Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.

Thanks to my opponent for challenging me to this, I hope we have a good round. A full rebuttal of the Aff will come in the next round. Right now as we speak the world is on the brink of using nuclear weapons and destroying the planet, and it's because of our mentality of violence. We have to promote ways of thinking to get away from this violent thinking and prevent the destruction of the planet. Burke 07 (2007, Anthony Burke, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at UNSW, Sydney, Ontologies of War: Violence, Existence and Reason, Theory and Event) The nationalist ontology of war claims to link violent means to political ends predictably and controllably, modern politics and government engages in a sweeping project of mastery and control in which all are made part of a process of which war and violence are viewed as normal features. Such cravings for order and certainty continually confront chaos, resistance and uncertainty we are witness to an enduring political and cultural theme: of a craving for order, control and certainty in the face of continual uncertainty. This view of politics makes nuke war inevitable Davis, 01 (Doug, Ph D Georgia Institute for Technology, Doomsday Summer, "A Hundred Million Hydrogen Bombs": Total War in the Fossil Record, http://muse.jhu.edu...) Making nuclear weapons "absolute weapons" was a historical choice, , the massive destruction promised by nuclear deterrence becomes more than a protestable fact of geopolitical life and turns into a state of nature as a naturalistic fable the theory may make the nuclear war machine and the society that built it seem all that more natural, and even necessary. Thus we can conclude that our world today is on the verge of using these nukes and blowing our world into pieces and possible extinction, and its all because of our epistemology of violence being used to solve violence. bell hooks, Author, social activist, writes in her book All About Love in 2000 We can all change our minds and our actions. I talked about the necessity of changing our thinking so that we see ourselves as being like the one who does change rather than among those who refuse to change. What made these individuals exceptional was that they were willing to live the truth of their values. If you talk to average citizens, there is a gap between the values they claim to hold and their willingness to do the work of connecting thought to action, theory and practice to realize these values and thus create a more just society. They are afraid to act on what they believe because it would mean challenging the conservative status quo. Refusal to stand up for what you believe in weakens individual morality and ethics as well as those of the culture. No wonder then that we are a nation of people, the majority of whom, claim to believe in the divine power of love, and yet collectively remain unable to embrace a love ethic and allow it to guide behavior, especially if doing so would mean supporting radical change. Fear of radical changes leads many citizens of our nation to betray their minds and hearts. bell hooks points out the major hypocrisy the world lives in today. We say we value life, love and peace, yet we don't take actions that exemplify these things. We are afraid of changing our actions to correlate with the way we think, all because we have been taught by our leaders that we must take these actions even if they go against our value system. This goes against our moral and ethical values, this weakens our community as a whole, and this is what leads us to the Nuclear War which we must prevent. bell hooks proves we must go through a radical change of our mentality if we are ever to protect that which we believe, and in order to do so we must embrace a love ethic. Thus the standard is to discourage violence Because Targeted Killing is part of the same violent mentality that is going to destroy our planet we must reject it in order to move away from that mentality and get more humane and even effective alternatives. Thus I contend that we need to reject the AC in order to discourage violence, prevent nuclear war, and articulate real solutions to Terrorism. De Angelis '03 (Massimo, Department of Economics University of East London, THE COMMONER, Winter, http://www.commoner.org.uk..., uw/mjs) In order to take the many calls for and practices of alternatives seriously, we have move from movement to society through a language. We need a discourse that helps to articulate the many alternatives that recognizes the power we have to shape alternatives Hinman explains the only true way of resolving the issue of Terrorism, which includes rejecting targeted killing policies. (A Vision of Peace by Lawrence M. San Diego Union-Tribune, October 12, 2001, B7) Our principal response ought to be a concerted effort to bring conditions of genuine economic and social justice to the Middle East. this is the long-term answer to terrorism. We will never be able to eliminate fanatics like bin Laden, but we will be able to remove the basis of popular support such extremists must have to flourish. In the past, the United States has demonstrated the wisdom of such an approach, The Marshall Plan, at the end of World War II, is probably the best example of this enlightened self-interest: by helping a vanquished Germany to rebuild, we established a staunch ally and avoided the cycle or retribution and recurrent war that marked the end of World War I. We need to pursue a similar policy in the Middle East, We cannot wipe out the rebels, but we can erode their power base by reaching out to those who live in one of the poorest and most embattled countries in the world. Impact: If you see things only in binaries, then you can't possibly see any other possibilities. Affirming the resolution, embraces that there's a dichotomy with terrorism- either you kill or be killed. The Aff's flawed epistemology forces us to think only one way and restricts creative thinking that can create new alternatives. Instead of endorsing the idea of kill or be killed we must think outside of the box and we must also stop thinking in violent, hateful ways if we are ever to prevent nuclear war, terrorism, and live the way that many people say they wish to live but are too afraid to make the change and live in such a way. Now onto a short rebuttal of the AC This is going to be a very basic and short overview of the AC The AC tries to defend a Util standard, and tries to advocate that by Affirming we defend our citizens and promote self-defense. The first response will be towards "Self-Defense". Self-DEFENSE is a Defensive action, while Targeted Killing is an offensive action. The second response to the Affirmative would be the Hinman card. Hinman proves how the most effective plan to end terrorism or combat it is through the Marshal Plan. Third the Affirmative replicates Terrorism. Counter-terrorism experts David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum In Pakistan civilians are terrified that they will become the next accidental target of American aircraft. a teenage boy who spoke with a BBC reporter last year, lost both of his legs in drone strikes. Three of his relatives, all civilians, have also been killed by American strikes "My brother, my nephew and another relative were killed by a drone in 2008," said Khan. "They were sitting with this sick man when the attack took place. There were no Taliban." killing leaders has typically had only a short-term impact on repressing terrorist violence, while every civilian killed represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased. Thus for every drone strike the Affirmative spawns more terrorists. I now await my opponent's arguments :)