Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy OBJ>

First I will admit my absent minded mistake of not attacking my opponents case. Being the affirmative, I am used to not attacking until my second speech, and the techniques that go in normal rounds. Moving on...I will defend my case, move to my opponents, then look to voting issues. _____________________________________________ * "if we are imposing a sanction to protect ourselves, from this oposing country, then we are protecting our common good. and also, if we have warrant to use a sanction against this country, they are not innocent because they have deliberately put us in danger in one way or another, so therefore my opponents value is inconstistant and my value should be upheld." To this, my case proves that these sanctions have various negative outcomes, so we shouldn't use them. And the government makes the offensive policies, not the people. Besides this, not all governments work for their people, they may only care about themselves. **"my opponent had no value-criterion, nor did he state that his value was upheld as both, therefore he has no clear disagreement with my value-criterion. by saying this, please flow that my criterion will remain the supreme criterion throughout the round, becuase my opponent cannot give another explaination after this moment." Look back at my case, and you will see otherwise. And also, protecting the innoncent is for the common good, thus upholding it. ***" my opponents first contention was that ECONOMIC SANTIONS HARM INNOCENTS. in this he says that common good is endangered by economic sanctions. i would like top cross apply my attack on his value, that there is no valid claim to whether or not the opposing country is innocent or taht they are not also violating our rights to protect ourselves by any means possible. therefore his first contention falls." I already address above this if this is what he has to say. ****"my opponents second cont.was taht ECONOMIC SANTIONS HURT THE COUNTRY THAT IMPOSES THEM. is this he states that it interupts business activity. i will attack by saying this: in the end, the end results justify all means. we must protect ourselves. if our economy is set off track because we cannot trade with this one country, the end result is much greater than a bit of money loss. illegal drug trafficking, missiles, nuclear weapons, torchure.. all of these things are much more dangerour than losing money. it is life our death, and if we do not stop the larger aount of harm.. it could easily cost us our lives. also, i would like to take this time to point out that my opponent did nmot disagree with my warrant that stated: there is no other alternative than war. by exposing this, i show you that my opponent agrees, it is either a sanction, or war! and we want the absolute minimum harm possible. therefore his second contention clearly falls." First, war makes a much clearer point than e.s. Again, the speech order is new to me, so forgive me. And the war message would, more likely than e.s., deter the loss of life. This is basic logic. *****"my opponents third contention(PUNIATIVE SANCTIONS BACKFIRE) has two subpoints. 3A: according to targeted sanctions: in this he says it hurts their economy. this is true. and i agree with this for this one reason. THAT IS THE GOAL. it is the ONLY nonviolent way we can protect ourselves, and as i have previously stated, my opponent agrees, therefore his subpoint A must fall." But war would not affect their economy. ******"B: not been proven to work. i attack this by saying his claim is incorrent. i have, in my case tht i have already provided, specific results calculated that show economic decreases and losses in the opposing countries and they have ceased to misbehave in the ways he had origionally targeted. therefore his second subpoint falls." Why waste time with the sanctions when we know war is more effective, As showm by my previous logic. To conclude defense, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE NEGATIVE. I am not used of this order. Simple, admitted, mistake. ____________________________________ Now to my opponents case. *My burden is to prove that there is no reason to use them, as I have shown. **"For my value i choose NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. Nat sov is defined as the power of a state to so everything necessary to govern itself. one of the major jobs of the federal government is to ensure the security of the nation, defined from history central. com. a government always looks towards its own security as the paramount value, therefore we should as well. a nations is concerned for only its own citizens, not others. the general reason a nation will use economic sanctions is if another nation has threatened their safety, through nuclear threat, terrorism, aggression, traficking, tax invasions, and such measures. in order to insure that these threats are eradicated from the trade realm of the nation, banninf trade kepps the threats form entering." First, nations can do wrong things with this power. If a nation is only concerned with its own security, why would they join the U.N.? As shown in my case, war has better results than e.s. ***"for my value-criterion, i choose that of Mark fuller's theory of government legitimacy." Please choose which this is, as it can't be both. ****"contention one: economic sanctions are the most effective options towards opposing threats and protection of ones government. unless my opponent points out another valid alternative, that stands in the round, the following statement remains true. SUBPOINT A__ the only other alternative towards opposing threats is warfare. warfare causes more casualties than economic sanctions. in an official report written by Joy Gordon, author, results were calculated to weigh out the end results of both economic sanctions and warfare.beforehand, Gordon wrote "Sanctions seem to lend themselves well to international governance. They seem more substantial than mere diplomatic protests, yet they are politically less problematic, and less costly, than military incursions. They are often discussed as though they were a mild sort of punishment, not an act of aggression of the kind that has actual human costs. Consequently, sanctions have for the most part avoided the scrutiny that military actions would face, in the domains of both politics and ethics." then went on to display the difference in sanction results and warfare results.::: as of may 2002, the gulf war casualties include 83, 000 veterans dead and 959705 veterans injured or ill as a consequence of wartime service to the American nation. the official may 2002 department of veteran affairs report classifies 568011 individuals as disabled. that reflects a staggering casualty result for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991. Gordon writes "since the program began (economic sanctions), only an estimated 500,000 have died as a result of the sanctions."" My case directly disproves this. *****1C+B. My case disproves this. Which would you respong more quickly to: possible war or the bad economy caused by e.s. you could survive? As I have shown, my case remains upheld, while my opponents does not.