CBA Debate: Invasion of Iran.

1. I show CBA The cost of invasion is bad the K and the DA outweight. The benefit is to reject the affirmative this is not a voters issue. FEM ADV: 1. The Affirmative has the burden of proof. He must prove to you that the only way to solve form feminism is to invade Iran. The problem is that womens rights are being abused all over the world and he doesn't solve for any of that which means that the impacts are all gonna happen and he causes them. 2. My implementation method is to reject the affirmative and accept the status quo. 3. We see that through out history women's rights have advanced so it will continue to do so as history proves status quo solves. 4. He concedes all of this, "And he also must justify that an invading I ran will not cause war. And that if in need it did that his Fem. Adv can solve for it and his evidence is non unique to Iran make him give you evidence that says that Iran invasion will halt womens rights abuse, and women rights abuse has been happening its sad but they aren't dying. We invade Iran and We die. CBA says I win because, the cost of killing soldiers isn't worth invading." Vote negative. HEG ADV: 1. Extinction is will not happen because we don't invade Iran. Logic. 2. He says no visible impacts we hurt people with hegemony. We are causing tension were causing awful things to happen. Trying to maintain hegemony destroys the economy—controlled descent from primacy is a preferable strategy. Samuel A. Adamson, second-year MAIA candidate at the Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Center and undergraduate degree in Oriental Studies from the University of Oxford, 10, Bolgona Journal of International Affairs, "Supreme Effort: A Lesson in British Decline" cp \The aim of this essay is to demonstrate the extent to which the initial failure by British governments to recognize, accept and adapt to the country's new position in the post-war world had deep, painful and long-lasting effects on the domestic British political economy. Rather than being a time of reflection and re-evaluation of the world order, the post-war consensus amongst successive governments was that Britain's victory was a validation of the old, rather than a trigger for its removal. As such, sterling was expected to continue as the world's reserve currency and the preferred unit of exchange. From 1945 until the major devaluation of 1968, one after the other, British governments oriented economic policy towards the maintenance of sterling's international prestige, through the manipulation of the domestic economy. Using deflationary packages to curb demand and defend the pound against external pressure, the government indirectly (but repeatedly) inflicted punishing restrictions on British industry through a chronic underinvestment in capital. As Samuel Brittan has it, "The position of sterling as an international currency, with all the risks to which it exposed Britain, was regarded as desirable in itself, like a prisoner kissing the rod with which he is being beaten."39 In a desperate attempt to improve British competitiveness, British governments then began to intervene in industrial relations, to the detriment of the Welfare Compromise that had presided over a relatively stable period from 1945 –1960. Government-union cooperation worsened throughout the 1960s under a Labour government and reached exploding point following the election of Heath's conservative government. The British economy plumbed new depths in the 1970s, with factories being reduced to a three- day working week and with the entire population having to endure the infamous "Winter of Discontent." Such harsh times brought about harsh measures, to be administered by Margaret Thatcher. Her reshaping of the British political economy marks the beginning of the current era for Britain, for better or worse. With increased focus, she drew onto the City's financial services; however, at the moment it is difficult to see past the latter. Britain, still today, feels the pain of bone-breaking readjustment to the post-war world. It should also be emphasized that the thesis put forward here is only one example of the way in which the British government failed to adapt properly to the nation's declining position in the post-war world. This paper could easily have taken as its topic of investigation the exuberant defense spending exhibited by an unbroken succession of British governments, characterized by the costly maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent in obeisance to the "Top Table" argument or, as Churchill had it, "our badge to the Royal Enclosure."40 The wider lessons to be drawn from the British experience are complex and difficult to identify clearly, as each declining hegemon (of which there have been —and will be— many) faces a potentially different set of international and domestic conditions. However, there is a clear and universal warning to be taken from the illustration presented here — a world power that may be in decline needs, more than ever, to maintain a high level of vigilance and flexibility in its attitudes to its international position. Being prepossessed of pretensions of past glories serves for nothing; rather it inhibits a nation in its readjustment. Therefore, the attitudes put forward by E. Garten in his essay regarding American decline (as outlined at the beginning of this paper) should be regarded as, at best, unhelpful, and at worst severely damaging to the future of the United States. For reasons that will not be argued here, however, I find myself in complete agreement with Garten regarding the undesirable nature of American decline, particularly in light of the candidates currently waiting in the wings to take the crown. Indeed, it is for that reason that this paper argues that it is wrong to assess the methods of "how to remedy signs of decline" (as Garten does), but rather suggests that it is instead critical to accept the inevitability of its occurrence, allowing for a more controlled descent, thereby minimizing domestic damage and allowing declining powers to still exert a good deal of influence on the international stage — at least due in part to their masterfully orchestrated readjustment to their dethronement. The pursuit of primacy causes global savage wars for peace – it makes conflict inevitable. Christopher Layne, Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute, 07,"The Case Against the American Empire," American Empire: A Debate, Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415952034, p. 54-55) In this chapter, I argue that primacy and empire is a strategy that will lead to bad consequences for the United States. Rather than bringing the United States peace and security, the pursuit of primacy and empire will result in a geopolitical backlash against the United States. It already has. The 9/11 attacks were a violent reaction against America's primacy—and specifically against its imperial ambitions in the Middle East. Similarly, the quagmire in Iraq also is a direct consequence of U.S. imperial aspirations. And it will not end there. Because it is premised on the belief that the United States must embark on assertive policies to bring about regime change by imposing democracy abroad, the pursuit of primacy and empire will drag the United States into otherwise avoidable wars—what one proponent of the strategy has termed "savage wars for peace." Looking ahead, if the United States continues to follow its current strategy of primacy and empire, it almost certainly will find [end page 54] itself on a collision course with Iran (and possibly North Korea and Syria) and—more importantly—China. He concede the Turns on the Fed Adv, and Heg Adv. Impact Calc. He triggers his own impacts these things are not occurring in the status quo so vote neg. Kicking all of cause Positions.