tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post4731422160064390197..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: the necessity of private military firmsJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-82921154545778928302011-04-25T17:04:22.757-07:002011-04-25T17:04:22.757-07:00I personally love this combination:
V: national S...I personally love this combination: <br />V: national Security<br />C: Maintaining US hegemony<br /><br />I found it perfect for both the aff and the neg. <br /><br />This and the Thayer analysis justifying that the US's hegemonic stature is required in upholding national security is unbeatable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-39425528807974545032011-03-08T17:24:17.322-08:002011-03-08T17:24:17.322-08:00Seems too narrow--the three contentions could be c...Seems too narrow--the three contentions could be collapsed into one, "effective mobilization." Throw in training, interpretation, and the many other roles of PMFs in the modern military, and you could have a solid case (with an overall criterion of military effectiveness).Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-48099952838848186572011-03-08T09:22:55.507-08:002011-03-08T09:22:55.507-08:00Okay I have been considering this V/C pair
V--nat...Okay I have been considering this V/C pair<br /><br />V--nat security<br />c--fast mobilization<br />Note: in case faster= better<br />con1 PMF's mobilize fast<br />con2 Pmfs speed US standing army mobilization<br />con3 US can't mobilize fast w/o Pmfs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-56944302251028231962011-03-07T06:10:12.584-08:002011-03-07T06:10:12.584-08:00There are several ways to handle that.
1. With an...There are several ways to handle that.<br /><br />1. With an RA that the Aff owns the status quo (because currently PMFs are used to attain military objectives). Not a fan, personally, because the retort--that this is a debate about general principles, not specific objectives, and that neither side is beholden to the status quo--is just too easy.<br /><br />2. Kritik-wise, to argue that the Aff inherently adopts the U.S.'s militaristic mindset, which is harmful from a Marxist, anarchist, libertarian, feminist, pacifist, or other perspective. Whichever perspective you choose becomes the framework of your kritik (or can be used in a more traditional format to reject the resolution as a whole--if U.S. military objectives are rejected as a general principle, by default, so are PMFs that attempt to attain them).Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-12269808176174640112011-03-06T17:16:24.379-08:002011-03-06T17:16:24.379-08:00thanks so much! also while we're at it if on t...thanks so much! also while we're at it if on the neg i were to run a sort of K based case/counterplan rejecting u.s. foreign policy all together. is there some sort of framework i can use to ensure my ability to run this type of arguementannanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-12413542064749347552011-03-06T11:40:07.232-08:002011-03-06T11:40:07.232-08:00Your value would be national security; your criter...Your value would be national security; your criterion, it would seem, is pragmatic, but more specific--"meeting all the military objectives outlined in the 2011 National Military Strategy." You would then argue that PMFs are essential to our NMS. It'd be a bit of a policy-ish case, but the topic lends itself to that.<br /><br />Contention 3 seems to be the foundation of your case, as if it weren't true, your C1 and C2 would likely be untrue as well.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-39522225675069411902011-03-05T14:27:06.945-08:002011-03-05T14:27:06.945-08:00so if my case goes something like this
r.a.- justi...so if my case goes something like this<br />r.a.- justified=practicality<br />framework-meet all military objectives outlined in 2011 National Militant Strategy <br />v-?<br />c-pragmatism<br />Ct.1-pmfs essential to national security<br />ct.2-essential to international stability<br />ct.3- essential to military effectiveness (involving logistics, expense, troop welfare, etc.) <br />What could be my value? Also any critiques or arguements against it that I could block would be much appreciated. Thank you so much for all you do!annanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-88246276770076432922011-03-02T06:28:17.758-08:002011-03-02T06:28:17.758-08:00Interesting interpretation, but it seems to have a...Interesting interpretation, but it seems to have a very narrow definition of "pursue." If your military objective, for instance, is to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden, then you'll be in pursuit for the long haul, and logistics / supply / etc. will be an integral part of your mission.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-39809233507627114582011-03-02T05:00:47.223-08:002011-03-02T05:00:47.223-08:00According to 32 CFR 11.5 [Title 32 -- National Def...According to 32 CFR 11.5 [Title 32 -- National Defense;Subtitle A -- Department Of Defense;Chapter I -- Office Of The Secretary Of Defense ;Subchapter B -- Military Commissions ;Part 11 -- Crimes And Elements For Trials By Military Commission] Military objectives are those “potential targets during an armed conflict which, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, effectively contribute to the opposing force's war-fighting or war-sustaining capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization would constitute a military advantage to the attacker under the circumstances at the time of the attack.” This means we can only consider the PMF's hired as mercenaries. The reconstruction groups, and other PMF employed personnel are irrelevant, since the resolution states "to pursue military objectives", we can still negate the resolution and support the PMF's who do things like reconstruction and other non-combatant involvement.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00244682428880410951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-48670109871961375112011-02-27T18:10:04.582-08:002011-02-27T18:10:04.582-08:00They're just not as morally controversial, sin...They're just not as morally controversial, since they're primarily unarmed and only acting in supporting roles, as opposed to private security firms (such as Blackwater) that have become embroiled in conflicts of their own.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-61405125308715308442011-02-27T18:01:11.013-08:002011-02-27T18:01:11.013-08:00Why do non-security PMFs not present a moral signi...Why do non-security PMFs not present a moral significance while security ones do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-83631615629786395892011-02-27T17:10:57.304-08:002011-02-27T17:10:57.304-08:00The burden for the Neg is to prove the resolution ...The burden for the Neg is to prove the resolution false "as a general principle." <br /><br />You can attempt to limit the discussion to "security firms" in a couple ways:<br /><br />1. Argue that PMFs are PMCs as certain writers define them, as a subset of the larger pool of "private contractors."<br /><br />2. Argue based on impacts / moral significance: that there's no significant debate about non-security PMFs (such as logistics providers), and that the harms of PMFs providing security are thus the locus of debate.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-67918283951565355192011-02-27T16:53:41.717-08:002011-02-27T16:53:41.717-08:00Mr. Anderson,
If I specified what kind/type of pr...Mr. Anderson,<br /><br />If I specified what kind/type of private military firm the US is justified to use, while not being justified to use another type, would that still be negating the resolution ? I know there are different types of PMFs out there, and I also know a lot of the Aff cases will be based solely on the PMFs that are technological/logistical. Would it be too tricky to build my neg on allowing these tech PMFs but avoiding security ones ?<br />(sorry if I'm not making any sense.) But thanks anyway.Pakmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-35183628683878303302011-02-24T18:54:17.259-08:002011-02-24T18:54:17.259-08:00moriahjayy, it could be one form of PMF activity, ...<b>moriahjayy,</b> it could be one form of PMF activity, and would fall under the scope of the resolution whenever private peacekeepers were employed by the US in pursuit of its military goals.<br /><br /><b>anonymous</b> good catch, and it's fixed.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-21875231486732805602011-02-24T18:42:41.874-08:002011-02-24T18:42:41.874-08:00Not to nitpick, but if you could tag this with the...Not to nitpick, but if you could tag this with the "private military firms resolution" label that would great. I'm trying to link all the info you've written on the March resolution so far to some people I know. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-91596586402971873812011-02-24T14:44:30.006-08:002011-02-24T14:44:30.006-08:00Is privatized peace keeping the same thing as priv...Is privatized peace keeping the same thing as privatized military firms?moriahjayyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06796451677885495211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-43920170917599407152011-02-24T08:44:40.515-08:002011-02-24T08:44:40.515-08:00Anonymouses, thanks to the snow day, I'll have...<b>Anonymouses</b>, thanks to the snow day, I'll have a V/C post up later this afternoon. That might help answer your questions.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-89616395587482964212011-02-23T16:06:44.145-08:002011-02-23T16:06:44.145-08:00What are some good traditional aff arguments for t...What are some good traditional aff arguments for this topic? My state is very traditional, but my current aff ideas are all seem to link to hedge to justify war, which would undoubtedly be viewed as to policy-ish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-19166852793076731392011-02-23T14:23:27.864-08:002011-02-23T14:23:27.864-08:00Hey Mr.A,
For this topic is there any u...Hey Mr.A, <br /><br /> For this topic is there any unique arguments that will stick out and make you win for aff?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-62808031690667388702011-02-22T21:35:43.079-08:002011-02-22T21:35:43.079-08:00Oh, and neolib is basically what you'd think o...Oh, and neolib is basically what you'd think of as conservatism. Very free market cap good type args. Neolibs want to privatize a lot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-73836392449752703052011-02-22T21:34:11.432-08:002011-02-22T21:34:11.432-08:00C, heg ties in because of a few main reason. First...C, heg ties in because of a few main reason. First, PMFs solve for overstretch of the military, allowing us to keep our military worldwide. Since they are around 1/2 of our military, image how our power(heg) would decline when our military gets that much weaker and becomes unable to sustain global operations. Furthermore, PMFs have better tech, also leading to a stronger military, and thus more heg. Also, you can say they're cheaper, so we can have more. However, I wouldn't suggest running this position, since there are plenty of great neg impact turns on this arg, like PMFs unreliable excedera. Hope that helps!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-59763642901645721022011-02-22T21:09:36.381-08:002011-02-22T21:09:36.381-08:00I've heard some people are running hegemony ba...I've heard some people are running hegemony based arguments. How exactly does heg tie into this topic?<br /><br />Also, what is neoliberalism? I wiki'd it but I still dont quite understand.<br /><br />Thanks for the help.Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-78203992885999557712011-02-22T17:03:15.026-08:002011-02-22T17:03:15.026-08:00What are some good V/Cs for neg
i want to point ou...What are some good V/Cs for neg<br />i want to point out that PMCs ar enot held accountable, makes the govt. and military dependent on shortcuts, and it how it hurts perceptions abroad<br /><br />(i have state quals in a week and i made a horible mistake of procrastinating, so i thank you SOO MUCH for replying soon :D)VarshaVeggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377613348798084870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-45320742388488849612011-02-22T06:51:57.140-08:002011-02-22T06:51:57.140-08:00C, it partly depends on how progressive your judge...<b>C</b>, it partly depends on how progressive your judge is, since you're running something close to a plan. To steer away from that, you could argue something like this: "Currently, the United States has X number of key military objectives. Since they are not only central to national security, but are typical of U.S. military objectives for the foreseeable future, we can use these as a lens to focus the discussion." Would that work?<br /><br /><b>Anonymous</b>, I am, and always have been, 100% steroid free.<br /><br /><b>Second Anonymous</b>, for an introduction to (political) realism, you should read Morgenthau's <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm" rel="nofollow">"Six Principles of Political Realism." </a> The gist is that prudence, not grand political agendas, ought to guide foreign policy.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-59644845129005407602011-02-21T19:14:51.853-08:002011-02-21T19:14:51.853-08:00What would you define realism as?
And how does it ...What would you define realism as?<br />And how does it work on this subject? I'm fairly new at this and would like some help..thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com