CBA Debate: Invasion of Iran.

Sorry I missed deadline. Fem Adv.: First, he must prove that women rights abuse are the root to all problems, and that Iranian invading is the ONLY thing that can solve that, if there is a risk the Status Quo can solve then you vote for me. 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. Heg. adv: US presence is a war on humanity – threatens all countries on earth Polya 10 (Dr. Gideon Polya, professor at Cornell, environment expert, author, "4 July US Independence Day: US Imperialism, Terrorism & Genocide Deny Life, Liberty & Happiness to World," Bella Ciao, http://bellaciao.org...) For a billions of people around the World July 4 means that day in 1776 on which the United States declared war on Humanity. For the United States of America the Fourth of July is US Independence Day, a US federal holiday commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, declaring independence from Great Britain. Ask yourself the question: what countries in Asia, Africa, the Pacific and the Americas has the US (a) threatened, (b) suborned, (c) invaded, (d) devastated or (e) occupied? The answers: (a) the US threatens all countries on earth; (b), the US suborns all countries on earth (read Philip Agee, "Inside the Company. CIA Diary" and John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"); (c), (d) and (e). the US has actually invaded, occupied and devastated about 30 countries in the 65 years since 1945 alone (read William Blum's book "Rogue State" and for an avoidable mortality-related history of genocidal US imperialism read my book "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950": The US has military forces in 156 countries and bases in about 63 countries. Its nuclear weapons-armed nuclear submarines spread a message of racist state terrorism and racist nuclear terrorism around the globe. Exercises in military and economic power go hand-in-hand. Imperial power expands through the presentation of US goals as universally good. MOHANTY in 6 (CHANDRA TALPADE, Department of Women's Studies, Syracuse University, Gender, Place and Culture Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 7–20, February 2006, US Empire and the Project of Women's Studies: Stories of citizenship, complicity and dissent, http://www.uccs.edu...) In a May 2003 interview the writer and activist Arundhati Roy identifies the checkbook and the cruise missile as the tools of corporate led globalization. If the checkbook (read economic control) doesn't work, as in Argentina, then the cruise missile will—as in Iraq (Barsamian, 2004): an apt description of unilateral, corporatist, US empire. This combination of economic control and physical violence and destruction has a centuries old legacy of colonialism and imperialism. In 2006, however, it is important to specify how the colonial traffics in the imperial. Post-cold war, and post-1989, we enter an era of accelerated forms of corporate and militarized rule, with the US emerging as the lead bully on the block, ably assisted of course by the UK. If, as a rather incisive 1942 Fortune magazine editorial claimed, the representatives of the British empire were ‘salesmen and planters', and of the post-WWII American empire were ‘brains and Bulldozers, technicians and machine tools',1 the current representatives of US empire may be corporate executives and military and security personnel—those who wield the checkbook and the cruise missile. Each of these groups of imperial actors—the salesmen and planters, the brains and technicians, and the executives and military/security personnel tell very particular stories—not just of political economy and territorial control but also of the gender and color of empire, of racialized patriarchies and heteronormative sexualities of empire at different historical junctures. These stories (and others like them) necessitate mapping a landscape where corporate cultures of power, domination and surveillance coincide with a politics of complicity in the academy and elsewhere. One way to address the politics of complicity is to analyze the languages of imperialism and empire deployed explicitly by the US State, and sometimes adopted uncritically by progressive scholars and activists alike. In a provocative essay called ‘Imperial Language', Marilyn Young argues that the languages of imperialism and empire are distinct, even contradictory (Young, 2005). She distinguishes between the language of empire and the language of imperialism whereby the former is ‘benign, nurturing, polysyllabic', and the latter, the language of ‘the act of creating and sustaining empire. . .immediate. direct, often monosyllabic'. She goes on to claim that at this time both languages dovetail in the recreation of an Anglo-American ‘colonizing, warrior past' (p. 40)—a clear instance then of the colonial trafficking in the imperial. What role have US feminists who supported the Bush administration's war in the name of ‘rescuing' Afghan and Iraqi women played in this narrative of empire and imperialism? This is one of the questions we need to pose to address the politics of complicity and dissent within contemporary feminist projects. Imperialism K: A.) US imperialist practices result in racism, sexism, and violence on the population. This militarization of daily life is vital to the maintenance of empire. MOHANTY '06 B.) US imperialist practices result in racism, sexism, and violence on the population. THIS TURNS HIS FEM ADV. This militarization of daily life is vital to the maintenance of empire. MOHANTY in 6 The clearest effects of US empire building in the domestic arena are thus evident in the way citizenship has been restructured, civil rights violated and borders repoliced since the commencement of the war of drugs, and now the war on terrorism and the establishment of the homeland security regime. While the US imperial project calls for civilizing brown and black (and now Arab) men and rescuing their women outside its borders, the very same state engages in killing, imprisoning, and criminalizing black and brown and now Muslim and Arab peoples within its own borders. Former political prisoner Linda Evans (2005) calls the US a ‘global police state' one that has adopted a mass incarceration strategy of social control since the Reagan years. Analyzing the militarization of US society, Evans argues that the new definition of ‘domestic terrorism' heralds the now legal return of the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) that conducted illegal covert operations in the 1960s and 1970s against the Black Panther party, the American Indian movement, the Puerto Rican Independence movement, and left/socialist organizations. Racial profiling, once illegal, is now legitimated as public policy, including a requirement that Arab and Muslim men from over 25 countries register and submit to INS interrogation. Similarly, Julia Sudbury analyzes the global crisis and rise in the mass incarceration of women, suggesting that we must be attentive to ‘the ways in which punishment regimes are shaped by global capitalism, dominant and subordinate patriarchies and neocolonial, racialized ideologies'. This prison industrial complex is supported by the militarization of domestic law enforcement. Iran Prolif: New sanctions in the status quo strike down Iran's ability to acquire nuclear weapons Smith '10 And, going into Iran will be the only thing to cause them to Proliferate this turns ur Advantage.