Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Impact Defense File


AT: Terrorism – U.S. Lashout



Download 2.71 Mb.
Page204/230
Date28.01.2017
Size2.71 Mb.
#9494
1   ...   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   ...   230

AT: Terrorism – U.S. Lashout



1. Guess what – you’ve got the wrong president. Corsi cites a Bush retaliation – Obama won’t because he’s softer on terrorism – Gitmo proves

Kathy Shaidle (political scientist) February 16, 2009: ACLU undermines fight against terrorists. http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m2d16-ACLU-undermines-fight-against-terrorists-say-experts



As for the broader issue of Obama’s plan to defeat radical Islamists, terrorism expert  Dr. Harvey Kushner (author of Holy War on the Home Front), told me that “the jury is still out on Obama changing Bush’s policies.”

Comparing Obama unfavorably to “my way or the highway” Presidents like Eisenhower and FDR, Kushner says Obama allows others too much influence over his decisions and is already “in over his head.”

Obama’s talk about closing Gitmo and ending extraordinary rendition “plays well to [French President Nicholas] Sarkozy and those guys,” adds Kushner, but “to the people it matters to -- the radicals -- this appeasing tone is what they’re looking for.”

As for the ACLU, Kushner is familiar with their subversive bent from first hand experience.

After the Osama Bin Laden “terrorist training” CD-ROM came to light in 1999, Kushner worked with major police departments to utilize the CD-ROM to develop counterterrorism-training modules.

However, the ACLU soon took them to court to “have all mention of Islam and Arabs removed from the training module,” says Kushner, successfully rendering the training program more or less useless.



Given that ongoing atmosphere of pandering to political correctness, Kushner expressed his lack of confidence in President Obama’s response in the wake of another terrorist attack on America, an attack Kushner believes is almost certain to occur.

“One hopes it would be the case that he [Obama] would fight back,” Kushner replied. “But I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.”
2. There is no way that they can win this argument – two reasons

A: It’s empirically denied – Bush retaliated against both Afghanistan and Iraq and neither caused extinction

B: There’s no way that they can solve for this – unless they solve all instances of terrorism everywhere this impact is inevitable
3. No retaliation despite immense pressure

Roger Alford, Professor of International Law at Pepperdine University School of Law, 3/7/07 (“The Awful New Arithmetic of the Atomic Bomb,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-alford/the-awful-new-arithmetic-_b_42864.html)



Just one little problem: nuclear forensics. On the morning after, just how do you do forensics on ground zero to identify the source? After a nuclear strike the will to respond will be overwhelming. But in order to retaliate in kind, we will need more than what the nuclear crime scene investigators can provide.
4. Retaliation won’t escalate

Schuler ’04 (David,- political commentator, writer and author of the award winning “Glittering Eye” “Restating the U. S. policy of nuclear deterrence” http://theglitteringeye.com/wp-trackback.php?p=459)

A nuclear response to a nuclear terrorist attack is terrorism. There’s no generally accepted definition of terrorism so before tackling this point I’ll propose one. Ignoring the issue of state actors vs. non-state actors I think that a terrorist attack is an attack on civilians or civilian assets whose purpose is to provoke terror. It has no other tactical or strategic significance. Any nuclear response by the United States would be against military or governmental facilities, sites involved in military production, or command and control. The objective would be to eliminate the possibility of future attacks or the support for those who would engage in future attacks. That such a response would inevitably result in massive civilian casualties is sad. But such a response would not, by definition, be terrorism A nuclear retaliation Iran in response to a terrorist nuclear attack would inevitably draw France, Russia, and China to enter the conflict. To believe this you must believe that France, Russia, and China will act irrationally. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is the case. All three nations know that their intervention against the U. S. would result in total annihilation. There are other issues as well and let’s examine the two distinct cases: Russia on the one hand and France and China on the other. As a major non-Gulf producer of oil Russia would be in a position to benefit enormously in case of a disruption of Gulf oil production or shipment. That being the case they would publicly deplore a retaliation against Iran but privately rejoice._ Both France and China are in an extremely delicate position. A nuclear response by either would result in total annihilation and, equally importantly, wouldn’t keep the oil flowing. Lack of a blue water navy means that both nations are completely at the mercy of the United States’s (or more specifically the U. S. Navy’s) willingness to keep shipments of oil moving out of the Gulf. China is particularly vulnerable since it has only about two weeks’ worth of strategic oil reserves. Neither France nor China has any real ability to project military force other than nuclear force beyond their borders. They’d be upset. But they’re in no position to do anything about it.




AT: Tuberculosis



1. Vaccines will solve TB

Landry and Heilman ’05 *associate director- policy and program operations, National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,**director of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, “Future Directions In Vaccines: The Payoffs Of Basic Research”

Promise of new technologies. The payoffs from these standard approaches are now beginning to plateau. In fact, most of the "easy" vaccines have been developed, and many challenges lie ahead for new and improved vaccines. New technologies may provide stronger, broader, and more durable immune responses than those induced by some earlier vaccines. New vaccines are also likely to exploit genomics and high-throughput screening approaches that are based on computational methods. These methods will allow for development of rationally based approaches that select potential antigens more effectively and precisely. In addition, future vaccines will use these new tools to get around the challenges of the remaining infectious diseases. [n2] These challenges include the inherent ability of many viruses to change (antigenic variation), as is seen with HIV and influenza; the need to develop vaccines that rely on cell-based immunity for protection for infections such as tuberculosis; and tools for addressing a pathogen's ability to outsmart the immune system--immune evasion strategies, such as seen with hepatitis C. [n3] Impact of new immune concepts. Research on the immune system has helped identify new ways of fighting infections and is helping define the mechanisms needed for successful immunization. Most currently licensed vaccines protect by producing neutralizing antibodies, made by the B cells of the immune system. One of the advantages of stimulating this arm of the immune system is that it can be easily measured. Researchers believe that vaccines against many of the infections that are of highest priority (HIV, TB, and malaria) will need to have the other arm of the immune system--the cellular component, or T cells--pulled into action. [n4] For the first time in sixty years, new TB vaccines are in clinical trials. [n5]


2. Even if TB spreads into the US, it’ll be easily contained– hard to transmit and few become active

Archer, 6/17/09 [Kim Archer, World Staff Writer, 6-17-2009, Tulsa World]

A Cushing teenager with active tuberculosis has prompted a state Health Department investigation and testing for those who came into close contact with him. The agency was notified May 26 that the teenager had active tuberculosis and launched a routine contact investigation at his school, said Dr. Phillip Lindsey, a tuberculosis control officer with the Oklahoma State Department of Health. He would not specify how many people have been tested because they haven't completed the investigation. "This isn't anything terribly out of the ordinary," Lindsey said. Last year, 100 Oklahomans were diagnosed with active tuberculosis, prompting that number of investigations. So far this year, there have been 40 cases, he said. "Tuberculosis is hard to spread," Lindsey said. "It is never transmitted outdoors and is only transmitted with prolonged contact in close spaces." An estimated 150,000 Oklahomans are positive for tuberculosis, but they can't spread it because the disease is dormant, he said. Only 10 percent of those cases might become active tuberculosis, he said. "There is no need for panic," Lindsey said. "Tuberculosis is completely curable." He said he often has to remind physicians to check for tuberculosis in patients with prolonged coughs. Good public health practices, screening health-care workers, preventative therapy and effective drug treatment have reduced the number of cases dramatically in the United States for the last 50 years or more, Lindsey said. Worldwide, 9 million cases of tuberculosis are reported each year, resulting in 2 million deaths, he said. "It's an ancient disease," he said. "It's still out there. It's still prevalent in the world. Oklahoma has a really good public health program for tuberculosis."


3. New treatments for drug resistant strains

Michael Carter, Tuesday, 6/9, 2009, http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/28D99D03-D943-4D36-9455-5D04A3197A33.asp “New drug for MDR-TB does well in trial”

TMC207 is a safe and effective drug for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (TB), the results of a randomised, placebo-controlled trial published in the June 4th edition of the New England Journal of Medicine have shown. Patients who received the drug were significantly more likely to have a negative culture result after eight weeks than patients who received standard second-line TB treatment.
4. Alt Cause - Misuse of medicine

HSTAT – Health Technologies Services/ Technology Assessment Text. October 16, 2008 “Chapter 6 - Summary Statement on Tuberculosis” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat5.section.25888

How did multidrug-resistant tuberculosis develop? Multiple reasons account for the increased incidence of MDR-TB, but several factors warrant comment. Drug resistance has developed primarily as a result of noncompliance with prescribed anti-TB therapy among patients with active tuberculosis. Many patients were started on appropriate therapy, but adequate and complete medical followup did not occur. Such followup must be consistently carried out to ensure ongoing compliance, completion of therapy, and successful outcomes. Failure to do this left many persons in the community with partially and unsuccessfully treated TB. This unsuccessfully treated population became the source of MDR-TB.





Download 2.71 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   ...   230




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page