are given transitory leeway to use their overwhelming military preponderance — without worries of censure — to finish off quite odious enemies.Yet a false sense of morality, public-relations worries over gruesome images televised into the world's living rooms, and the sheer arrogance engendered by rapid victory sometimes have stopped the full exercise of American power that would finish the job. The so-called "highway of death" of 1991 was not quite the massacre promulgated by the media, but the subsequent (and mostly unreported) butchery in Basra and Kurdistan most surely was — and was brought on by the cessation of American bombs that allowed thousands of Iraqi killers to flee and then regroup to kill.The failure to annihilate the doomed Taliban and al Qaeda in Tora Bora meant that many terrorists fled to Pakistan and are now shooting their way back into Afghanistan. The inability to blast through the Sunni Triangle from the north in the first days of the war meant that Baathists surrendered rather than were killed or defeated — and now are shooting at soldiers of whom they would have been terrified a few months when the full array of American firepower might have been brought to bear.This rule of postmodern war? Before the cameras, the auditors, and the UN converge, before terrified fleeing soldiers are reborn as emboldened terrorists, before embedded reporters leave and investigative journalists arrive, and before victorious and unapologetic soldiers are asked to be peacekeepers, sociologists, and humanitarians, the military must finish the destruction of enemy forces in the unforgiving minute . After all, a colonel who blows apart an Iraqi Baathist in April might win a medal, but if in October he shoots a round off near a terrorist suspect's head to save the lives of his men, he can expect a court martial.

39

Page 44: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Militarism Good – Critical to Public Support

Decisive, offensive actions are critical to sustaining public support of the warVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “The Paradoxes of American Military Power: Strange new guidelines about the way we fight,” National Review Online, November 17, 2003, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson111703.html, UK: Fisher

Casualties. In the pre-battle hysteria over Iraq, the world deprecated America as afraid to accept casualties, a bully frightened by the "body-bag" syndrome. What a funny charge for a country that endured awful carnage from Gettysburg to Okinawa, and took thousands of casualties monthly in Vietnam! Instead, the truth is that an affluent and often wildly free America more than any other Western country can still accept battle losses — if its citizenry feels that such sacrifices are worth it. The key is to ascertain what constitutes such a vague and seemingly amoral concept as "worth it"?"National interest" and "a just cause," of course, are necessary to accept losses, but often even those nebulous terms are not immediately discernable either to troops in the field or to the citizenry at home. Just as important in short shooting wars is movement, a sense of advance, and knowledge that our soldiers are inflicting far more damage on their enemies than they are on us.American captains from Sherman to Patton grasped that simple fact that Americans are an impulsive, restless people, at home with machines and motion, bored with stasis and apparent immobility. And with 500 channels, the Internet, and 50 flavors of coffee, we are far more restless in 2003 than in worlds of either 1864 or 1944.Under the conditions of contemporary warfare, if Americans sense that for every suicide bombing we suffer, we take out dozens of Baathists in return, or are finally waging a terrible war against the killers in Tikrit, or are bombing infiltrators on the Iraq-Syria border, then we conclude that there is a beginning and an end to the conflict. In turn, the fighting is then seen as finite and worth the terrible sacrifice — an assessment that is impossible when we are static targets of an insidious enemy that seems to have no home, no order of battle, and no clear distinction from civilians. We could deal with losses when Americans were fighting their way to Baghdad, but less so when they are living in Baghdad. Thus it is critical for our military to find ways in the chaotic climate of Iraq to reassure Americans that we are on the offensive , always moving, and always finding new ways to target our enemies.

40

Page 45: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Terrorists Bad

Terrorists mirror the fascists of old – they’re committed to destroying the American way of life and killing millions with WMDsVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy, one war, one outcome,” National Review Online, February 21, 2003, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson022103.html, UK: Fisher

Just as Italian fascists, Japanese militarists, and German Nazis saw commonalities in their efforts to spread right-wing nationalist rule, so Islamic radicals seek to end Western global influence in similar ways — either through the establishment of Islamic republics in the Gulf and other oil-producing countries or loose alliances of convenience with tyrannies like those in Syria, Libya, or Iraq, which can be cajoled, blackmailed, or openly joined with in ad hoc efforts to destroy a hated West.Fascist states and radical Islamists, in fact, exhibit affinities that go well beyond sporadic and murky ties between such governments and fundamentalist terrorist groups. For one, in a post-Soviet Union world, they all seek weapons of mass destruction to be used as intercontinental blackmail as a way of weakening Western resolve and curtailing an American presence abroad.For another, their common ideological enemy is liberal democracy — specifically its global promotion of freedom, individualism, capitalism, gender equity, religious diversity, and secularism that undermines both Islamic fundamentalism in the cultural sense, and politically makes it more difficult for tyrants to rule over complacent and ignorant populations. Third, our various enemies share an eerie modus operandi as well: Al Qaeda terrorists blew themselves up killing Americans; and so do terrorists on the West Bank — and so does Saddam Hussein send bounties to the families of such killers.

41

Page 46: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Appeasing Terrorists More Terrorism

Appeasing terrorism breeds more terrorism – Arafat provesAlex Epstein, Graduate of Duke University, BA Philosophy, Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and Edward Cline, contributing writer to ARI, “Israel's Deadly Appeasement Process Continues,” Ayn Rand Institute, August 25, 2005, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11341, UK: Fisher

Observe what the absurdly named "peace process" has consisted of. The PA and its Arab neighbors deliberately keep the Palestinians in misery, indoctrinate them with anti-Semitism, and sponsor terrorism against Israel. They then blame Israel's "occupation" of territories won in a war of self-defense (and crucial for Israel's security today) for the Palestinians' misery--and blame the Palestinians' misery for Palestinian terrorism. The solution, they convince Israel and the West, is more land, loot, and power for the "downtrodden" Palestinians--money which the Palestinian leadership uses to fund still more attacks on Israel.By relying on terror and unearned guilt, the enemies of Israel have been able to undermine Israel's security and moral confidence in a way they never could by direct attack.Consider the recent history. In response to his long record of terrorizing Israel in the name of "Palestinian liberation," Yasser Arafat got recognition as the "legitimate representative" of the Palestinians. Under the Oslo accords, he was given billions in cash and a vast arsenal of deadly weapons for "security forces" that he would use to oppress Palestinians and terrorize Israel. Unsurprisingly, terrorism coupled with blaming Israel, having been handsomely rewarded, increased dramatically. Then, in 2000, Arafat was offered unprecedented territorial concessions; figuring he could get more by terrorism, he rejected the proposal and launched a second Intifada. The resulting escalation of terrorism, along with Arab nations claiming that anti-American terrorism stems from sympathy for the mistreatment of Palestinians, led to a promise from President Bush for a Palestinian state--and endless calls for Israel to show "restraint" in the face of a terrorist onslaught.

42

Page 47: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Appeasing International Feelings More Terrorism

Appeasing anti-American nations of the world only risks worse terrorism in the future – eradication of terrorism is critical to preventing massive CBW attacksAlex Epstein, Graduate of Duke University, BA Philosophy, Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, “Disband the Coalition,” Ayn Rand Institute, November 13, 2001, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5194, UK: Fisher

Our international coalition serves only as a coalition against American self-defense, and makes a proper war against terrorism impossible.They tell us not to bombard the Taliban too severely--because its "moderate" factions need to become part of any new Afghan government. They urge us to cease military action during the month of Ramadan--giving the killers further opportunity to plan their next attacks. They insist that we avoid Afghan civilians in our strikes--inviting the opposing army to protect itself with human shields. These demands are the acts of enemies--yet they come from our declared allies: members of our international coalition in the War on Terrorism.Why does the United States have wartime allies that oppose our war? Because these "allies" were chosen, not because they shared our commitment to eliminating terrorism, and not because we needed their military support--but for the craven purpose of avoiding disapproval from the Islamic world. Excluded from this coalition was Israel, the world's staunchest opponent of terrorism, because its inclusion would upset the Muslims. Invited, though, were the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt; the military dictatorship of Pakistan, which helped put the Taliban into power; and--most appalling of all--Iran and Syria, the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism. The stark truth is that the Islamic states--even the "moderate" ones--are opposed to a serious military campaign against Islamic terrorism. Since these governments trample upon the rights of their own citizens, what principled concern could they have for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks? Islam is a crucial value to them; freedom is not. They feel far more kinship toward their Muslim "brothers" in Afghanistan and in other terrorist countries than toward Americans threatened by terrorism.To appease our Islamic allies, we are fighting a half-war: an unnecessarily protracted campaign in which we limit our strikes to avoid civilian casualties, and in which we divert military resources to distributing food packages to the country we are attacking. These allies adamantly oppose extending the war beyond Afghanistan. If President Bush wants to maintain this coalition, is it conceivable that he will carry out his administration's pledge to go after other governments that sponsor terrorism?A coalition is supposed to be a military benefit--a means of defeating the enemy more quickly with the added firepower and intelligence of genuine supporters. But for the United States to subordinate its military goal to the goal of maintaining a coalition--as we are now doing--inverts the coalition's proper role and will lead to the slaughter of more innocent Americans. In pursuing our purpose of eradicating not just the Taliban but all state sponsorship of terrorism, time is of the essence. Every day the terrorists remain in existence increases their capabilities and their chances of acquiring the biological and nuclear weapons they lust after. The more we linger--the more we limit our attacks to accommodate our coalition's sensitivities--the greater bloodshed we can expect from terrorists in the future.

43

Page 48: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Appeasement Bad

Best defense is a good offense – policies of appeasement and defense empirically fail – demand for an offensive posture is critical to saving livesRobert 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, “America's Maginot Line,” Ayn Rand Institute, June 10, 2002, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7360, UK: Fisher

The only action the U.S. government is now taking in response to terrorism is purely defensive.The War on Terrorism is over. It ended when President Bush pushed to the top of his agenda the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. This is the climax of a trend that has been building for the past month: the only action the U.S. government is now taking in response to terrorism is purely defensive. Rather than holding hearings on the nuclear weapons programs of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Congress is holding hearings on the supposed failure of the FBI to prevent September 11. Rather than sending soldiers to invade hostile powers abroad, the administration is sending law enforcement agents to invade our privacy at home. America, with the most powerful military in the world, has chosen to retreat into a bunker of expanded police powers and "homeland security" programs. In the 1930s, the French constructed the ultimate monument to the folly of a purely defensive strategy: the Maginot Line, an impressive chain of fixed fortifications along its border with Germany. They thought this defensive line would eliminate the need for offensive action. So when Hitler militarized the Rhineland in 1936, breaking the Treaty of Versailles with a token force that was ordered to retreat if attacked, France did nothing. When Hitler annexed Austria and seized Czechoslovakia in 1938, France acquiesced. When Hitler employed his whole army to invade Poland in 1939, leaving his Western border lightly defended, the French army remained in its bunkers. By 1940, it was too late. The massive armies Hitler had built during years of European inaction merely bypassed the Maginot Line. The French defenses proved useless. The Department of Homeland Security is America's Maginot Line. No archipelago of law-enforcement agencies can keep America safe. They can only try to stop attacks that have already been conceived and planned by terrorists who have already been funded, armed, trained and dispatched to the United States. The best we can expect from this kind of defense is the result achieved by Israeli army and intelligence forces, which manage to stop about 80 percent of attempted suicide bombers (successes that are still dependent on the intelligence gathered from Israeli military incursions). Even this phenomenal success rate does not stop ordinary Israelis from being blown to bits in pizza restaurants, at bus stops and during religious celebrations. The new efforts announced by the administration are likely to be less effective. A series of indiscriminate dragnets--like the proposal to register and track all foreign visitors to the United States--will merely take the manpower needed to focus on real, identified threats and waste it investigating the movements of ordinary students and tourists. Indeed, if you want to know whether this defensive stance will stop terrorism, ask the very people who are in charge of our defense. FBI Director Robert Mueller has just told us his agency cannot stop every terrorist attack, a new attack is inevitable and we must get used to the threat of sudden mass death. America is not going on the defensive because our leaders believe that a defensive stance will work. They are doing it because they do not have the moral courage to take the offensive. Faced with cowardly quavering from Europe, obstructionism from the United Nations and petulant posturing from Arab princes, they have given up. To oppose such forces would be denounced as uncompromising, "unilateral" and "imperialist." It is better, they have apparently concluded, not to rock the diplomatic boat. The only effective way to stop terrorism is to eliminate its sponsors , as we began to do in Afghanistan. But President Bush has just announced to Europe that he has no plans to invade Iraq. He protested weakly to Russia about its plans to supply Iran with a reactor capable of generating fuel for nuclear weapons--but was forced to admit that the United States is building just such a plant for North Korea. The United States remains an "ally" of terrorist sponsor Pakistan as it threatens India with a nuclear first strike. The Saudis continue to pump money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the director of the CIA is helping to rebuild Yasser Arafat's goon squads, and Syria, the patron of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, holds the presidency of the U.N.'s Security Council. Far from being destroyed, the nations that sponsor terrorism have risen to unprecedented heights of importance and prestige. America's War on Terrorism is over--but the terrorists' war on America is not. We must demand from our leaders the only real defense: a renewed offense.

44

Page 49: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Appeasing International Feelings More Terrorism

Restraint and concern for international feelings makes us look weak in the eyes of terroristsVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “A Real War: Fighting the worst fascists since Hitler,” National Review Online, December 05, 2003, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson120503.html, UK: Fisher

We had also better reexamine entirely the way we use force in the Middle East. We did not drive on to Baghdad in 1991 out of concern for the "coalition" — and got 350,000 sorties in the no-fly zones in return. We chose to worry about rebuilding before the current war ended, and let thousands of Baathist killers fade away, and in the aftermath allowed mass looting and continual killing before our most recent get-tough policy.In fact, anytime we have showed restraint — using battleship salvos and cruise missiles when our Marines were killed, our embassies blown up, and our diplomats murdered; allowing the killers on the Highway of Death to reach Basra in 1991; letting Saddam use his helicopters to gun down innocents — we have earned disdain, not admiration. In contrast, the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center, but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all, and to kill us to the applause of millions, if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication.

45

Page 50: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Appeasing Terrorists More Terrorism

Appeasing fundamentalists causes them to regard us as weak – Spain and Iran prove that this only triggers worse violence – complete military victory is critical to saving livesVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “Western Cannibalism: Eating each other while our enemies smile,” National Review Online, April 08, 2004, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson040804.html, UK: Fisher

Out of all the recent chaos emerges one lesson: Appeasement of fundamentalists is not appreciated as magnanimity, but ridiculed as weakness — and, in fact, encourages further killing. A shaken Spain elected a new government that promised to exit Iraq. In return, the terrorists planted more bombs, issued more demands, and then staged a fiery exit for themselves. France, as is its historical wont, triangulated with the Muslim world and then found its fundamentalist plotters all over Paris. The Saudi royals thought that they of all people could continue to blackmail the fundamentalists — until the suicide-murderers turned their explosives on their benefactors and began to blow up Arab Muslims as well. General Musharraf once did all he could to appease Islamists — and got assassination plots as thanks.Following the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979, the United States had embraced a quarter-century of appeasement that had resulted in far more American deaths than all those lost during the present war against terrorists abroad — flaming ships, embassies, planes, skyscrapers, and people the wages of its mollifying. And every time in Iraq we have tried to offer conciliation before complete military victory — low profiles, tolerance for looters and militias, allowance for vicious mullahs — we have seen more, not fewer, killed.

46

Page 51: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 WOT Causes Recruitment/Resentment

Terrorism risks the killing of millions – past acquiescence to world opinion has emboldened terrorists – hardline approach is necessaryAlex Epstein, Graduate of Duke University, BA Philosophy, Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "Muslim Opinion" Be Damned, Ayn Rand Institute, February 6, 2006, ttp://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11771&news_iv_ctrl=1021, UK: Fisher

This is the latest example of the apologies and hand-wringing that occur anytime there is any widespread display of Muslim anger. To listen to most of our foreign-policy commentators, the biggest problem facing America today is the fact that many Muslims are mad at us. "Whatever one's views on the [Iraq] war," writes a "New York Times" columnist, "thoughtful Americans need to consider . . . the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world." In response to Abu Ghraib, Ted Kennedy lamented, "We have become the most hated nation in the world, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons." Muslim anger over America's support of Israel, we are told, is a major cause of anti-American terrorism. We face, these commentators say, a crisis of "Muslim opinion." We must, they say, win the "hearts and minds" of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shutting down Guantanamo, by being more "evenhanded" between free Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority--and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim world. If we fail to win over "Muslim opinion," we are told, we will drive even more to become terrorists. All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America is irrational and undeserved. Consider the issue of treatment of POWs. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq and at Guantanamo--many of whom were captured on battlefields, trying to kill Americans. Yet these same Muslims are silent about the summary convictions and torture--real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid--that are official policy and daily practice throughout the Middle East. Or consider "Muslim opinion" over the United States' handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the United States is accused of not being "hard enough" on Israel--a free nation with laws that protect all citizens, Jew and Arab alike--for Israel's supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet "Muslim opinion" reveres the Palestinian Authority, a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestinians of every basic freedom, keeps them in unspeakable poverty, and routinely tortures and executes peaceful dissenters. So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers. These people oppose us not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because they are steeped in a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion--one that views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity. They do not seek respect for the rights of the individual (Muslim or non-Muslim), they seek a world in which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam. The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies --and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them--especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would make us safe, expose Islamic anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the better Muslims to support our ideals and emulate our ways. President Bush, like most politicians and intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to "Muslim opinion": appeasement . Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands--e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques. Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for--such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel--he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion" and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead of destroying terrorist regimes that wage war against the West--including, most notably, Iran--he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some as "coalition partners." Such measures have rewarded our enemy for waging physical and spiritual war against us. "Condemn America," they have learned, "and American leaders will praise your ideals and meet your demands." "Attack America via terrorist proxy," terrorist states and movements have been taught, "and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but redouble its efforts to buy your love." Every attempt to appease "Muslim opinion" preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies . Every concession to angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next Sept. 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies--"Muslim opinion" be damned. They should begin by declaring that militant groups and states that threaten anti-Western violence in response to free speech will be met, not with appeasement, but with destruction.

47

Page 52: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Muslim Resentment (1/2)

Resentment is inevitable – instead of trying to appease terrorists, the best strategy for promoting long-term stability is decisive victory nowVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “The 1930's, Again: A hard rain is going to fall,” National Review Online, March 25, 2002, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson032502.html, UK: Fisher

In some ways in our war against the terrorists we are like the democracies of the late 1930s. They knew that there was more to Hitler than his avowed quest for the return of the Sudetenland or the Alsace-Lorraine. They sort of suspected that an entire, venerable culture in Germany and Japan had gone off the deep end. And while there was a certain logic to Hitler's diatribes that a moralistic England had no more right to distant India than did Germany to nearby Danzig, most deep-down knew that such parlor-game banter simply masked a much larger dilemma — how to corral a very powerful dictatorship and its axis that wished dominance not coexistence, and whose fuel was brutal force and autocracy, not democracy and freedom.

For England, most of Western Europe, and the United States, reeling under recent economic depression and hardly recovered from the sheer horror of the First World War — carnage unlike any in the long history of warfare — the idea of forceful resistance was little short of insanity. Filmstrips of German Panzers, thousands of Japanese shouting "Banzai!," and even Mussolini's comically delivered, but hateful rants overwhelmed the senses.

How could one stop such madness? And might it just go away with proper diplomacy? And why did "militarists" in the West insist on rearming and thereby "provoking" war? And was not there some truth to German grievances and Japanese hurts? And did anyone really wish to risk millions of innocent Americans and British to kill equally innocent, although perhaps mesmerized, Germans? Who was stirring up such animosity?

We are in a similar dilemma — in our hesitation about Iraq, our pressure on Israel, and our worries about mission creep in pursuing the killers. Can't the Jews and Arabs just get along? If Israel would just give back all of the West Bank, wouldn't there be peace? Didn't we just fight in the Gulf a mere decade ago? How do we know that Saddam Hussein really has such dreadful weapons? Shouldn't our allies get involved too? Do these undemocratic Muslim countries really dislike us all that much? Who can trust polls anyway? Why are these saber-rattlers trying to get us into a war?

And so we Americans, like those 70 years ago who so wanted a perpetual peace, pray for a return of sanity in the Middle East. We chose to ignore horrific stories of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia — the embryo of 9/11. We are more amused than shocked that madrassas have taught a generation to hate us. When mullahs in Iran speak of destroying Israel we wince, but also shrug. We want to see no real connection between madmen blowing themselves up to kill us in New York and the like-minded doing the same in Tel-Aviv. We put our trust in peace with a killer like Mr. Arafat, who packs a gun and whips up volatile crowds in Arabic. All the while, no American statesman has the guts to tell the Arab leadership that statism, tribalism, fundamentalism, gender apartheid, and autocracy — not America, not Israel — make their people poor, angry, and dangerous.

Rather than preparing for what our enemies are preparing for us, we look to gestures of appeasement. Does not the Islamic world appreciate the presence of General Zinni? Do we not give billions to Arab countries? Did we not save Kuwait and Muslims throughout the globe? Who in the Arab world could really think that the murderous Taliban were preferable to the present more enlightened government in Afghanistan? And although Middle Eastern males blew up our planes, people, and monuments, have we not had a national discussion about the evils of profiling those from the Middle East in our airports and stations? Don't Muslims tell their kindred back home how much freer they are in America than in Iraq or Syria?

[Continues….No Text Removed]

48

Page 53: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Muslim Resentment (2/2)

[Continued….No Text Removed]Like the dashed hopes of the 1930s such faith is not only misplaced, but also dangerous. The efforts of countries like Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons might under the present pressures grow dormant, but they will not cease. A nuclear Pakistan is a tottering military dictatorship away from Armageddon. Bribed autocracies in Jordan and Egypt are allies only in the sense that their unelected leaders promise to jail their nuts and fundamentalists who otherwise might turn on them as well as on us. Polls everywhere in the Middle East reveal not mere anguish, but real enmity toward Americans. Public pronouncements in Iran are not any less hateful than what emanated from Berlin in 1936. Thousands of al Qaeda killers have escaped — and thousands more are angry over the death of the comrades and kin and planning carnage for us as we sleep.Only a few of us Americans really take the Islamic world at its word — that one in three is reported to think (representing, say, a small number of around 200 million?) that the murder of 3,000 Americans was justified; that two of three believed no Arabs were involved; and that even higher poll numbers reflected real antipathy for the West.After 30 years of listening to nauseating chanting from Teheran to Islamabad to Nablus, hearing the childish rants about "The Mother of All Battles" and "The Great Satan," and witnessing presidents from Carter to Bush burned in effigy, the ritual torching of the American flag, the misspelled banners of hatred, the thousands of paint-by-the-numbers posters of psychopaths from Khomeini to bin Laden, televised threats that sound as hideous as they are empty, Nazi-inspired anti-Semitism, embassy takeovers, oil-boycotts, hijacked planes, cars, and ships, lectures from unelected obese sheiks with long names and gold chains, peacekeepers incinerated in their sleep, murders at the Olympics, bodies dumped on the tarmac of airports, shredded diplomats, madmen in sunglasses in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, demented mullahs and whip-bearing imams in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, continual televised murders of Americans abroad, our towers toppled, our citizens butchered, our planes blown up, hooded Klansmen in Hamas and Hezbollah, killers of al-this and Islamic-that, suicide bombers, shrill turbaned nuts spouting hatred on C-SPAN broadcasts, one day the salvation of Kuwait, the next sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait, the third day fury against the sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait, the fourth day some grievance from 1953, the fifth another from A.D. 752; and all the time sanctimonious fingerpointing from Middle Eastern academics and journalists who are as bold abroad in insulting us as they are timid and obsequious under dictators at home in keeping silent, I've about had it. No mas. The problem is you, not us — you, you, you….

I don't listen any more to the apologies and prevarications of our whiney university Arabists, our equivocators in the state department, and the really tawdry assortment of oil men, D.C. insiders, bought and paid for PR suits, and weapons hucksters. The truth is that a large minority of the Middle Eastern world wishes a war with America that it cannot win — and much of the rest is apparently either indifferent or amused.So we should stop apologizing, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and accept this animosity — just as our forefathers once did when faced by similar autocrats and their captive peoples who threatened us in 1941. I don't know about the rest of America, but I am proud that thugs like Khaddafi, murderers like Saddam Hussein, inquisitionists like the mullahs in Iran, criminals in Syria, medieval sheiks in the Gulf, and millions of others who do not vote, do not speak freely, oppress women, and are not tolerant of religious, gender, or ethnic diversity don't like me for being an American. I would find it repugnant if they did.No, their hatred is a badge of honor, and I would have it no other way. I am tired of the appeasers of the Middle East on our Right who fawn for oil and trade, and those pacifists and multiculturalists on the Left who either do not know, or do not like, what America really is. I'd rather think of all the innocent dead on 9/ 11 than give a moment more of attention to Mr. Arafat and his bombers.The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon, one that will pass — or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen in 60 years. Either we shall say "no more," deal with Iraq, and prepare for a long and hard war against murderers and terrorists — or we will have more and more of what happened on 9/11. History teaches us that certain nations, certain peoples, and certain religions at peculiar periods in their history take a momentary, but deadly leave of their senses — Napoleon's France for most of a decade, the southern states in 1861, Japan in 1931, Germany in 1939, and Russia after World War II. And when they do, they cannot be bribed, apologized to, or sweet-talked — only defeated. In that context, we see much of a whipped-up Arab world entering this similar period of dangerous unreality. The problem is them and their unelected and unfree regimes, not us — just as it was Hitler, not us; Tojo, not us; Mussolini, not us; and Stalin, not us — just as it always is when unelected maniacs take control and hijack an entire country and culture. We can either step up and stop Islamic fundamentalism, Arab terrorists, and Middle Eastern dictators or we can step back and watch it all continue to grow. If 9/11 was the beginning of a war, then we should remember that wars usually end when one, not both sides, win.

49

Page 54: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 World Opinion Means We Shouldn’t Act

Abiding by world opinion has historically produced disastrous consequences – we should act against threatsThomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution, “Another War Brought on Pacifism,” Capitalism Magazine, April 19, 2002, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1542, UK: Fisher

It is ironic that the current Middle East conflict is taking place on the 20th anniversary of the Falkland Islands war because both involved the same key factor -- war brought on by pacifism.In both cases, a weaker force attacked a stronger force, secure in the knowledge that "world opinion" -- and especially vocal pacifists -- would prevent the stronger force from retaliating to its fullest extent. Just as the Palestinians launched terrorist attacks on Israel, so the Argentine military leaders attacked and took over the small British settlement on the Falkland Islands -- not far from Argentina but thousands of miles from Britain.The Falkland Islands, which the Argentines called the Malvinas, had already been in British hands for almost a century and a half. The Argentines had claimed, all that time, that the islands rightly belonged to them. Why then did they attack in 1982 but not -- say -- in 1882?First of all, the military junta ruling Argentina in 1982 was having internal problems, and a good little war with an easy victory against a virtually defenseless settlement of Britons, would be a welcome distraction, as well as solidifying popular support for the regime. Moreover, given the state of "world opinion" -- which is to say the fashionable attitudes among the media, the pacifists, and the United Nations -- it was considered a safe bet in 1982, while it could have been suicidal in 1882.Back in the 19th century, invading a British possession would bring certain retaliation, not just a military recapture of the islands by the British. In 1882, such an attack could mean British troops landing in Argentina itself, perhaps demolishing Buenos Aires and hanging those who had launched the aggression.By contrast, in 1982 "world opinion" deplored any attempt by Britain even to recapture this little outpost of imperialism in the South Atlantic. Even such a staunch ally as the United States cautioned Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher against retaking these insignificant little islands.After all, the United States had given away the Panama Canal, which Americans had built and bled for, back in the early 20th century, but which President Jimmy Carter turned over to Panama, in a grand gesture of noblesse oblige, to the applause of "world opinion."Margaret Thatcher wasn't buying any of this. She dispatched a naval force that stormed the Falkland Islands and recaptured them. But even tough Mrs. Thatcher did not send troops into Argentina, as any 19th century British Prime Minister would have done.She understood the double standard that would have condemned any punitive military action against "innocent civilians" in Argentina, even though those supposedly innocent civilians had cheered on the attacks against the Falkland Islands, just as the Palestinians cheered the campaign of terrorism launched against Israel.Although this happened during the Reagan administration in the United States, those who shape public opinion at home and abroad had still not gotten over the fashionable attitudes from the Carter administration years that the West should retreat gracefully before the emerging forces of the Third World, as well as accommodating the advancing might of the Communist world.Much the same set of guilt-ridden and defeatist attitudes among the Western democracies had set the stage for Hitler's aggressions that brought on World War II. At the end of that historic carnage, Prime Minister Winston Churchill said that never was there a war that would have been easier to prevent than the one that had just devastated great regions of the world.Here too, the military potential of the West was greater than that of the nations which launched aggression. Had that potential been mobilized earlier, an ultimatum to Hitler would have made clear that it would be suicidal for him to proceed. As Churchill put it, at one point a memorandum would have stopped him.Instead, the Western democracies wrung their hands and tried to appease Hitler, as he continued building up his military machine and picking off countries one by one. By the time it became clear that he was not going to stop until he got stopped, it was too late to prevent World War II. The unprepared West came agonizingly close to losing that war -- and civilization along with it.

50

Page 55: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 WOT Fuels Terrorism

The destruction of terrorists is critical to prevent future acts of terrorismRalph Peters, Retired Army officer, “In Praise of Attrition,” Parameters, Summer 2004, p. 24-32, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04summer/peters.htm, UK: Fisher

And we shall hear that killing terrorists only creates more terrorists. This is sophomoric nonsense. The surest way to swell the ranks of terror is to follow the approach we did in the decade before 9/11 and do nothing of substance . Success breeds success . Everybody loves a winner. The clichés exist because they’re true. Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups metastasized because they were viewed in the Muslim world as standing up to the West successfully and handing the Great Satan America embarrassing defeats with impunity . Some fanatics will flock to the standard of terror, no matter what we do. But it’s far easier for Islamic societies to purge themselves of terrorists if the terrorists are on the losing end of the global struggle than if they’re allowed to become triumphant heroes to every jobless, unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond.Far worse than fighting such a war of attrition aggressively is to pretend you’re not in one while your enemy keeps on killing you.Even the occupation of Iraq is a war of attrition. We’re doing remarkably well, given the restrictions under which our forces operate. But no grand maneuvers, no gestures of humanity, no offers of conciliation, and no compromises will persuade the terrorists to halt their efforts to disrupt the development of a democratic, rule-of-law Iraq. On the contrary, anything less than relentless pursuit , with both preemptive and retaliatory action, only encourages the terrorists and remaining Baathist gangsters.With hardcore terrorists, it’s not about PSYOP or jobs or deploying dental teams. It’s about killing them. Even regarding the general population, which benefits from our reconstruction and development efforts, the best thing we can do for them is to kill terrorists and insurgents. Until the people of Iraq are secure, they are not truly free. The terrorists know that. We pretend otherwise.

51

Page 56: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Must Identify Root Causes

Attempting to identify the “root causes” of terrorism or other crimes fail – history shows that triggers inaction, which allows for violenceThomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution, “Pacifism and War,” Jewish World Review, September 24th, 2001, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell092401.asp, UK: Fisher

ALTHOUGH most Americans seem to understand the gravity of the situation that terrorism has put us in -- and the need for some serious military response, even if that means dangers to the lives of us all -- there are still those who insist on posturing, while on the edge of a volcano. In the forefront are college students who demand a "peaceful" response to an act of war. But there are others who are old enough to know better, who are still repeating the pacifist platitudes of the 1930s that contributed so much to bringing on World War II.A former ambassador from the weak-kneed Carter administration says that we should look at the "root causes" behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We should understand the "alienation" and "sense of grievance" against us by various people in the Middle East.It is astonishing to see the 1960s phrase "root causes" resurrected at this late date and in this context. It was precisely this kind of thinking, which sought the "root causes of crime" during that decade, creating soft policies toward criminals, which led to skyrocketing crime rates. Moreover, these soaring crime rates came right after a period when crime rates were lower than they had been in decades.On the international scene, trying to assuage aggressors' feelings and look at the world from their point of view has had an even more catastrophic track record . A typical sample of this kind of thinking can be found in a speech to the British Parliament by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938: "It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles."Like our former ambassador from the Carter era, Chamberlain sought to "remove the causes of strife or war." He wanted "a general settlement of the grievances of the world without war." In other words, the British prime minister approached Hitler with the attitude of someone negotiating a labor contract, where each side gives a little and everything gets worked out in the end. What Chamberlain did not understand was that all his concessions simply led to new demands from Hitler -- and contempt for him by Hitler.What Winston Churchill understood at the time, and Chamberlain did not, was that Hitler was driven by what Churchill called "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them." That was also what drove the men who drove the planes into the World Trade Center.

52

Page 57: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 You Say All Muslims Are Terrorists

Our argument is only applicable to the Muslims who contort Islam to fit their own agendaVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy, one war, one outcome,” National Review Online, February 21, 2003, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson022103.html, UK: Fisher

Nihilism — whether torching oil fields, gassing civilians, crashing airplanes, desecrating shrines, toppling towers, or creating oil slicks — is another telltale symptom of our enemies, as is the perversion of Islam, whether illustrated in bin Laden's crackpot communiqués, the rantings of Hezbollah and Hamas to extend theocracy and kill infidels, or Saddam Hussein's ugly nouveau minarets and holy books written with his own blood.Muslims from the Middle East are not per se the enemy, but rather those renegade Muslims who use the cover of Islam to rally support for their self-serving politics. After all, without the bogeymen of Zionism and the Great Satan they would have to explain to their own dispossessed why Cairo is poorer than Tel Aviv, why heart surgery is done in London and not Damascus, or why so many Arabs seem to seek out Detroit rather than Baghdad.

53

Page 58: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad

Attempts at pacifism fail – evil exists in the world – attempts at utopianism are suicidalAdam G. Mersereau, Served in the enlisted and officer ranks of the United States Marine Corps from 1990 to 1995; now an attorney, “Down with the Peace Movement: The trouble with the antiwar warriors,” National Review Online, January 15, 2003, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mersereau011503.asp

Many members of the peace movement also hold tightly to a loosely defined utopianism. They believe that the human race (save conservative Republicans) is evolving toward a higher and more noble plane of social existence. The activists themselves are, of course, at the forefront of the evolutionary curve; while the Cro-Magnon in the White House and his Cabinet of Neanderthals stubbornly resist progress. Although the Left has largely declared the concepts of "good" and "evil" to be passé, the peace activist believes that the heart of man is intrinsically "good," and that it would be "evil" if we do not give Saddam Hussein every chance to let his goodness shine through.Utopianism is dead in the minds of most people, because as veterans of the 20th century, which was the bloodiest century ever, we cannot deny that "good" and "evil" are entangled within the hearts of men and many of his ideologies, and that peace is little more than a welcome respite between wars . We also know that unless the Saddam Hussein's and Kim Jong-il's of the world are Utopians too, then to champion utopianism in America or Europe is useless. Utopianism is folly; unilateral utopianism is suicidal . But rather than adjust their policy to reflect reality, the peace activists will march in circles, carry their signs, and wait for reality to reflect their policy.

54

Page 59: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad

Pacifism the worst of all worlds – causes millions of deaths, appeasement of enemies, and there is no alternativeAlex Epstein, Graduate of Duke University, BA Philosophy, Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, “Peacenik Warmongers,” Ayn Rand Institute, December 9, 2002, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7458, UK: Fisher

Pacifism necessarily invites escalating acts of war against anyone who practices it.There is an increasingly vocal movement that seeks to engage America in ever longer, wider, and more costly wars--leading to thousands and perhaps millions of unnecessary deaths . This movement calls itself the "anti-war" movement. Across America and throughout the world, "anti-war" groups are staging "peace rallies" that attract tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of participants, who gather to voice their opposition to an invasion of Iraq and to any other U.S. military action in the War on Terrorism. The goal of these rallies, the protesters proclaim, is to promote peace. "You can bomb the world to pieces," they chant, "but you can't bomb it into peace." If dropping bombs won't work, what should the United States do to obtain a peaceful relationship with the numerous hostile regimes, including Iraq, that seek to harm us with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? The "peace advocates" offer no answer. The most one can coax out of them are vague platitudes (we should "make common cause with the people of the world," says the prominent "anti-war" group Not in Our Name) and agonized soul-searching ("Why do they hate us?"). The absence of a peacenik peace plan is no accident. Pacifism is inherently a negative doctrine--it merely says that military action is always bad. As one San Francisco protestor put the point: "I don't think it's right for our government to kill people." In practice, this leaves the government only two means of dealing with our enemies: to ignore their acts of aggression, or to appease them by capitulating to the aggressor's demands.

55

Page 60: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad

Pacifism produces indifference to violence – means inaction in the face of atrocitiesDavid C. Stolinsky, “The Ugly Side of Pacifism,” October 10, 2001, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/544427/posts, UK: Fisher

Pacifism is a noble ideal; the word means "making peace." Real pacifists are sensitive to human suffering and strive to mediate between hostile factions. But instead of using this active, idealistic approach, many who call themselves "pacifists" are merely indifferent — they stand aside, smugly looking down on humanity’s struggles. Rather than motivating them to action, their false pacifism is merely an excuse for inaction. Pacifists used to come in two varieties. The first holds that all violence is wrong. Overcoming violent criminals often requires force, but strict pacifists reject this as unethical. They are unrealistic, but at least they are honest.

56

Page 61: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad – A2 We Allow Violence In Extreme Circumstances

Their brand of pacifism prevents action in the face of violence – even in extreme circumstances, they won’t do anythingDavid C. Stolinsky, “The Ugly Side of Pacifism,” October 10, 2001, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/544427/posts, UK: Fisher

The second variety of pacifist allows some exceptions — especially horrible evil may be opposed with force if absolutely necessary. But these exceptions always seem to lie in the past. Pacifists in the 1930s opposed rearmament, despite the rise of Hitler, pointing out that no Genghis Khan was at the gates. Pacifists in the 1980s opposed rearmament, despite the growth of the Soviet empire, pointing out that no Hitler was on the horizon. Pacifists today oppose rearmament, despite the rise of global terrorism, pointing out that the Soviet empire is no more. That is, the exceptions are never relevant to the current problem — they aren’t really exceptions at all.

57

Page 62: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad

Their argument is what terrorists and dictators want you to think – it emboldens those individuals to think that Americans are scared of casualties – militaristic approach keyVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “Postmodern War,” City Journal, February 8, 2005, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson020805.html, UK: Fisher

Thus a weaker enemy can hope to persuade or frighten a majority of its adversary’s citizens to reject the war party, and to come to its terms or simply quit, by such means as the rather crude Soviet Union propaganda efforts in the cold war or by appealing to deep-seated Western pacifism . More recently, terrorists have grasped that the enormous wealth and privilege of Western society in the postwar half century have convinced many Americans and Europeans that avoiding war altogether, rather than preparedness and deterrence, is critical to maintaining their present tranquillity. Usama bin Ladin’s own fatwas invoke America’s purported inability to take casualties, while Saddam Hussein stockpiled morale-boosting DVD copies of Black Hawk Down, on the logic that the movie showed how irregulars in block-to-block fighting might force conventional American troops to go home by shattering their leaders’ morale.

58

Page 63: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad

Pacifism makes wars bigger and longer – hardline militarism would’ve prevented the rise of Hitler J. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

Of course, if deterrence is not enough, if your opponent is that crazy, what do you do? Running away may work for individuals, but not for nations, so I will neglect that option. Negotiation is also unworkable, because you can't reason with bullies. They exhibit a kind of willful mindlessness, a demonic will to unconsciousness. They don't negotiate back, they merely use your forbearance to buy time and opportunity to get at you, or to get around you — like Hitler did, while Chamberlain declared, "peace in our time." You assert your position, and set some limits. And if they exceed your limits, you use force.But is it moral to use force? Those of us who might contemplate calling the police in order to stop a murder must believe that occasionally it is. Further, I maintain that sometimes it may be immoral to do anything else. Remember that Hitler could have been stopped easily by a show of force when he threatened to annex the Sudetenland. That force was not brought to bear in a timely manner is due largely to the pacifist sentiment in Europe and America at the time. Instead of engaging in a minor military expedition which would have forced Hitler to back down, to lose face, and ultimately to lose political power, the world passively sold out Czechoslovakia to him, paving the way for a much more prolonged and bloody conflict later — a conflict that resulted in the development of the first atomic bombs. In other words, I think a reflexive pacifism is no more entitled to a presumption of moral innocence than nuclear weapons work, and that pacifism applied in the wrong way at the wrong time contributed to the development of the nuclear weapons that pacifists now find so abhorrent. In short, pacifism can sometimes help to make wars bigger and worse than they have to be.

59

Page 64: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad – Non-Violence Fails

Non-violence fails more often than notJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

That said, I admit that I admire non-violent resistance. [4] Remember, however, that non-violent resistance is a sophisticated technique that works only when used by the "right" people at the "right" time against the "right" opponents. For example, the Indians successfully used non-violent resistance to persuade the British to end the Raj, because the British eventually acknowledged that the Indians, led by the British-educated Gandhi, were human beings like themselves.The Nazis, who with their "Master Race" ideology admitted only so-called "Aryans" to the category of human, provide an example counter to that of the British. There were some successful acts of non-violent confrontation against the Nazis, like King Christian of Denmark's public declaration that he would wear the yellow star if it were introduced in his country. He did so in response to the Nazi practice of ordering Jews to wear yellow-starred armbands so that the Nazis could more easily isolate them from their surrounding society. That many Danes followed their king's example helped camouflage many Jews until they could escape to Sweden in fishing boats. [5] Now this resistance worked partly because the Nazis considered the Danes to be "Aryans" like themselves. Had the Poles tried the same thing, the Nazis would have been perfectly happy to use the event as an excuse for liquidating more Poles . Rather than awaken the Nazis' moral sense, non-violent confrontation on the part of the Poles would probably have enabled the Nazis to carry out their agenda in Poland more easily. The other reason these acts succeeded was that overwhelming violence of the Allies had stretched the Nazi forces too thin to suppress massive action by a whole populace, and eventually deprived the Nazis of the time they needed to find other ways to carry out their "final solution."In other words, non-violence resistance alone would have been very slow to work against the Nazis, once they had consolidated their power. And while it slowly ground away at the evil in the Nazi soul, how many millions more would have died, and how much extra time would have been given to Nazi scientists trying to invent atomic bombs to go on those V-2 rockets? The evil of Nazism may well have expended itself, but perhaps after a real "thousand-year Reich," leaving a world populated only by blue-eyed blondes. In other words, if the world had used non-violence alone against the Nazis, the results may have been much worse those of the war.[6]

60

Page 65: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad

Pacifism equates defendant to aggressor, rapist to rape victim – destroys ability to make normative judgments about violence that are critical to safetyKevin Delaney, Freelance Writer in Los Angeles, “Debunking the Clichés of Pacifism,” Capitalism Magazine, October 13, 2001, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1157, UK: Fisher

The philosophy of pacifism can be expressed in a single principle: "The use of force is morally wrong." This means that ALL force - any kind of force - is out of the question and must be opposed. If you spend any amount of time thinking about the issue (which most pacifists do not), you'll very quickly be able to think of a number of situations in which the use of force is clearly not only not morally wrong, but clearly necessary - a woman fighting off a rapist, for example. Take a few moments to come up with several such "exceptions," then abstract their common element, and you'll arrive at the ominous error at the root of the pacifist philosophy: pacifism makes no distinction between force which is initiated, and force which is used in self-defense. Were a pacifist totally consistent in his philosophy, he'd have to say that the woman who fights off the rapist is wrong to do so - after all, she's certainly committing an act of force. If the pacifist were also consistent in his use of clichés, he'd say that in fighting the rapist off, the woman has "sunk to the rapist's level." She has "resorted to violence," and is now "just like him." This same thought process (or lack of it) is behind the pacifists' opposition to war - specifically, in the case of our current situation, the opposition to a country fighting back when war has been initiated against it. To the pacifist, attacker and victim are moral equals. Which side initiated the war is of no interest to him; his mind knows only the abstraction "war," and that he's against it. Pacifism used to be known as "nonresistance," which names the heart of the matter: total passivity and surrender when faced with any kind of threat. Of course, you never hear the position stated this way: today's pacifists almost always make their case exclusively in terms of what they're against, rarely what they're for (except in the most general sense, such as "world peace," etc.). Full-fledged pacifists are relatively rare, yet their clichés are nevertheless having an effect on many minds, throwing monkey-wrenches into people's convictions at a time when this country needs every ounce of moral certainty it can muster. Over the past few weeks, I'm sure you've heard at least once, something to the effect of: "If we bomb our enemies, we'll just be doing to them what they did to us. We'll be sinking to their level!" If you understand the pacifists' basic error, you can see very clearly what's wrong with this picture: the failure to differentiate between the force of an aggressor, and force used in retaliation against the aggressor in self-defense. No, it's not morally wrong to fight back against someone who's attacking you; if you value your life, it's absolutely essential that you do.

61

Page 66: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad - Their Argument = Dictator Propaganda

Their argument equates to support for oppressive dictatorshipsSteven Brockerman, Assistant Editor for Capitalism Magazine, “Pacifists and Professors of Oppression,” Capitalism Magazine, October 12, 2001, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1154, UK: Fisher

Righteous in their indignation against the use of American military force, the pacifists and professors, nonetheless, willingly accept the preemptive annihilation of an entire city in Syria by that nation's despotic ruler. They who speak intolerantly of American racism are, nevertheless, willing to tolerate the slave trade thriving in Sudan. Avowed defenders of the Palestinians, they look the other way when those who even mildly publicly criticize Arafat have their tongues cut out or worse. About all that oppression they are silent. What those pacifists and professors are not silent about, though, is their opposition to America's right to self-defense. They who tolerate Mid-Eastern Arab tyrannies are not silent in their intolerance of America. The pacifists and the professors cannot accept that America -- a nation they hate with the religious fervor of an Islamic terrorist -- is morally right and, thus, morally superior; therefore, they are willing to grimly evade not only the reason America was attacked on September 11, but also the reason they -- the pacifists and the professors -- are attacking America now. America was attacked, not because the U.S. has oppressed the Arab people, but because the U.S. represents the greatest threat to those Mid-East dictatorships that do and, thus, represents the greatest hope to the Arab peoples. America is now being attacked by many in the universities, not because the U.S. is racist or imperialist, but because the U.S. stands for individual rights, capitalism and the pursuit of happiness, which are the greatest rebukes to the beliefs of the pacifists and the professors and anyone else whose ideas make possible and then excuse dictatorship, poverty and oppression.

62

Page 67: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Pacifism Bad

Peace movements ultimately fail – even if the US turns more peaceful, other enemies won’tAdam G. Mersereau, Served in the enlisted and officer ranks of the United States Marine Corps from 1990 to 1995; now an attorney, “Down with the Peace Movement: The trouble with the antiwar warriors,” National Review Online, January 15, 2003, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mersereau011503.asp

Peace activists may be well intentioned; but at their worst, they are more helpful to America's enemies than to America. The best we can say is that they are clinically naïve. They are as insufferable as a college freshman who believes he and his political-science professor can end poverty if only people would listen. It is as if the peace activists believe they have discovered for the first time those self-evident and thus ancient truths that human life is sacred, and war is tragic. Little do they know that a majority of the Iraqis who stroll past their peace marches in Baghdad support an American invasion. Many would eagerly fight and risk death in an armed revolution if they could obtain the resources and momentum to launch one for themselves.Naïveté allows the peace movement to thrive, but it is animated by arrogance.THE ARROGANCEWhile campaigning for the presidency, candidate Bush said that his administration would conduct its foreign policy with less arrogance than past administrations had displayed. He is now widely accused of forsaking the less-arrogant approach and of choosing, instead, to rattle his saber at any dictator he thinks he can rattle. But is it really arrogant for the president to insist that a violent and unpredictable dictator with ambitions to control the world's oil supply — who is also a friend of al Qaeda — should be denied a secret nuclear, chemical- and biological-weapons program? Is it arrogant to suggest that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power if he continues to defy and deceive the international community? Likewise, is it arrogant to expect the North Koreans to abide by the Agreed Framework, under which the U.S. promised to inject millions of U.S. tax dollars into the faltering North Korean economy? Perhaps it is slightly arrogant, but the peace movement is fantastically more arrogant. The peace movement is founded upon a subtle ethnocentrism that escapes detection even by the multicultural Left where most peace activists are bred. The group that most openly celebrates the diversity of mankind does not understand that many people in the world hold diverse beliefs and subscribe to ideologies that are entirely independent of American influence . In the mind of the peace activist, America is not just the sole superpower, it is the center of gravity for all world events; and so every world event is simply an equal (and sometimes opposite) reaction to a prior American action. Peace activists believe that America's economy and culture are such dominant forces in the lives of people throughout the world that the actions and policies of other nations can be interpreted only as mere reactions to the actions and policies of the United States government. Therefore, they believe America has the unbounded ability to manipulate foreign governments through economic and cultural means.Peacenik foreign policy is really very simple: Without an action by the United States, there will be no reaction by others. If America does not start a war, there will be no war. This is the arrogant ethnocentrism of the peace movement. Under this view, it is unthinkable that quaint little dictators — such as Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il — might deign to manipulate America as much or more than America tries to manipulate them. It is unthinkable that a nation would resort to building nuclear weapons if they did not first feel threatened by the world's only super-bully. It is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il might have diabolical plans and evil aspirations that were not created by, and are not controlled by, the U.S. State Department. The peace activist then reaches the conclusion that the United States can make a unilateral decision for peace, simply by choosing to lay down its arms. If the United States would ignore open and notorious breaches of U.N. directives and treaties, and simply refuse to disturb the current state of peace, then peace would prevail by default.Of course, the choice between war and peace is not ours alone. There could be war — and likely will be war — regardless of our course of action. The only questions are: on whose terms, and on whose turf?

63

Page 68: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Non-Violence Permutation

Must back up non-violence with the threat of violence – action of MLK and Malcolm X prove this solves bestJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

Even when non-violence does succeed, it does so by rallying the majority of the population toward whom it is directed to stop the direct perpetrators of injustice by force -- the force of law in the form of the police, the prisons, and the polls -- force that necessarily includes the threat of violence. In other words, non-violent resistance harnesses (or co-opts), rather than eliminates violence.In fact, non-violence is sometimes even helped by the threat of violence to achieve its objectives. The non-violence of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was complemented by the willingness to use "any means necessary" of Malcolm X. These two men were sending white America the same message concerning justice and racial equality. If whites failed to respond to the message stated gently, whites would be given the opportunity to respond to it stated violently. It took both statements to achieve the progress made thus far.

64

Page 69: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

***Imperialism/Multiculturalism***

65

Page 70: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Not Imperialist

The US is nothing like past imperial nations – their comparisons are bankruptVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online, November 27, 2002, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson112702.html, UK: Fisher

It is popular now to talk of the American "empire." In Europe particularly there are comparisons of Mr. Bush to Caesar — and worse — and invocations all sorts of pretentious poli-sci jargon like "hegemon," "imperium," and "subject states," along with neologisms like "hyperpower" and "overdogs." But if we really are imperial, we rule over a very funny sort of empire.We do not send out proconsuls to reside over client states, which in turn impose taxes on coerced subjects to pay for the legions. Instead, American bases are predicated on contractual obligations — costly to us and profitable to their hosts. We do not see any profits in Korea, but instead accept the risk of losing almost 40,000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can flood our shores and that shaggy students can protest outside our embassy in Seoul.Athenians, Romans, Ottomans, and the British wanted land and treasure and grabbed all they could get when they could. The United States hasn't annexed anyone's soil since the Spanish-American War — a checkered period in American history that still makes us, not them, out as villains in our own history books. Most Americans are far more interested in carving up the Nevada desert for monster homes than in getting their hands on Karachi or the Amazon basin. Puerto Ricans are free to vote themselves independence anytime they wish.Imperial powers order and subjects obey. But in our case, we offer the Turks strategic guarantees, political support — and money — for their allegiance. France and Russia go along in the U.N. — but only after we ensure them the traffic of oil and security for outstanding accounts. Pakistan gets debt relief that ruined dot-coms could only dream of; Jordan reels in more aid than our own bankrupt municipalities.If acrimony and invective arise, it's usually one-way: the Europeans, the Arabs, and the South Americans all say worse things about us than we do about them, not privately and in hurt, but publicly and proudly. Boasting that you hate Americans — or calling our supposed imperator "moron" or "Hitler" — won't get you censured by our Senate or earn a tongue-lashing from our president, but is more likely to get you ten minutes on CNN. We are considered haughty by Berlin not because we send a Germanicus with four legions across the Rhine, but because Mr. Bush snubs Mr. Schroeder by not phoning him as frequently as the German press would like.Empires usually have contenders that check their power and through rivalry drive their ambitions. Athens worried about Sparta and Persia. Rome found its limits when it butted up against Germany and Parthia. The Ottomans never could bully too well the Venetians or the Spanish. Britain worried about France and Spain at sea and the Germanic peoples by land. In contrast, the restraint on American power is not China, Russia, or the European Union, but rather the American electorate itself — whose reluctant worries are chronicled weekly by polls that are eyed with fear by our politicians. We, not them, stop us from becoming what we could.The Athenian ekklesia, the Roman senate, and the British Parliament alike were eager for empire and reflected the energy of their people. In contrast, America went to war late and reluctantly in World Wars I and II, and never finished the job in either Korea or Vietnam. We were likely to sigh in relief when we were kicked out of the Philippines, and really have no desire to return. Should the Greeks tell us to leave Crete — promises, promises — we would be more likely to count the money saved than the influence lost. Take away all our troops from Germany and polls would show relief, not anger, among Americans. Isolationism, parochialism, and self-absorption are far stronger in the American character than desire for overseas adventurism. Our critics may slur us for "overreaching," but our elites in the military and government worry that they have to coax a reluctant populace, not constrain a blood-drunk rabble.

66

Page 71: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Not Imperialist

The US has no imperial aimsVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online, November 27, 2002, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson112702.html

The desire of a young Roman quaestor or the British Victorians was to go abroad, shine in battle, and come home laden with spoils. They wanted to be feared, not liked. American suburbanites, inner-city residents, and rural townspeople all will fret because a French opportunist or a Saudi autocrat says that we are acting inappropriately. Roman imperialists had names like Magnus and Africanus; the British anointed their returning proconsuls as Rangers, Masters, Governors, Grandees, Sirs, and Lords. In contrast, retired American diplomats, CIA operatives, or generals are lucky if they can melt away in anonymity to the Virginia suburbs without a subpoena, media exposé, or lawsuit. Proconsuls were given entire provinces; our ex-president Carter from his peace center advises us to disarm.Most empires chafe at the cost of their rule and complain that the expense is near-suicidal. Athens raised the Aegean tribute often, and found itself nearly broke after only the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War. The story of the Roman Empire is one of shrinking legions, a debased currency, and a chronically bankrupt imperial treasury. Even before World War I, the Raj had drained England. In contrast, America spends less of its GNP on defense than it did during the last five decades. And most of our military outlays go to training, salaries, and retirements — moneys that support, educate, and help people rather than simply stockpile weapons and hone killers. The eerie thing is not that we have 13 massive $5 billion carriers, but that we could easily produce and maintain 20 more.Empires create a culture of pride and pomp, and foster a rhetoric of superiority. Pericles, Virgil, and Kipling all talked and wrote of the grandeur of imperial domain. How odd then that what America's literary pantheon — Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Susan Sontag, and Alice Walker — said about 9/11 would either nauseate or bewilder most Americans.Pericles could showcase his Parthenon from the tribute of empire; Rome wanted the prestige of Pax Romana and Mare Nostrum; the Sultan thought Europe should submit to Allah; and the Queen could boast that the sun never set on British shores. Our imperial aims? We are happy enough if the Japanese can get their oil from Libya safely and their Toyotas to Los Angeles without fear; or if China can be coaxed into sending us more cheap Reeboks and in turn fewer pirated CDs.

67

Page 72: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Not Imperialist – A2 We Force Our Culture Unto Others

Others adopt US culture because it reflects the diversity of American society – and, nations realize that there is no alternative to US ideologyVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online, November 27, 2002, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson112702.html, UK:Fisher

In that regard, America is also a revolutionary, rather than a stuffy imperial society. Its crass culture abroad — rap music, Big Macs, Star Wars, Pepsi, and Beverly Hillbillies reruns — does not reflect the tastes and values of either an Oxbridge elite or a landed Roman aristocracy. That explains why Le Monde or a Spanish deputy minister may libel us, even as millions of semi-literate Mexicans, unfree Arabs, and oppressed southeast Asians are dying to get here. It is one thing to mobilize against grasping, wealthy white people who want your copper, bananas, or rubber — quite another when your own youth want what black, brown, yellow, and white middle-class Americans alike have to offer. We so-called imperialists don't wear pith helmets, but rather baggy jeans and backwards baseball caps. Thus far the rest of the globe — whether Islamic fundamentalists, European socialists, or Chinese Communists — has not yet formulated an ideology antithetical to the kinetic American strain of Western culture.

68

Page 73: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Not Imperialist – Prefer our evidence

Their authors are coffeehouse hacks – they ignore the actions of the individuals outside the USVictor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “A Funny Sort of Empire: Are Americans really so imperial?” National Review Online, November 27, 2002, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson112702.html, UK: Fisher

Much, then, of what we read about the evil of American imperialism is written by post-heroic and bored elites, intellectuals, and coffeehouse hacks, whose freedom and security are a given, but whose rarified tastes are apparently unshared and endangered. In contrast, the poorer want freedom and material things first — and cynicism, skepticism, irony, and nihilism second. So we should not listen to what a few say, but rather look at what many do.Critiques of the United States based on class, race, nationality, or taste have all failed to explicate, much less stop, the American cultural juggernaut. Forecasts of bankrupting defense expenditures and imperial overstretch are the stuff of the faculty lounge. Neither Freud nor Marx is of much help. And real knowledge of past empires that might allow judicious analogies is beyond the grasp of popular pundits.Add that all up, and our exasperated critics are left with the same old empty jargon of legions and gunboats.

69

Page 74: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Imperialism Good – A2 Should Appease States

Trying to appease other nations is an empty gesture – keeping states in line is inevitable and criticalStephen Peter Rosen, PhD from Harvard University in 1979 and is currently the Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs in the Department of Government, Harvard University, “An Empire, If you Can Keep It,” The National Interest, Spring 2003, LN Academic, UK: Fisher

Because the problems of running an empire are different from the problems of interstate primacy, there is more to imperial statecraft than knowing how to conduct a "humble" foreign policy, a theme to which students of American hegemony constantly return.2 Humility is always a virtue, but the dominant male atop any social hierarchy, human or otherwise, never managed to rule simply by being nice. Human evolutionary history has produced a species that both creates hierarchies and harbors the desire among subordinates to challenge its dominant member. Those challenges never disappear. The dominant member can never do everything that subordinates desire, and so is blamed for what it does not do as much as for what it does. This is why empires never rest easy. It is a naive and perhaps uniquely American notion that those states inferior in power to the United States ought not resent their own subordinate status; that, if it is nice enough, Washington can build a "benign" imperium in which all love it. This does not mean that the United States should dispense with tact. Ritual plays a role in ameliorating tensions in a social hierarchy by creating and confirming expectations of how members of the hierarchy are treated, but rituals do not fundamentally change reality or the attitudes of those subordinate in power. Acting in a humble manner is a ritual worth much respect, so the United States does well to consult the United Nations and NATO councils before it acts. But such rituals will only reduce, not eliminate , the resentment toward the United States that springs from the fact that it can do what it must in any case . And what it must do, if it is to wield imperial power, is create and enforce the rules of a hierarchical interstate order.

70

Page 75: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Imperialism Good - Proliferation

Imperialism is critical to preventing wild-fire proliferation – status quo less dangerous than world of alternativeStephen Peter Rosen, PhD from Harvard University in 1979 and is currently the Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs in the Department of Government, Harvard University, “An Empire, If you Can Keep It,” The National Interest, Spring 2003, LN Academic, UK: Fisher

Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the United States could give up the imperial mission, or pretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East, Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect, but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive.

71

Page 76: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Destroys Western Culture

Multiculturalism destroys critical values of the WestGlenn Woiceshyn, Freelance Writer, residing in Calgary, and studied philosophy and writing, full time, at the Objectivist Graduate Center of the Ayn Rand Institute as an auditing student, “Multiculturalism Breeds Terrorism,” Capitalism Magazine, June 24, 2006, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4714, UK: Fisher

Multiculturalism is an evil ideology driven by evil intentions, and it’s imperative that defenders of individualism understand its essential nature. [1]Multiculturalism—a creation of leftist, Western, nihilistic, post-modern philosophy professors—begins by promoting “cultural relativism,” which holds that all cultures are of equal value; no culture is better or worse than any other. Logically, this serves to de-value Western values, such as reason, science, productiveness, and each individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, by equating them with the most irrational and destructive practices of primitive, mystical cultures such as voodoo medicine, the subjugation of women by men, genital mutilation, and even cannibalism. As essentialized by Peter Schwartz, “Multiculturalism is the debased attempt to obliterate values by claiming that they are indistinguishable from non-values.” [2]

72

Page 77: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad - Extinction

Multiculturalism triggers violence that results in extinctionGlenn Woiceshyn, Freelance Writer, residing in Calgary, and studied philosophy and writing, full time, at the Objectivist Graduate Center of the Ayn Rand Institute as an auditing student, “Multiculturalism Breeds Terrorism,” Capitalism Magazine, June 24, 2006, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4714, UK: Fisher

Defenders of multiculturalism argue that deeming one culture superior to another leads to racism, which they allege to be trying to prevent. But racism involves judging a person’s character according to race, not chosen ideas and values. Racism is essentially different from the evaluation of a cultural practice according to the objective standard of survival and the enjoyment of life. In fact, as will soon become clear, multiculturalism is a racist doctrine.The next step in constructing multiculturalism involved shrinking the concept of culture from chosen, conceptual, significant values, such as wisdom, individual liberty, prosperity, romantic art, etc., to non-chosen or insignificant characteristics, such as skin color, gender, ethnic/religious/linguistic heritage, birth defect, etc. This served to promote a tribal mentality whereby individuals are encouraged to think of themselves as inescapable members of a tribe (or sub-tribe) defined by unchosen, perceptual-level characteristics—not chosen, conceptual values.The next step consisted of promoting “diversity” as a value, which involves diluting rational, practical values with irrational, destructive ones, such as forcing companies to hire people on the basis of race—not ability, which is racism . Another example is the dilution of school curricula with useless cultural trivia, such as hair styles of different cultures, or with ridiculous courses such as “black science” and “feminist algebra.” Andrew Coyne tried to redefine “diversity” to mean the different ideas that flow from free and thinking individuals, but then “diversity” is not the defining characteristic. There is no value for such individuals to diversify rational ideas with Nazism or Wahhabism.The final step in constructing multiculturalism involved blending cultural relativism with “egalitarianism,” which holds that no one (or no tribe) should benefit from a value, such as wealth, success, pride, etc., unless all do equally. Hence, if one culture appears to be ahead in terms of wealth creation, technology and the enjoyment of life, then this would imply “oppression” because all cultures have equal value and thus deserve equal results. This helps explain why militant Muslims in the East are murdering innocent people while claiming to be victims of Western oppression.The logical result of multiculturalism is to create a world of primitive, tribalistic mentalities that form countless sub-tribes based on unchosen identities and battle each other for power and unearned wealth until all values (and lives) are destroyed—which is the ultimate goal of nihilism. Ayn Rand, in her seminal essay entitled “Global Balkanization,” wrote, “There is no surer way to infect mankind with hatred—brute, blind, virulent hatred—than by splitting it into ethnic groups or tribes. If a man believes that his own character in some unknown, ineffable way, and that the characters of all strangers are determined in the same way—then no communication, no understanding, no persuasion is possible among them, only mutual fear, suspicion, and hatred.” [3]

73

Page 78: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – West is Best

The West is the Best – advances in numerous fields of human technology and the fact more and more people want our culture solidify thisKeith Windschuttle, Historian, Commentary: West superior without apology, UPI, November 30, 2001, Friday, LN, UK: Fisher

To compare Western civilization with the others is a thankless task. For a start, it is unnecessary because Western superiority doesn't need advocates. It speaks for itself. Moreover, to do so is insensitive because the comparison provides a reminder that non-Western cultures are inferior. To state this is tasteless, even though almost everyone knows it is true. The contest is not even close. It is hard to think of one major area of human activity where the West comes second. The West is best in health , wealth, art, music, literature, sport, industry, business, science, technology, military strength, human rights, liberty, and equality, critical thought and political stability. No one with any knowledge of these fields could seriously think otherwise. For instance, it is plain to anyone familiar with music, medicine or politics, that Italian opera is much better than Chinese opera, that European doctors can cure many more diseases than Buddhist shamans, that the Constitution of the United States guarantees more freedom than any Islamic state. The examples could be multiplied ad infinitum. The West, of course, is far from perfect, and it has slipped badly on social indices in recent decades, especially in family breakdown, drug abuse and standards of public education. Nonetheless, the rest of the world is still voting with its feet. Almost no one wants to migrate to any of the other major civilizations, but people wait in countless queues to leave them for the West.

74

Page 79: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best

The ideals of the liberals are mainly Western creationsEmily Monroy, Is The West The Best? After The Attacks: Taking A Closer Look At Both Sides of The World, Urban Mozaik, November, 2001, http://urbanmozaik.com/2001.nov_issue/nov01_fea_eastwest1.html, UK: Fisher

In their haste to distance themselves from what they see as the imperialistic oppressor, leftists appear to forget that many of the values they hold dear are shared more by the Occident than by any other part of the world. Never mind lofty ideals like freedom, secularism and the importance of the individual. Take something as concrete as capital punishment -- a practice that leftists and liberals almost universally oppose. Though a smattering of nations around the globe have abolished the death penalty, the only region as a group to do away with it is the West -- Western Europe itself and the so-called neo-Europes abroad, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Latin America. Even liberals who would abhor Berlusconi's glorification of the Occident are forced to admit that the elimination of the death penalty is largely a Western phenomenon. One American abolitionist site wonders aloud why the US continues to execute its citizens when the "countries with which we identify socially" -- i.e. those in Latin America and Europe -- have ceased to do so.

75

Page 80: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Double Standard

Multiculturalism sets a double standard – the West is blamed for a multitude of crimes, but the only movements against these crimes are WesternDinesh D’Souza, Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, A Minority Point of View, The Podium: Boundless Webzine, 1999, http://boundless.org/1999/departments/the_podium/a0000016.html, UK: Fisher

Activists on our college campuses and our college professors and the deans have suddenly realized that the great works of non-western cultures reflect the ideology and even the prejudice of those cultures, and this is a real multicultural dilemma in our schools and universities. The teachers can’t say, "Okay, we’re gonna’ teach you about non-western cultures, and we’re gonna’ denounce them for being even more racist and bigoted and retrograde than the west." This option, as you know, is politically impossible. Why? Because the non-western cultures are thought to be victims. They are victims of colonialism, of imperialism, of racism. And the whole idea behind multi-culturalism is to celebrate those cultures. To exalt them. To cherish them. To use them as inspirational role models to build the self-esteem of students on the campus. And so in reality, multi-culturalism cannot apply a critical lens to non-western cultures. You have what can be called a double standard of multi-culturalism. While pretending to be interested in all cultures and pretending to apply a kind of uniform lens of curiosity about all—they say, "Why have mono-culturalism when you can have multi-culturalism. Many is better than one." But in fact, you have a double standard in which western civilization is essentially seen critically, and non-western cultures are essentially seen uncritically. Western civilization is defined by a series of crimes—racism, sexism, and so on—even though all those crimes are, in fact, universal.… The Real Enemy of Slavery The historical irony is that the movement against these universal evils—the movement against slavery, the movement for the liberation of women—these emancipation movements are uniquely western, and they’re uniquely western because they make unique claim to the western notion of equality. And the western notion of equality originated essentially in Christianity. Christianity posits that all men are created equal in the eyes of God. Originally that view was thought to apply only to the next world. It was thought to apply only in a spiritual equality. But what distinguished the early anti-slavery movements was that they said, "No, this equality is not just a spiritual equality in the next, it is a moral equality that should be respected politically. That no man has the right to be governed without his consent." And so you see the case against slavery and the case for democracy are the same. In both, there is the same principle that no one has the right to govern us without our consent. And this is why the American founders understood from the very beginning the contradiction between the practice of slavery and principle of the Declaration of Independence. The Civil War was really nothing more than an acting out of that contradiction.

76

Page 81: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad

Multiculturalism ignores the life-improving achievements developed by the West while at the same time emphasizing the ‘positive qualities’ of dictatorsJoseph Kellard, Journalist living in New York, “Christopher Columbus: Multiculturalism vs. Objective History,” Capitalism Magazine, September 25, 1998, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=196, UK: Fisher

But multiculturalists fundamentally believe that no single reality exists and that all knowledge, including all values and standards, are relative to the particular group, whether of race, class, sex, that each individual's identity is determined by. History must be accordingly "balanced" to conform to the different "perspectives," i.e., realities, of each group, with each perspective given equal validity and weight -- regardless of its logic. All of this poses as being objective. As one multicultural manual for teachers advises: "Avoid dwelling on the negatives which may be associated with a cultural or ethnic group. Every culture has positive characteristics which should be accentuated."1Applied consistently, this method would require teachers to "balance" history by accentuating Hitler's "positive characteristics," such as his treating his dogs kindly, instead of "dwelling" on the anti-life "negatives" that were his essence.And in "balancing" the history of Columbus, multiculturalists drop objective standards, essential characteristics and contexts. Thereafter they emphasize Indian cultures' commonplace "positives" while downplaying, excusing or celebrating their anti-life essence: faith, supernaturalism, tribalism, brutishness, anarchy and Stone Age squalor. Furthermore, they emphasize Western civilization's commonplace "negatives" while downplaying or condemning its life-improving essence : reason, science, individualism, freedom, rule of law, capitalism and industry-technology.These methods allow multiculturalists to undercut Western civilization's essential values that are timeless and superior for all humans, so as to raise as culturally and morally "equal" the anti-life essence of Indian cultures.

77

Page 82: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Racist

The multicultural idea of diversity mirrors the Nazis ideas of what diversity entailsPeter Schwartz is editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand and is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, The Racism of "Diversity,” Orange County Register, December 19, 2003, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7915&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher

The notion of "diversity" entails exactly the same premises as racism--that one's ideas are determined by one's race and that the source of an individual's identity is his ethnic heritage.Texas A&M president Robert Gates should be praised for announcing that race will no longer be a factor when applications are considered, and that students "should be admitted as individuals, on personal merit--and no other basis." What is needed now is for him, and others, to go further in challenging "diversity." They ought to declare their categorical opposition to racism--and, therefore, their repudiation of the entire policy of "diversity," which is simply an insidious form of racism.Unlike the valid policy of racial integration, "diversity" propagates all the evils inherent in racism. According to its proponents, we need "diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life. We supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of minorities," as the MIT Faculty Newsletter puts it. Admissions should be based on race, the University of Michigan's vice president insists, because "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students, minority and majority alike."These circumlocutions translate simply into this : one's race determines the content of one's mind . They imply that people have worthwhile views to express because of their ethnicity, and that "diversity" enables us to encounter "black ideas," "Hispanic ideas," etc. What could be more repulsively racist than that? This is exactly the premise held by the South's slave-owners and by the Nazis' Storm Troopers . They too believed that an individual's thoughts and actions are determined by his racial heritage.Whether a given race receives special rewards or special punishments is immaterial. The core of racism is the notion that the individual is meaningless and that membership in the collective--the race--is the source of his identity and value. To the racist, the individual's moral and intellectual character is the product, not of his own choices, but of the genes he shares with all others of his race. To the racist, the particular members of a given race are interchangeable.

78

Page 83: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Racist

Multiculturalism values people only by their bloodline – same premise as racismPeter Schwartz is editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand and is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, The Racism of "Diversity,” Orange County Register, December 19, 2003, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7915&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher

The value of a racially integrated student body or work force lies entirely in the individualism it implies. It implies that the students or workers were chosen objectively, with skin color ignored in favor of the standard of individual merit. But that is not what "diversity" advocates want. They sneer at the principle of "color-blindness." They want decisions on college or job applicants to be made exactly as the vilest of racists make them: by bloodline . They insist that whatever is a result of your own choices--your ideas, your character, your accomplishments--is to be dismissed, while that which is outside your control--the accident of skin color--is to define your life. We need to identify "diversity" for what it is: a malignant policy that harms everyone, because it is the very essence of racism.

79

Page 84: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – A2 West Is Best Is Imperialist

The idea that the West is Best is not imperialist – other cultures realize that the West is far superiorRobert 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, “An Empire of Ideals,” The Ayn Rand Institute, October 8, 2001, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7392&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher

Everyone has finally awakened to the deadly threat posed by terrorism, and some are even willing to admit that the source of this threat is Islamic fundamentalism. But almost no one is prepared to name the long-term answer to that threat. The long-term answer--the only means by which we can eventually secure world peace--is cultural imperialism."Cultural imperialism" is not exactly the right term. That is a smear-tag created by the academic left, which hates everything good about Western culture and tries to dismiss that culture's worldwide popularity by blaming it on some kind of coercive conspiracy.The same purpose is served by another leftist smear-tag, "cultural genocide," which sounds like mass-murder but actually refers to people in the Third World choosing to adopt Western manners and attitudes , the poor things. The inventors of these smears are the same people who clamor for a "multicultural" society, ostensibly a society that tolerates many different cultural influences--except, of course, any influence coming from the West.The real phenomenon that the phrase "cultural imperialism" refers to is the voluntary adoption of ideas, art and entertainment produced in civilized countries. It refers to the most benevolent kind of "empire" that could be imagined: an empire of common ideals and attitudes; an empire spread purely by voluntary persuasion; an empire whose "conquest" consists of bringing the benefits of civilization to backward regions. Western "cultural imperialism" is the march of progress across the globe.

80

Page 85: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best

Values of the Western are superior to the values espoused by Middle East DictatorshipsRobert 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, “An Empire of Ideals,” The Ayn Rand Institute, October 8, 2001, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7392&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher

What no one challenged, however, was Berlusconi's factual description of the values held by the West versus those held by the Islamic world. Nearly every country in the Middle East is a dictatorship. These countries are wracked with the chronic poverty bred by dictatorship--with the exception of the rulers, who pocket money from oil reserves discovered, drilled and made valuable by Western technology. All of these countries are overrun--or are on the verge of being overrun--by religious fanatics who ruthlessly suppress any manifestation of the pursuit of happiness in this world, from baring one's ankles to watching television.We broadcast to these oppressed people the Western message of liberty, prosperity and happiness--in forms as low-brow as Baywatch or as sophisticated as the Declaration of Independence. This is the "imperialism" that terrifies Islamic fundamentalists.They should be terrified--because they know that in a fair competition, their values cannot win. On the one side, there are the Western values of intellectual freedom, science, prosperity, individual rights and the pursuit of happiness. On the other side, there are the centuries-old scourges of theocracy, superstition, poverty, dictatorship and mass-murder. Is one of these alternatives superior to the other? You bet your life it is.

81

Page 86: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Intellectuals Must Advocate Western Values

As intellectuals, it is necessary to reverse academia’s anti-West tendencies – critical to survivalRobert 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, “An Empire of Ideals,” The Ayn Rand Institute, October 8, 2001, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7392&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher

We must begin a campaign of education designed to export Western values to the barbarous East--and that campaign must be led by our intellectuals , not denounced by them. This war must be fought with televisions, radios, books and movies--and by the intransigently pro-Western statements of our political and intellectual leaders. This is a battle between opposite and irreconcilable cultures, and if we want to survive, we must begin with the conviction that our culture deserves to win.A physical war against terrorist states--a war fought with bombs, rockets and guns against the governments that support terrorism--has now become a necessity. But that battle is only a first step. In the long run, we can only stop the re-emergence of new Islamic fanatics by disinfecting the cultural miasma in which they breed. And light, the light of benevolent Western ideals, is the best disinfectant.

82

Page 87: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best

Western values are objectively better than the values of the rest of the world Edwin A. Locke, Ph.D., Edwin A. Locke, Professor of management (emeritus) at the University of Maryland at College Park, Senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, “The Greatness of Western Civilization,” December 10, 1997, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6164, UK: Fisher

In this age of diversity-worship, it is considered virtually axiomatic that all cultures are equal. Western culture, claim the intellectuals, is in no way superior to that of African tribalists or Eskimo seal hunters. There are no objective standards, they say, that can be used to evaluate the moral stature of different groups. They assert that to deny the equality of all cultures is to be guilty of the most heinous of intellectual sins: "ethnocentrism." This is to flout the sacred principle of cultural relativism. I disagree with the relativists--absolutely.There are three fundamental respects in which Western culture is objectively the best. These are the core values or core achievements of Western civilization, and what made America great.Reason. The Greeks were the first to identify philosophically that knowledge is gained through reason and logic as opposed to mysticism (faith, revelation, dogma). It would take two millennia, including a Dark Ages and a Renaissance, before the full implications of Greek thought would be realized. The rule of reason reached its zenith in the West in the 18th century--the Age of Enlightenment. "For the first time in modern history," writes one philosopher, "an authentic respect for reason became the mark of an entire culture. " America is a product of the Enlightenment.Individual Rights. An indispensable achievement leading to the Enlightenment was the recognition of the concept of individual rights. John Locke demonstrated that individuals do not exist to serve governments, but rather that governments exist to protect individuals. The individual, said Locke, has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. The result was the United States of America. (Disastrous errors were made in the West -- for example, slavery, which originated elsewhere, and Nazism--but these were too incongruent with Western values to last and were corrected, by the West, in the name of its core principles of reason and rights.)Science and Technology. The triumph of reason and rights made possible the full development and application of science and technology and ultimately modern industrial society. Reason and rights freed man's mind from the tyranny of religious dogma and freed man's productive capacity from the tyranny of state control. Scientific and technological progress followed in several interdependent steps. Men began to understand the laws of nature. They invented an endless succession of new products. And they engaged in large-scale production, that is, the creation of wealth, which in turn financed and motivated further invention and production. As a result, horse-and-buggies were replaced by automobiles, wagon tracks by steel rails, candles by electricity. At last, after millennia of struggle, man became the master of his environment.The result of the core achievements of Western civilization has been an increase in freedom, wealth, health, comfort, and life expectancy unprecedented in the history of the world. The achievements were greatest in the country where the principles of reason and rights were implemented most consistently--the United States of America. In contrast, it was precisely in those Eastern and African countries which did not embrace reason, rights, and technology where people suffered (and still suffer) most from both natural and man-made disasters (famine, poverty, illness, dictatorship) and where life-expectancy was (and is) lowest. It is said that primitives live "in harmony with nature," but in reality they are simply victims of the vicissitudes of nature--if some dictator does not kill them first.The greatness of the West is not an "ethnocentric" prejudice; it is an objective fact. This assessment is based on the only proper standard for judging a government or a society: the degree to which its core values are pro- or anti-life. Pro-life cultures acknowledge and respect man's nature as a rational being who must discover and create the conditions which his survival and happiness require--which means that they advocate reason, rights, freedom, and technological progress.

83

Page 88: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best

Western values are better than the values espoused by other cultures – must advocate themDr. Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, Member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, “On Columbus Day, Celebrate Western Civilization, Not Multiculturalism,” The Ayn Rand Institute, October 3, 2001, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5441&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher

Columbus should be honored, for in so doing, we honor Western Civilization. But the critics do not want to bestow such honor, because their real goal is to denigrate the values of Western Civilization and to glorify the primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism embodied in the tribal cultures of American Indians. They decry the glorification of the West as "cultural imperialism" and "Eurocentrism." We should, they claim, replace our reverence for Western Civilization with multiculturalism, which regards all cultures (including vicious tyrannies) as morally equal. In fact, they aren't. Some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western Civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western Civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honor Western Civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.

84

Page 89: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Racist

Multiculturalism is a thin guise for racismDr. Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, Member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, “On Columbus Day, Celebrate Western Civilization, Not Multiculturalism,” The Ayn Rand Institute, October 3, 2001, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5441&news_iv_ctrl=1076, UK: Fisher

Underlying the political collectivism of the anti-Columbus crowd is a racist view of human nature. They claim that one's identity is primarily ethnic: if one thinks his ancestors were good, he will supposedly feel good about himself; if he thinks his ancestors were bad, he will supposedly feel self-loathing. But it doesn't work; the achievements or failures of one's ancestors are monumentally irrelevant to one's actual worth as a person. Only the lack of a sense of self leads one to look to others to provide what passes for a sense of identity. Neither the deeds nor misdeeds of others are his own; he can take neither credit nor blame for what someone else chose to do. There are no racial achievements or racial failures, only individual achievements and individual failures. One cannot inherit moral worth or moral vice. "Self-esteem through others" is a self-contradiction.Thus the sham of "preserving one's heritage" as a rational life goal. Thus the cruel hoax of "multicultural education" as an antidote to racism: it will continue to create more racism. Individualism is the only alternative to the racism of political correctness. We must recognize that everyone is a sovereign entity, with the power of choice and independent judgment. That is the ultimate value of Western Civilization, and it should be proudly proclaimed.

85

Page 90: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Destroys Autonomy

Multiculturalism forces people to cling to groups – collapsing autonomyMichael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, and Gary Hull, Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Claremont Graduate School, “Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism,” Capitalism Magazine, November 1, 1999, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3425, UK: Fisher

Is ethnic diversity an "absolute essential" of a college education? UCLA's Chancellor Charles Young thinks so. Ethnic diversity is clearly the purpose of affirmative action, which Young is defending against a long-overdue assault. But far from being essential to a college education, such diversity is a sure road to its destruction. "Ethnic diversity" is merely racism in a politically correct disguise.Many people have a very superficial view of racism. They see it as merely the belief that one race is superior to another. It is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and fundamentally wrong) view of human nature. Racism is the notion that one's race determines one's identity. It is the belief that one's convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one's mind but by one's anatomy or "blood."This view causes people to be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership. In turn, it leads them to condemn or praise others on the same basis. In fact, one can gain an authentic sense of pride only from one's own achievements, not from inherited characteristics.The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual's confidence in his own mind. Such an individual then anxiously seeks a sense of identity by clinging to some group , abandoning his autonomy and his rights , allowing his ethnic group to tell him what to believe. Because he thinks of himself as a racial entity, he feels "himself" only among others of the same race. He becomes a separatist, choosing his friends — and enemies — based on ethnicity. This separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations.

86

Page 91: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Racist

The logic of multiculturalism equates to the logic of racists Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, and Gary Hull, Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Claremont Graduate School, “Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism,” Capitalism Magazine, November 1, 1999, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3425, UK: Fisher

The diversity movement claims that its goal is to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences. This is a complete sham. One cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. One cannot espouse multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings. One cannot preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect students to have self-esteem.Advocates of "diversity" are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts — for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: colorblindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don't treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren't.Advocates of "diversity" claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the "differences" they have in mind are racial differences, which means we're being urged to glorify race, which means we're being asked to institutionalize separatism. "Racial identity" erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true — if "racial identity" determined one's values and thinking methods — there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

87

Page 92: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad - Conformity

Advocates of multiculturalism do nothing more than force people to conform to a set of idealsMichael S. Berliner, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University, and Gary Hull, Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Claremont Graduate School, “Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism,” Capitalism Magazine, November 1, 1999, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3425, UK: Fisher

Advocates of "diversity" claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population "reflect" the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society.Racism, not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today's intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in "the real world" is intellectual diversity, i.e., the diversity of ideas. But such diversity — far from being sought after — is virtually forbidden on campus. The existence of "political correctness" blasts the academics' pretense at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity. The only way to eradicate racism on campus is to scrap racist programs and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individual's mind is competent, that the human intellect is efficacious, that we possess free will, that individuals are to be judged as individuals — and that deriving one's identity from one's race is a corruption — a corruption appropriate to Nazi Germany, not to a nation based on freedom and independence.

88

Page 93: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – West Is Best

The West is Best – practices of non-Western nations are abhorrent and must be rejected – prize Western cultureWalter Williams, Doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles, The Absurdities Underlying Multiculturalism, Capitalism Magazine, November 5, 2003, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3275

The multiculturists are right in saying that in a just society people of all races and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one culture cannot be judged superior to another and to do so is eurocentrism. For them different cultural values are morally equivalent. That's unbridled nonsense. Ask your multiculturalist friends: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan Africa and Middle East countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Northern Sudan; is it morally equivalent? In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, women adulterers face death by stoning and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed. Are these cultural values morally equivalent, superior or inferior to ours?Western values are superior to all others. Why? The indispensable achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights. It's the idea that individuals have certain inalienable rights and individuals do not exist to serve government but governments exist to protect these inalienable rights. It took until the 17th century for that idea to arrive on the scene and mostly through the works of English philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume.While western values are superior to all others, one need not be a westerner to hold Western values. A person can be Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, African or Arab and hold Western values. It's no accident that western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health, life expectancy, wealth and comfort for the ordinary person. There's an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living.

89

Page 94: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Multiculturalism Bad – Indoctrination

Diversity indoctrinates individuals into believing in specific categoriesWalter Williams, Doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles, "Diversity" as Doublespeak for Ideological Conformity, Capitalism Magazine, February 13, 2002, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1410, UK: Fisher

Diversity implies toleration of differences among people no matter what that difference might be, including those differences that are racial, sexual, ideological or political. Diversity also implies a willingness to permit others who disagree with you to go their separate ways, and form institutions and groups among like-minded friends and associates. In the political arena, diversity implies decentralized decision-making power that in turn requires limited government.What's called for and practiced by college administrators, courts and administrative agencies is anything but a defense of individual rights, freedom from conformity and a doctrine of live-and-let-live. Instead, diversity is an increasingly popular catchword for all kinds of conformity -- conformity in ideas, actions and speech. It calls for re-education programs where diversity managers indoctrinate students, faculty members, employees, managers and executives on what's politically correct thinking.Part of that lesson is non-judgmentalism, where one is taught that one lifestyle is just as worthy as another, or all cultures and their values are morally equivalent. I'm waiting for one of those multicultural/diversity idiots to tell us about the moral equivalency between Western and Taliban treatment of women.

90

Page 95: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

***A2 The Other***

91

Page 96: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other

Derrida’s ethics of relating to the other requires viewing rapists as equal to victim, oppressor equal to oppressed – destroying the possibility of ethical decision makingJack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law, Transcendental Deconstruction, Transcendent Justice-- Part II, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 1131, 1994, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/trans02.htm

Derrida's ethics of Otherness has a second component: It employs a different sense of individuality and uniqueness. Under this view, justice requires one to speak in the language of the Other by trying to see things from the Other's point of view. (78) This conception of justice seems most attractive when we are the injurer or the stronger party in a relationship, or when we are in the position of a judge who is attempting to arbitrate between competing claims. For example, suppose that we are the State, the stronger party, the oppressor, or the injurer, or suppose that we are contemplating an action that might put us in such a position. It seems only just that we should try to understand how we have injured or oppressed the Other (or might be in a position to injure or oppress). We can only do this if we try to see the problem from the Other's perspective and understand her pain and her predicament in all of its uniqueness. The duty we owe to the Other is the duty to see how our actions may affect or have affected the Other; to fulfill this duty we must put away our own preconceptions and vocabulary and try to see things from her point of view. Similarly, if we are a judge in a case attempting to arbitrate between the parties, the ethics of Otherness demands that we try to understand how our decision will affect the two parties, and this will require us to see the matter from their perspective. Suppose, however, that we are not the injurer, but the victim; not the State, but the individual; not the strong, but the weak; not the oppressor, but the oppressed. Does justice require that we speak in the language of the person we believe is injuring or oppressing us? Must a rape victim attempt to understand her violation from the rapist's point of view? Does justice demand that she attempt to speak to the rapist in his own language - one which has treated her as less than human? Must a concentration camp survivor address her former captor in the language of his worldview of Aryan supremacy? We might wonder whether this is what justice really requires, especially if the injustice we complain of is precisely that the Other failed to recognize us as a person, refused to speak in our language, and declined to consider our uniqueness and authenticity.

92

Page 97: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other (1/2)

Their attempt at empathizing with the Other ultimately fails – it ignores larger structures of domination imposed on the Other and serves to widen the gap between the individual and the OtherRey Chow, Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Irvine, Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1993, p. 12 – 15, UK: Fisher

In the "cultural studies" of the American academy in the 1990s, the Maoist is reproducing with prowess. We see this in the way terms such as "oppression," "victimization," and "subalternity" are now being used. Contrary to Orientalist disdain for contemporary native cultures of the non-West, the Maoist turns precisely the "disdained'' other into the object of his/her study and, in some cases, identification. In a mixture of admiration and moralism, the Maoist sometimes turns all people from non-Western cultures into a generalized "subaltern " that is then used to flog an equally generalized "West ." 21Because the representation of "the other" as such ignores (1) the class and intellectual hierarchies within these other cultures, which are usually as elaborate as those in the West, and (2) the discursive power relations structuring the Maoist's mode of inquiry and valorization, it produces a way of talking in which notions of lack, subalternity, victimization, and so forth are drawn upon indiscriminately, often with the intention of spotlighting the speaker's own sense of alterity and political righteousness. A comfortably wealthy white American intellectual I know claimed that he was a "third world intellectual," citing as one of his credentials his marriage to a Western European woman of part-Jewish heritage; a professor of English complained about being "victimized" by the structured time at an Ivy League institution, meaning that she needed to be on time for classes; a graduate student of upper-class background from one of the world's poorest countries told his American friends that he was of poor peasant stock in order to authenticate his identity as a radical "third world" representative; male and female academics across the U.S. frequently say they were "raped" when they report experiences of professional frustration and conflict. Whether sincere or delusional, such cases of self-dramatization all take the route of self-subalternization, which has increasingly become the assured means to authority and power . What these intellectuals are doing is robbing the terms of oppression of their critical and oppositional import, and thus depriving the oppressed of even the vocabulary of protest and rightful demand. The oppressed, whose voices we seldom hear, are robbed twice—the first time of their economic chances, the second time of their language, which is now no longer distinguishable from those of us who have had our consciousnesses "raised."In their analysis of the relation between violence and representation, Armstrong and Tennenhouse write: "[The] idea of violence as representation is not an easy one for most academics to accept. It implies that whenever we speak for someone else we are inscribing her with our own (implicitly masculine) idea of order." 22 At present, this process of "inscribing" often means not only that we "represent" certain historic others because they are/were ''oppressed"; it often means that there is interest in representation only when what is represented can in some way be seen as lacking. Even though the Maoist is usually contemptuous of Freudian psychoanalysis because it is "bourgeois," her investment in oppression and victimization fully partakes of the Freudian and Lacanian notions of "lack." By attributing "lack," the Maoist justifies the "speaking for someone else" that Armstrong and Tennenhouse call "violence as representation." As in the case of Orientalism, which does not necessarily belong only to those who are white, the Maoist does not have to be racially "white" either. The phrase "white guilt" refers to a type of discourse which continues to position power and lack against each other, while the narrator of that discourse, like Jane Eyre, speaks with power but identifies with powerlessness. This is how even those who come from privilege more often than not speak from/of/as its "lack." What the Maoist demonstrates is a circuit of productivity that draws its capital from others' deprivation while refusing to acknowledge its own presence as endowed. With the material origins of her own discourse always concealed, the Maoist thus speaks as if her charges were a form of immaculate conception.

[Continues….No Text Removed]

93

Page 98: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other (2/2)

[Continued….No Text Removed]The difficulty facing us, it seems to me, is no longer simply the "first world" Orientalist who mourns the rusting away of his treasures, but also students from privileged backgrounds Western and non-Western, who conform behaviorally in every respect with the elitism of their social origins (e.g., through powerful matrimonial alliances, through pursuit of fame, or through a contemptuous arrogance toward fellow students) but who nonetheless proclaim dedication to "vindicating the subalterns ." My point is not that they should be blamed for the accident of their birth, nor that they cannot marry rich, pursue fame, or even be arrogant. Rather, it is that they choose to see in others' powerlessness an idealized image of themselves and refuse to hear in the dissonance between the content and manner of their speech their own complicity with violence . Even though these descendents of the Maoist may be quick to point out the exploitativeness of Benjamin Disraeli's "The East is a career," 23 they remain blind to their own exploitativeness as they make "the East" their career. How do we intervene in the productivity of this overdetermined circuit?

94

Page 99: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO 1NC

The affirmative’s action of speaking for Others serves to ultimately reinscribe a hierarchy of civilizations – triggering racism and imperialism, which ultimately overwhelms their attempts at improving the condition of the OtherLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

4. Here is my central point. In order to evaluate attempts to speak for others in particular instances, we need to analyze the probable or actual effects of the words on the discursive and material context. One cannot simply look at the location of the speaker or her credentials to speak, nor can one look merely at the propositional content of the speech; one must also look at where the speech goes and what it does there.Looking merely at the content of a set of claims without looking at effects of the claims cannot produce an adequate or even meaningful evaluation of them, partly because the notion of a content separate from effects does not hold up. The content of the claim, or its meaning, emerges in interaction between words and hearers within a very specific historical situation. Given this, we have to pay careful attention to the discursive arrangement in order to understand the full meaning of any given discursive event. For example, in a situation where a well-meaning First World person is speaking for a person or group in the Third World, the very discursive arrangement may reinscribe the "hierarchy of civilizations" view where the U nited States lands squarely at the top. This effect occurs because the speaker is positioned as authoritative and empowered, as the knowledgeable subject, while the group in the Third World is reduced, merely because of the structure of the speaking practice, to an object and victim that must be championed from afar, thus disempowered. Though the speaker may be trying to materially improve the situation of some lesser- privileged group, the effects of her discourse is to reinforce racist, imperialist conceptions and perhaps also to further silence the lesser-privileged group's own ability to speak and be heard . 14 This shows us why it is so important to reconceptualize discourse, as Foucault recommends, as an event, which includes speaker, words, hearers, location, language, and so on.

95

Page 100: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO 1NC Alternative

Speaking for others needs to be rejected – speaking to and listening with Others is the best choiceLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

A final response to the problem that I will consider occurs in Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's rich essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Spivak's essay, the central issue is an essentialist, authentic conception of the self and of experience. She criticizes the "self-abnegating intellectual" pose that Foucault and Deleuze adopt when they reject speaking for others on the grounds that it assumes the oppressed can transparently represent their own true interests. According to Spivak, Foucault and Deleuze's position serves only to conceal the actual authorizing power of the retreating intellectuals, who in their very retreat help to consolidate a particular conception of experience (as transparent and self-knowing). Thus, to promote "listening to" as opposed to speaking for essentializes the oppressed as nonideologically constructed subjects. But Spivak is also critical of speaking for others that engages in dangerous representations. In the end Spivak prefers a "speaking to," in which the intellectual neither abnegates his or her discursive role nor presumes an authenticity of the oppressed but still allows for the possibility that the oppressed will produce a "countersentence" that can then suggest a new historical narrative.This response is the one with which I have the most agreement. We should strive to create wherever possible the conditions for dialogue and the practice of speaking with and to rather than speaking for others. If the dangers of speaking for others result from the possibility of misrepresentation, expanding one's own authority and privilege, and a generally imperialist speaking ritual, then speaking with and to can lessen these dangers.

96

Page 101: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Destroys Progressive Politics

Their act of speaking for others destroys the possibility of progressive politics by silencing the Other and representing the Other as weakLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

These examples demonstrate some of the current practices and discussions around speaking for others in our society. As a type of discursive practice, speaking for others has come under increasing criticism, and in some communities it is being rejected. There is a strong, albeit contested, current within feminism which holds that speaking for others is arrogant, vain, unethical, and politically illegitimate. In feminist magazines such as Sojourner it is common to find articles and letters in which the author states that she can only speak for herself. In her important paper, "Dyke Methods," Joyce Trebilcot offers a philosophical articulation of this view. She renounces for herself the practice of speaking for others within a lesbian feminist community and argues further that she "will not try to get other wimmin to accept my beliefs in place of their own" on the grounds that to do so would be to practice a kind of discursive coercion and even a violence (1).2 In anthropology there is also much discussion going on about whether it is possible to adequately or justifiably speak for others. Trinh T. Minh-ha explains the grounds for skepticism when she says that anthropology is "mainly a conversation of 'us' with 'us' about 'them,' of the white man with the white man about the primitive-nature man. . . in which 'them' is silenced . 'Them' always stands on the other side of the hill, naked and speechless. . . 'them' is only admitted among 'us,' the discussing subjects, when accompanied or introduced by an 'us' . . ." (65, 67).3 Given this analysis, even ethnographies written by progressive anthropologists are a priori regressive because of the structural features of anthropological discursive practice.

97

Page 102: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other - A2 Given Permission to Speak For Others/Others Can’t Speak for Themselves

Even if the Other supposedly wants to be spoken for, it is still an act of representing the Other which ignores the imbalance of power between the speaker and OtherLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

There is another sense of representation that may seem also vitally connected here: political representation, as in, for example, electoral politics. Elected representatives have a special kind of authorization to speak for their constituents, and one might wonder whether such authorization dissolves the problems associated with speaking for others and therefore should perhaps serve as a model solution for the problem. I would answer both yes and no. Elected representatives do have a kind of authorization to speak for others, and we may even expand this to include less formal instances in which someone is authorized by the person(s) spoken for to speak on their behalf. There are many examples of this sort of authorizing, such as when I asked my partner to speak on my behalf in the hospital delivery room, or when my student authorized me to speak on her behalf in a meeting with the chancellor. However, the procurement of such authorization does not render null and void all attendant problems with speaking for others. One is still interpreting the other's situation and wishes (unless perhaps one simply reads a written text they have supplied), and so one is still creating for them a self in the presence of others. Moreover, the power to confer such authorization, and to have power over the designated representative, is rarely present in the instances where one is being spoken for. Intellectual work has certainly not been guided by the mandate to get permission from those whom one is speaking for and about, and it is safe to say that most political representatives have not been strictly guided by the need to get such authorization either. The point here is that the model of political representation cannot be used in all instances of speaking for others, though it may prove instructive when we attempt to formulate responses to the problem.

98

Page 103: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Link: Speaking About the Other

Speaking about the other links to our argument – they are representing the Other as they wishLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

If "speaking about" is also involved here, however, the entire edifice of the "crisis of representation" must be connected as well. In both the practice of speaking for as well as the practice of speaking about others, I am engaging in the act of representing the other's needs, goals, situation, and in fact, who they are. I am representing them as such and such, or in post-structuralist terms, I am participating in the construction of their subject-positions. This act of representation cannot be understood as founded on an act of discovery wherein I discover their true selves and then simply relate my discovery. I will take it as a given that such repre sentations are in every case mediated and the product of interpre tation (which is connected to the claim that a speaker's location has epistemic salience). And it is precisely because of the mediated character of all representations that some persons have rejected on political as well as epistemic grounds the legitimacy of speaking for others.

99

Page 104: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Link: Reading Text

The presentation of words written by the Other are subject to our impacts – words are viewed as differently dependent upon where they’re coming fromLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

Rituals of speaking are constitutive of meaning, the meaning of the words spoken as well as the meaning of the event. This claim requires us to shift the ontology of meaning from its location in a text or utterance to a larger space, a space that includes the text or utterance but that also includes the discursive context. And an important implication of this claim is that meaning must be understood as plural and shifting, since a single text can engender diverse meanings given diverse contexts. Not only what is emphasized, noticed, and how it is understood will be affected by the location of both speaker and hearer, but the truth-value or epistemic status will also be affected.For example, in many situations when a woman speaks the presumption is against her; when a man speaks he is usually taken seriously (unless he talks "the dumb way," as Andy Warhol accused Bruce Springsteen of doing, or, in other words, if he is from an oppressed group). When writers from oppressed races and nationalities have insisted that all writing is political the claim has been dismissed as foolish, or grounded in ressentiment, or it is simply ignored; when prestigious European philosophers say that all writing is political it is taken up as a new and original "truth" (judith Wilson calls this "the intellectual equivalent of the 'coverrecord."')9 The rituals of speaking that involve the location of speaker and listeners affect whether a claim is taken as a true, well-reasoned, compelling argument, or a significant idea. Thus, how what is said gets heard depends on who says it, and who says it will affect the style and language in which it is stated, which will in turn affect its perceived significance (for specific hearers). The discursive style in which some European post-structuralists have made the claim that all writing is political marks it as important and likely to be true for a certain (powerful) milieu; whereas the style in which African-American writers made the same claim marked their speech as dismissable in the eyes of the same milieu.

100

Page 105: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – A2 “You’re Nihilist”

We don’t run from politics – we’re not an act of discursive violence, thoughLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

However, opting for the retreat response is not always a thinly veiled excuse to avoid political work and indulge one's own desires. Sometimes it is the result of a desire to engage in political work without engaging in what might be called discursive imperialism.

101

Page 106: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – A2 “No Alt”

We are not advocating blanket rejection of speaking for the Other – our links outline why their speech act is badLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

In rejecting a general retreat from speaking for, I am not advocating a return to an un-self-conscious appropriation of the other, but rather that anyone who speaks for others should only do so out of a concrete analysis of the particular power relations and discursive effects involved. I want to develop this point through elucidating four sets of interrogatory practices that are meant to help evaluate possible and actual instances of speaking for. In list form they may appear to resemble an algorithm, as if we could plug. in an instance of speaking for and factor out an analysis and evaluation. However, they are meant only to suggest a list of the questions that should be asked concerning any such discursive practice. These are by no means original: they have been learned and practiced by many activists and theorists.

102

Page 107: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Obligation to the Other – SFO Hierarchies Link

Asking for rewards – such as the ballot – for speaking for Others serves to reinscribe hierarchiesLinda Alcoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies and the Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at Syracuse University, “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique, No. 20, Winter 1991-92, p. 5-32, UK: Fisher

In conclusion, I would stress that the practice of speaking for others is often born of a desire for mastery, to privilege oneself as the one who more correctly understands the truth about another's situation or as one who can champion a just cause and thus achieve glory and praise. And the effect of the practice of speaking for others is often, though not always, erasure and a reinscription of sexual, national, and other kinds of hierarchies. I hope that this analysis will contribute to rather than diminish the important discussion going on today about how to develop strategies for a more equitable, just distribution of the ability to speak and be heard. But this development should not be taken as an absolute dis-authorization of all practices of speaking for. It is not always the case that when others unlike me speak for me I have ended up worse off, or that when we speak for others they end up worse off. Sometimes, as Loyce Stewart has argued, we do need a "messenger" to advocate for our needs.

103

Page 108: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

***Nuclear Weapons/Fear Good***

104

Page 109: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Nuclear Weapons Good - Nationalism

Existence of the H-Bomb checks future adventure-conquerors – decreasing reliance on nuclear weapons risks massive conventional warsJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

I could say that if I didn't do it, someone else would, but that answer was rejected at Nuremberg. (It's also a better reason to leave the weapons program than to stay.) I continue to support the nuclear weapons business with my effort for many reasons, which I discuss throughout this piece. But mostly, I do it because the fear of nuclear holocaust is the only authority my own country or any other has respected so far when it comes to nationalistic urges to make unlimited war. As William L. Shirer states in his preface to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Touchstone Books, New York, 1990),"Adolf Hitler is probably the last of the great adventurer-conquerors in the tradition of Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon, and the Third Reich the last of the empires which set out on the path taken earlier by France, Rome and Macedonia. The curtain was rung down on that phase of history, at least, by the sudden invention of the hydrogen bomb , of the ballistic missile, and of rockets which can be aimed to hit the moon."Now this contrasts with the argument of those who would "reinvent government" by putting up bureaucratic roadblocks to maintaining the reliability of the US nuclear arsenal through research and testing. They reason that if the reliability of everyone's nuclear arsenals declines, everyone will be less likely to try using them. The problem is that some "adventurer-conqueror" may arise and use everyone's doubt about their arsenals to risk massive conventional war instead. An expansionist dictatorship might even risk nuclear war with weapons that are simpler, cruder, less powerful, much riskier (in terms of the possibility of accidental detonation) but much more reliable than our own may eventually become without adequate "stockpile stewardship."[14]

105

Page 110: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Nuclear Weapons Good

Nations will inevitably seek the deadliest weapons – ingrained in human nature – existence of nuclear weapons checks development of worse weapons in the futureJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

Some people argue that the goal of civilization is to raise our children so that wars don't happen. Unfortunately, we've had civilization for six thousand years, and our history has been as dysfunctional as our families. The only thing that's ever made us pause in our societal "addiction" to war is nuclear weaponry, and the realization that the next big war may kill us all.But if war is humanity's heroin, nuclear weaponry is its methadone. That is, the treatment has potentially dangerous side effects. I am partly referring to the doctrine of deterrence by Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD. It is MAD, because it is intrinsically unstable, as those who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis may recall. The Strategic Defense Initiative, (or Star Wars) was an attempt to move toward something more stable, and its successor, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), may in time succeed, provided it is managed as a research program rather than as a political football. But even a successful BMD will not make the world stable against massively destructive war -- it will merely make it more stable than it is now. BMD is a technical fix that does not address the real cause of the instability.As long as war is the ultimate arbiter of international disputes, nations will arm themselves with ultimate weapons. And that means, that if something worse than nuclear weapons can be discovered and developed, it will be. And then we will find something worse than that, and so on perhaps until we, ourselves, prematurely punctuate the end of our universe with as big a bang as the one which began it. Nuclear weapons may actually be giving us a chance to learn to get along with each other before we get something really dangerous, a kind of world-historical warning shot.[8] The problem is not nuclear weapons, the problem is war.

106

Page 111: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Nuclear Weapons Good – Pacifism Bad

Attempts at pacifism fall short and only encourage aggressorsJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

Still, there is the notion that because I did research related to nuclear weapons, I deserve a greater portion of guilt for what happens if they are used. Let me point out that even the anti-nuclear activists contribute to the nuclear weapons business, because they make war on nuclear weapons instead of making peace. They are shooting the bearer of the bad news that we can't make global war safely anymore . It's as if they want war to be safer, so that humanity can continue as before, making wars that only kill some of us. I hand them back the guilt[20] some of them wish to hand me. In particular, I sometimes consider those who engage in anti-war or anti-nuclear actions (including some scientists who eschew defense research for moral reasons) without ever doing any actual peace-making to be in the same category that Dante seems to have placed Pope Celestine V. Celestine apparently abdicated the papacy out of fear that the worldliness that one must take on as Pope would jeopardize his salvation. Of him and his kind Dante says, [21] "...These are the nearly soulless, whose lives concluded neither blame nor praise. They are mixed here with that despicable corps of angels who were neither for God nor Satan, but only for themselves. The High Creator scourged them from Heaven for its perfect beauty, and Hell will not receive them since the wicked might feel some glory over them." In other words, I think that those who engage in peace protests without engaging in the enfranchisement of the disenfranchised, the empowerment of the powerless, and the deterrence of the willfully destructive may be serving their own desire to be morally pure , more than the cause of peace. Instead of acknowledging the difference between forcefully confronting a bully and being one, they advocate passivity, which just encourages the bully.

107

Page 112: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Nuclear Weapons Good

Nuclear weapons are necessary for world peace, eliminating evils, and ensuring protections of freedoms – their argument ignores the rational basis for the creation of nuclear weaponsJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

With the above statement as background I observe that many peace activists confront the evil impulse in the powers of war with the evil impulse in themselves. They rightly see nuclear war as a threat to the planet, and therefore a threat to themselves and humanity, and so confront the threat of violence with anger. Such an attitude is self-defeating, because acting from it creates more conflict, rather than less. Rather than making peace, such action merely makes war on war. Now the peace activists didn't invent this type of response. In the same spirit, nuclear weapons were first invented by good people who were confronting the evil of the Nazis (who were trying to develop their own atomic bomb) with the evil impulse in themselves. And by continuing to develop and/or maintain a stockpile of them we give our assent to this evil impulse. I give my assent.I give it because in response to the Nazis, I would have done the same thing. In response to Stalinism, I would also have done as my predecessors did. I believe that Nazism had to be defeated at all costs, and Stalinism had to be contained, in order to preserve and enlarge the freedoms that I hold dear for myself and for all people. Such a response satisfies the criterion of Utilitarianism -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- at least in its outcome so far. Even the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which hastened the defeat of the evil of Japanese Imperialism, satisfies the criterion of Utilitarianism in that it spared the loss of American lives and the even worse devastation of Japan and loss of Japanese lives that would have resulted from a conventional invasion. And I suppose I would have supported it for that reason. (And if you think there we could have demonstrated the bomb over an unpopulated area, remember that we used our entire stockpile of two bombs, and that it took two cities, to bring about the surrender.) [29] But the image of an orphaned baby, burned and screaming, annihilates forever the argument that it was good. [30] It was an evil response of good people to evil, and it was the best that we humans could do at the time. [30] Ironically, what I had remembered as an image of Hiroshima turns out to be H. S. Wong's photo taken after the Japanese conventional bombing of Nanking on August 29, 1937.And so the question of whether I am good or evil in my participation in the nuclear weapons business is already contained in the discussion of yezer tov and yezer ra, above. Or in the Christian idea that we are simultaneously sinners and saints. I am neither one nor the other -- like you, I am both. In associating with a nuclear weapons program, I confront the evil of potential aggressors against America with my own evil impulse. On the other hand, it is necessary (but not sufficient) for us to defend our turf, even in this outrageous manner, if we are to defend our freedom. (Otherwise we risk being attacked just for being vulnerable. And if the old enemy is no longer visible on our horizon, all we need do is to become complacent for a new one to appear.) Just as an individual needs his evil impulse to live, so does a nation. The question is not how to eliminate the evil impulse -- the question is how to harness it. How can we use it for good?[31]

108

Page 113: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Nuclear Weapons Good

Nuclear Weapons good – necessary to eliminate evils – their kritik is misplacedJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

[19] There are some who think I should compare myself to the engineers who designed the Nazi gas chambers instead. It is true that the path into group evil is taken in small steps, each with its own rationalization, and I and my colleagues know it. But systematically eliminating a vulnerable population to achieve societal purity is different from raising the specter of deadly force against armed opponents who will respond to nothing else. Thus, for example, I do not regard the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a war crime in the same sense as the Nazi's genocide of the Jews. On the other hand, the difference will become moot if we and our adversaries engage only in deterrence without empowerment and enfranchisement. Moreover, many of the folks who compare people like me to Nazis dismiss or dehumanize us with language borrowed from psychiatry. They might do well to remember how the Nazis used psychiatric and biological terms to dehumanize their chosen "undesirables."

109

Page 114: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Nuclear Weapons Good – Consequences Key

Must evaluate consequences in relation to nuclear weaponsJ. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

But there is an unspoken ethical problem that underlies and distorts this reconsideration: namely, the notion that nuclear weapons are evil, and that the people who work on them or support work on them are evil as well. Such a "deontologist" ethic assumes that because the consequences of using nuclear weapons are evil, threatening to use them is evil. Since threatening to use them consists of designing them, building them, testing them, stockpiling them, deploying them, and establishing plans to use them under certain circumstances, these activities are also taken to be evil.The naive solution is to remove this evil from our midst. Hence the recurring debate on campus every time the University of California's contract to manage Los Alamos and Livermore Labs comes up for renewal. The moral fallacy behind such attempts to dissociate ourselves as a society from nuclear weapons -- that by trying to remove evil, we can in fact do evil -- is my thesis here. To develop it, I chart a course into the morality of our global society, our country, and the human soul. My soul in particular, because I did research that contributed marginally to the design of nuclear weapons.Before I begin, I note that those who support nuclear weapons work usually employ a "consequentialist" ethic which states that, if threatening to use nuclear weapons prevents certain kinds of war , then it is necessary , if not actually good , to make such threats. The difference between the two positions is that deontologists consider it evil to threaten to do evil, regardless of what results from such threats, while consequentialists consider it good to make such threats if the result of the threats is good. [1]Neither deontology nor consequentialism is the source of moral imperative — we switch from one to another according to our "gut feel."Now the same people who oppose nuclear weapons work with deontologist ethics usually take a consequentialist position when it comes to race: whether or not a policy is racist is judged by its results, rather than its intent. My point is that neither deontology nor consequentialism can claim to be a universal source of moral imperative — we switch from one to another to suit our needs, according to our "gut feel" for a given situation.

110

Page 115: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Fear Good – The Futterman Card

Fear and horror force people to take the path towards peace J. A. H. Futterman, Ph.D. from UT-Austin and Physicist at the University of California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Obscenity and Peace: Meditations on the Bomb,” 1990-94, http://www.dogchurch.com/scriptorium/nuke.html, UK: Fisher

But the inhibitory effect of reliable nuclear weapons goes deeper than Shirer's deterrence of adventurer-conquerors. It changes the way we think individually and culturally, preparing us for a future we cannot now imagine. Jungian psychiatrist Anthony J. Stevens states, [15]"History would indicate that people cannot rise above their narrow sectarian concerns without some overwhelming paroxysm. It took the War of Independence and the Civil War to forge the United States, World War I to create the League of Nations, World War II to create the United Nations Organization and the European Economic Community. Only catastrophe, it seems, forces people to take the wider view.Or what about fear? Can the horror which we all experience when we contemplate the possibility of nuclear extinction mobilize in us sufficient libidinal energy to resist the archetypes of war? Certainly, the moment we become blasé about the possibility of holocaust we are lost. As long as horror of nuclear exchange remains uppermost we can recognize that nothing is worth it. War becomes the impossible option. Perhaps horror, the experience of horror, the consciousness of horror, is our only hope. Perhaps horror alone will enable us to overcome the otherwise invincible attraction of war."Thus I also continue engaging in nuclear weapons work to help fire that world-historical warning shot I mentioned above, namely, that as our beneficial technologies become more powerful, so will our weapons technologies, unless genuine peace precludes it. We must build a future more peaceful than our past, if we are to have a future at all, with or without nuclear weapons — a fact we had better learn before worse things than nuclear weapons are invented. If you're a philosopher, this means that I regard the nature of humankind as mutable rather than fixed, but that I think most people welcome change in their personalities and cultures with all the enthusiasm that they welcome death — thus, the fear of nuclear annihilation of ourselves and all our values may be what we require in order to become peaceful enough to survive our future technological breakthroughs.[16]Of course, we could just try for a world-wide halt to scientific research and technological change. This is obviously not desirable because technological change serves humanity like biological diversity serves life in general -- it gives us ways to cope with new challenges to our existence. For example, medical scientists deliberately forced the smallpox virus into virtual extinction. Nor is halting technological change possible, because the demand for such change is so great — people want the new stuff so much that they actually buy it.The fear of nuclear annihilation may be what we require in order to become peaceful enough to survive our future technological breakthroughs.In other words, when the peace movement tells the world that we need to treat each other more kindly, I and my colleagues stand behind it (like Malcolm X stood behind Martin Luther King, Jr.) saying, "Or else." We provide the peace movement with a needed sense of urgency that it might otherwise lack.

111

Page 116: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Fear Good

Fear is okay in the context of a debate round – discussion helps alleviate the numbing caused by fearDr. Peter M. Sandman is a preeminent risk communication speaker and consultant in the United States and has also worked extensively

abroad, Ph.D. in Communication from Stanford University in 1971, and Dr. JoAnn M. Valenti, a founding member of SEJ and elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Scared stiff — or scared into action,” Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists, January 1986, pp. 12–16, Winner of the 1986/1987 Olive Branch Award for Outstanding Coverage of the Nuclear Arms Issue, given by New York University’s Center for War, Peace, and the News Media, http://www.psandman.com/articles/scarstif.htm, UK: Fisher

Numerous testimonials indicate that the shock therapy of a fear appeal may sometimes cut through paralysis. But such testimonials are usually from activists who were neither paralyzed nor numb in the first place, whose fear was maintained at reasonable levels by their own activism, and who derived new energy and reinforcement from what people in the adjacent seats may well have found intolerable. Our wager is that the fear speeches revitalize the committed into renewed action, startle the apathetic into fresh attention, and torment the terrorized and the numb into starker terror and deeper numbness.In a set of guidelines for “Helping People Deal With Terrifying Films,” Frances Peavey advised readers in 1981: “Do not stand up after the film is over and try to scare people with further horrifying facts. This is a violent act and does not encourage peace. When people are subjected to too much fear-provoking material, they tend toward numbing, forgetting or feeling so violated that they are hostile to the overall message.”(12) At that time Peavey still saw value in terrifying films, so long as the discussion afterward helped people deal with the feelings they aroused. In 1985, when few are apathetic but many are numbed by terror, the value of the films themselves is much reduced.

112

Page 117: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Fear Good

The affirmative’s activism is critical to empowering individuals – allowing them to break any fear caused by nuclear weaponsDr. Peter M. Sandman is a preeminent risk communication speaker and consultant in the United States and has also worked extensively

abroad, Ph.D. in Communication from Stanford University in 1971, and Dr. JoAnn M. Valenti, a founding member of SEJ and elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Scared stiff — or scared into action,” Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists, January 1986, pp. 12–16, Winner of the 1986/1987 Olive Branch Award for Outstanding Coverage of the Nuclear Arms Issue, given by New York University’s Center for War, Peace, and the News Media, http://www.psandman.com/articles/scarstif.htm, UK: Fisher

“The main obstacle to action,” writes Frank, “is neither apathy nor terror but simply a feeling of helplessness. To combat it, I have perhaps overemphasized the small signs that antinuclear activities are at last beginning to influence the political process.”(19) Helplessness, hopelessness, futility, and despair are words one hears even more often than fear from the barely active and the formerly active. And like fear, these emotions can easily lead to psychic numbing. Those who feel powerless to prevent nuclear war try not to think about it; and it serves the needs of those who do not wish to think about nuclear war to feel powerless to prevent it. Messages of hope and empowerment , however, break this vicious circle.The label “hope,” as we use it, subsumes a wide range of overlapping concepts: for example, optimism, a sense of personal control and efficacy, confidence in methods and solutions, a sense of moral responsibility, and a vision of the world one is aiming for.It is well established (and hardly surprising) that hope is closely associated with willingness to act . Activism appeals most to people who feel positive about both the proposed solution and their personal contribution to its achievement. Over the long term, this means that antinuclear organizers must communicate a credible vision of a nuclear-free world. Meanwhile, they must offer people things to do that seem achievable and worthwhile. The nuclear-weapons-freeze campaign attracted millions of new activists in 1982 because it offered credible hope. By 1985 many of those millions could no longer ground their hope in the freeze; some found other approaches and some returned to inactivity.Most social psychologists today see the relationship between hope and action as independent of fear or other feelings. For example, Kenneth H. Beck and Arthur Frankel conclude that three cognitions (not emotions) determine whether people will do something about a health risk: recognizing the danger as real, believing the recommended plan of action will reduce the danger, and having confidence in their ability to carry out the plan.(20) Similarly, Sutton’s review of the fear-appeal literature finds inconsistent support for the notion that people can accept higher levels of fear if they feel the proposed solution will remedy the problem, but strong evidence that, regardless of fear, people are more inclined to act on solutions they see as more effective.(21)

113

Page 118: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

***Miscellaneous***

114

Page 119: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Zero Point of Holocaust

Rational, individual rights are good – only way to prevent future holocausts not trigger the “zero point”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, “Why It Can Happen Again,” Ayn Rand Institute, April 22, 2003, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7888&news_iv_ctrl=1021, UK: Fisher

Most people avoid these stark implications by retreating to a compromise between self-sacrifice and self-interest. Calls for sacrifice are proper, they say, but should not be taken "too far." The Fascists condemned this approach as hypocrisy. They took the morality of sacrifice to its logical conclusion. They insisted, in the words of Italian Fascist Alfredo Rocco, on "the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals." And the Nazis certainly practiced what Rocco preached. A central goal of the concentration camps, wrote survivor Bruno Bettelheim, was "to break the prisoners as individuals, and to change them into a docile mass." "There are to be no more private Germans," one Nazi writer declared; "each is to attain significance only by his service to the state ." The goal of National Socialism was the relentless sacrifice of the individual: the sacrifice of his mind, his independence, and ultimately his person. A free country is based on precisely the opposite principle . To protect against what they called the "tyranny of the majority," America's Founding Fathers upheld the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The implicit basis of American government was an ethics of individualism--the view that the individual is not subordinate to the collective, that he has a moral right to his own interests, and that all rational people benefit under such a system. Today, however, self-sacrifice is regarded as self-evidently good. True, most people do not want a pure, consistent system of sacrifice, as practiced by the Nazis. But once the principle is accepted, no amount of this "virtue" can ever be condemned as "too much." We will not have learned the lessons of the Holocaust until we completely reject this sacrifice-worship and rediscover the morality of individualism.

115

Page 120: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Realism Iraq/Vietnam

Iraq and Vietnam were not realistJohn Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, Co-Director, Program on International Security Policy, University of Chicago, “Realism is Right,” The National Interest, Fall, 2005, Ebscohost

I think that Hans Morgenthau, who some four decades ago made the realist case against escalation in Vietnam using arguments similar to those realists employed in the run-up to the Iraq War, would have opposed that war as well if he had been alive. More important would be his observations on where we are now in Iraq. Realists tend to believe that the most powerful political ideology on the face of the earth is nationalism, not democracy. President Bush and his neoconservative allies largely ignore nationalism . It is simply not part of their discourse. Realists, by contrast, think that nationalism usually makes it terribly costly to invade and occupy countries in areas like the Middle East. People in the developing world believe fervently in self-determination, which is the essence of nationalism, and they do not like Americans or Europeans running their lives. Nationalism can quickly turn liberators into occupiers, who then face a major insurrection. The Israelis, for example, invaded Lehanon in 1982 and were at first greeted as liberators. But they overstayed their welcome and generated an insurgency that drove them out of Lebanon 18 years later.

116

Page 121: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Realists = Neocons

Realists differ from Neocons – the Realists are rightJohn Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, Co-Director, Program on International Security Policy, University of Chicago, “Realism is Right,” The National Interest, Fall, 2005, Ebscohost

Realists are often accused of disliking democracy and even of being anti-democratic. This is a bogus charge. Every realist I know would he thrilled to see Iraq turned into a thriving democracy. Realists, however, are well aware of the difficulty of spreading democracy, especially by military means. They also understand that even if the enterprise is successful, that is no guarantee that peace will break out. Democracies as well as non-democracies like having nuclear deterrents, and both kinds of states support terrorism when it suits their interests. Neoconservatives and realists have two very different theories of international politics, which were reflected in their opposing views on the wisdom of invading and occupying Iraq. Actually, the war itself has been a strong test of the two theories. We have been able to see which side's predictions were correct. It seems clear that Iraq has turned into a debacle for the United States, which is powerful evidence—at least for me—that the realists were right and the neoconservatives were wrong.

117

Page 122: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Civilian Casualties Bad

Civilian casualties are the fault of the aggressor – the US is just defending itselfKevin Delaney, Freelance Writer in Los Angeles, “Debunking the Clichés of Pacifism,” Capitalism Magazine, October 13, 2001, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1157, UK: Fisher

The pacifists' error is also behind the misplaced concern over foreign casualties which are certain to occur in any military act of retaliation - particularly, the high probability of civilian deaths if the U.S. uses the level of force which a crisis of this kind demands. The question of whether and how we should retaliate, when doing so will likely result in the deaths of many innocent people, is confounding many American minds, and may even be stalling our government and causing it to seek watered-down methods of warfare - two things we absolutely cannot afford now. The answer is simple, but it only becomes clear once you've identified the error underlying it: When a foreign government openly declares war on the U.S., supports inconceivably heinous acts of destruction and murder against Americans, and promises a great deal more of the same in the future, anyone who dies - guilty or innocent - when the U.S. retaliates to demolish said government is the victim of said government . The government which initiated force is the aggressor, the guilty party, the killer - not the country which acts to defend itself.

118

Page 123: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Civilian Casualties Bad

Government’s are obligated to protect the rights of their citizens –more important than trying to prevent civilian casualties and some civilian casualties are necessary in order to break an aggressor nation’s will to fightDon Watkins III, Publisher of Axiomatic Magazine, an online magazine for Objectivists, “Killing ‘Innocents’ In War,” Capitalism Magazine, August 16, 2005, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4367, UK: Fisher

A certain argument is common among libertarians who oppose American national defense and demand that, rather than go to war to defend ourselves, we retreat from the world in the hopes that this will quell the threat. “The civilians of the aggressor country,” they say, “are as innocent the soldiers of the country that was attacked, since neither has initiated force. If a soldier harms a civilian, then, he is initiating force. Any act of war that harms civilians is therefore indefensible.”This argument represents the worst sort of context-dropping and the crudest form of evasion.A war is a conflict between nations, not individuals. During a war, the proper question is not, “Did this individual initiate force against that individual?” but rather, “Did this nation initiate force against that nation?” If the answer is yes, then the nation that was attacked should respond by retaliating against the aggressor nation in an effort to destroy that nation’s capacity and willingness to fight . It must be guided by a single principle: self-defense.Just as an individual shouldn’t sacrifice his own life for fear of harming an innocent bystander in the course of defending himself, so an innocent nation shouldn’t sacrifice the lives of its citizens in order to avoid harming or killing the citizens of an belligerent nation. A government’s responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens. The moment it willingly sacrifices them for any reason whatever, it’s betraying that responsibility."The moral principle," writes Onkar Ghate, "is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves."

119

Page 124: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

A2 Civilian Casualties Bad

This is a moral choice – only way to prevent soldiers from being equated with aggressors, as the civilians of the aggressor nation have chosen to support the action of their governmentDon Watkins III, Publisher of Axiomatic Magazine, an online magazine for Objectivists, “Killing ‘Innocents’ In War,” Capitalism Magazine, August 16, 2005, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4367, UK: Fisher

Rand’s point is that someone will always pay the price for an evil government. That price will be paid either by the innocent nation’s citizens (its soldiers in particular) or the civilians of the aggressor nation. The libertarian premise is that both are equally innocent and so therefore the innocent solider must not “initiate force” by harming the civilian.But this premise is false. Force has been initiated – by the civilian’s nation. The civilian, then, must bear responsibility for that fact, either by helping to fight his government, fleeing the country, or recognizing the innocent nation’s right to defend itself, even if it costs him his life. This follows directly from the nature of rights.A right, according to Ayn Rand, is a right to action, not to the object of that action. The right to life, for example, is the right to take those actions necessary to support one’s life – the responsibility for taking those actions is one’s own. The same is true for man’s right to liberty. The right to liberty is the right to take those actions necessary to secure one’s liberty – the responsibility for taking those actions is one’s own.When a man’s government steps beyond its proper bounds, when it violates his liberty, it is his responsibility to secure his liberty (either by working to change the government or by leaving the country). If he doesn’t, or can’t, he has to endure the consequences (just as he must endure the consequences if he won’t or can’t feed himself).The citizen of an aggressor nation may very well be innocent (although usually he isn’t), but he cannot ask the innocent nation (or its soldiers) to bear the painful consequences of the actions his government initiated – since he is responsible for his government.

120

Page 125: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Good/Evil Definitions Good

Peter Schwartz is editor and contributing author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand and is chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, “War and Morality,” Ayn Rand Institute, December 2, 2002, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8016&news_iv_ctrl=1509, UK: Fisher

Any dictatorship that has the capability, and has demonstrated the willingness, to attack America's interests, is a threat that deserves to be eliminated. The justification for war is not some amoral calculation about geopolitical "balances of power." The only justification is a moral one--and the only nation entitled to invoke it is one that upholds freedom. In a battle between gangsters, both sides are wrong; in a battle between tyranny and freedom, it is the proponents of the latter who are in the right. Saddam Hussein is an enemy, potential or actual, of every free country in the world. The outlaw-state of Iraq has no right to its "territorial integrity"--any more than did the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Nazis in Germany. We all recognize the objective difference between criminals and the police. The fact that both parties carry weapons does not make it difficult to evaluate the one as a threat to our rights and the other as a protector of those rights. The same applies to countries: dictatorships are criminal states, while the government of a free country is the police who uses force to defend its citizens against those criminals. The moral distinction between the initiator and the retaliator is obvious to everyone except our diplomats (and our intellectuals). Passing moral judgment is the one act they seek to avoid. "Who are we to judge," they declare amorally--leaving conflicts to be resolved through pragmatic horse-trading and arm-twisting. But making moral judgments is the basic requirement of an effective foreign policy . We need to identify the danger posed to the value of human life and human liberty by certain regimes. The government of Iran, for example, which is the wellspring of world terrorism, is a physical threat to America and should be militarily subdued. The same goal applies to other aggressor countries that are demonstrable threats to the safety of Americans.

121

Page 126: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

National Self-Interest Good

Acting in our self-interest is critical to winning the war – worrying about others causes failureElan Journo, Senior Writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, “Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan,” Capitalism Magazine, June 6, 2006, http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4691, UK: Fisher

The failure in Afghanistan is a result of Washington's foreign policy. Despite lip-service to the goal of protecting America's safety, the "war on terror" has been waged in compliance with the prevailing moral premise that self-interest is evil and self-sacrifice a virtue. Instead of trouncing the enemy for the sake of protecting American lives, our leaders have sacrificed our self-defense for the sake of serving the whims of Afghans.The half-hearted war in Afghanistan failed to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda. It failed to render their ideology--Islamic totalitarianism--a lost cause. Instead, at best it demonstrated Washington's reluctance to fight ruthlessly to defend Americans. How better to stoke the enthusiasm of jihadists?America cannot win this or any war by embracing selflessness as a virtue. Ultimately, it cannot survive unless Washington abandons its self-sacrificial foreign policy in favor of one that proudly places America's interests as its exclusive moral concern.

122

Page 127: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Military Unpredictable Violence Good

Unpredictable violence committed by our military is critical to leveling the playing field and deterring enemies Victor Davis Hanson, Ph. D. in Classics, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, “The Paradoxes of American Military Power: Strange new guidelines about the way we fight,” National Review Online, November 17, 2003, http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson111703.html, UK: Fisher

Unpredictability. Conventional wisdom says that in fourth-dimensional, postmodern, asymmetrical warfare our overwhelming conventional power means little — not when a cheap RPG and a few illiterate teenagers can take down a $2 million chopper piloted by captains with MA degrees. The fear is that a parasitic non-West can import our weapons but not our costly military skills — and still obtain military parity of sorts, given our greater attention to human life, desire for peace, and disavowal of terrorism and other sordid tactics.After all, we are wealthy and have much to live for; our enemies are poorer and have little to lose. Thus Israel ponders trading 300 incarcerated terrorists for the life of one Israeli businessman. The world accepts that none of the former will be abjectly murdered in custody, while the latter of course could and probably will be. American prisoners are raped and shot with impunity; their Iraqi Baathist counterparts cannot be so much as frightened. We cannot and should not change our values; nor can we do much about the fact that we use technology and education to protect our soldiers while our enemies use fundamentalism and ignorance to expend theirs.But cultural fault lines do not mean that we cannot at times seem a little unhinged ourselves. If the citizens of Tikrit choose to murder, or condone killing, Americans, then perhaps electrical power from their proud city can be mysteriously diverted to Kurdistan and the south. If Syria sends in assassins to kill Americans, then perhaps our pilots can become confused about where its border with Iraq actually begins and ends. If France publicly castigates the United States, then perhaps recently purchased French rockets in Baathist depots can be used as backdrops at press conferences. If munitions are found in the houses of killers, then perhaps such houses can be cordoned off and, of course with due notification, blown to smithereens. The point is not to showcase our own unpredictability but rather, quietly and with genuine nonchalance, slowly to get the message out that a very humane and civilized military is, well, sometimes quite crazy itself. In this new war, the worst sin of a Western military is quite simply to be predictable.

123

Page 128: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Gaza Withdrawal/Israel Softline Bad

Gaza Withdrawal/Israel Softline Bad – gives anti-Semites the upper hand – allowing for the eradication of IsraelAlex Epstein, Graduate of Duke University, BA Philosophy, Junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and Edward Cline, contributing writer to ARI, “Israel's Deadly Appeasement Process Continues,” Ayn Rand Institute, August 25, 2005, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11341, UK: Fisher

The Gaza withdrawal is a deadly act of appeasement toward Israel's committed enemies.The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is being portrayed as a wise (albeit unpleasant) move by Ariel Sharon. By addressing a longtime grievance of the Palestinians and their supporters--the presence of Israeli security forces and Jewish residents on the Gaza strip--we are told, Israel will abate the hatred that drives so many Palestinians to terrorism.In fact, the Gaza withdrawal is a deadly act of appeasement toward Israel's committed enemies: the Palestinian Authority (PA), its rabidly anti-Semitic Palestinian supporters, and other Arab regimes throughout the Middle East. It will only increase their hope and ability to achieve their long-standing goal: the obliteration of Israel.Contrary to their pronouncements to Western media that they seek peace with Israel via a "reasonable" land-for-peace "compromise," the PA and its supporters have proven by their actions--and by repeated statements in Arabic--that they seek to destroy Israel. Due to their racist, tribalist, primitive philosophy, much of the Arab world seeks the eradication of Jews--and, more broadly, Western Civilization--from the Middle East. In polls taken, 80 percent of Palestinians say they do not regard Israel as legitimate. As for Israel’s other Arab neighbors, they have attempted to destroy Israel in three previous wars.Why have those who seek Israel's annihilation turned from open warfare to the negotiating table? Because they have learned that this--combined with terrorism--is their most effective means of destroying Israel.

124

Page 129: TheTruth K Impact Turns

UK6 The Truth

Atomic Bomb Good

Dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was critical to saving millions of lives – they were committed to fighting to the deathJohn Lewis is a Consulting Editor for The Objective Standard, a journal of culture and politics, “The Moral Lesson of Hiroshima,” Capitalism Magazine, April 29, 2006, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4648, UK: Fisher

On August 6, 1945 the American Air Force incinerated Hiroshima, Japan with an atomic bomb. On August 9 Nagasaki was obliterated. The fireballs killed some 175,000 people. They followed months of horror, when American airplanes firebombed civilians and reduced cities to rubble. Facing extermination, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. The invasion of Japan was cancelled, and countless American lives were saved. The Japanese accepted military occupation, embraced a constitutional government, and renounced war permanently. The effects were so beneficent, so wide-ranging and so long-term, that the bombings must be ranked among the most moral acts ever committed.The bombings have been called many things-but moral? The purpose of morality, wrote Ayn Rand, is not to suffer and die, but to prosper and live.How can death on such a scale be considered moral?The answer begins with Japanese culture. World War II in the Pacific was launched by a nation that esteemed everything hostile to human life.Japan's religious-political philosophy held the emperor as a god, subordinated the individual to the state, elevated ritual over rational thought, and adopted suicide as a path to honor. This was truly a Morality of Death. It had gripped Japanese society for three generations. Japan's war with Russia had ended in 1905 with a negotiated treaty, which left Japan's militaristic culture intact. The motivations for war were emboldened, and the next generation broke the treaty by attacking Manchuria in 1931 (which was not caused by the oil embargo of 1941).It was after Japan attacked America that America waged war against Japan-a proper moral response to the violence Japan had initiated. Despite three and a half years of slaughter, surrender was not at hand in mid-1945. Over six million Japanese were still in Asia. Some 12,000 Americans had died on Okinawa alone. Many Japanese leaders hoped to kill enough Americans during an invasion to convince them that the cost was too high. A relentless "Die for the Emperor" propaganda campaign had motivated many Japanese civilians to fight to the death. Volunteers lined up for kamikaze "Divine Wind" suicide missions. Hope of victory kept the Japanese cause alive, until hopeless prostration before American air attacks made the abject renunciation of all war the only alternative to suicide. The Japanese had to choose between the morality of death, and the morality of life.The bombings marked America's total victory over a militaristic culture that had murdered millions. To return an entire nation to morality, the Japanese had to be shown the literal meaning of the war they had waged against others. The abstraction "war," the propaganda of their leaders, their twisted samurai "honor," their desire to die for the emperor-all of it had to be given concrete form, and thrown in their faces. This is what firebombing Japanese cities accomplished. It showed the Japanese that "this"-point to burning buildings, screaming children scarred unmercifully, piles of corpses, the promise of starvation-"this is what you have done to others. Now it has come for you. Give it up, or die." This was the only way to show them the true nature of their philosophy, and to beat the truth of the defeat into them.

125