Silence, who is a man who stands silent? Who is a man who doesn’t stand up for what is right? That man is condoning the present activity. He is allowing the status quo to proceed. So what is the alternative? WAR, mass destruction, children lie dead in streets, mothers are killed, babies are left fir dead, home are burned, generations are wiped out. Millions are dead. Countries require decades to reconstruct, heal emotions and whatever good might arise out of all of these only follows years latter after emotions and hostilities are lifted. However being silent is just as deadly as going to war. But there is infect the middle ground to both of these. This middle ground to both of these terrible issues. A middle ground that doesn’t require the lives, the money, and the sacrifices that a war might impose on this country or the rest of the world. This “middle ground” is ECONMIC SANCTIONS. This is why I affirm the resolution … The value I hold for today’s debate is very clear SAFTEY. At this time I do not feel it is nessary to define any terms at this moment, however if does become nessary I will do so at apporite time. I will defend the aff side with the following conts. SANCTIONS ARE THE BRIDIGE THAT ALLOWS NATIONS TO CROSS OVER WAR WITH OUT GOING. 2 WITH OUT SANCTIONS THE WORLD WOULD BE A WAR ZONE. 3 SANCTIONS ARE EFFECTIVE

1. Going into my first cont. I would like to set the goal of economies sanctions: from the journal of commerce in 1998 THE GOAL OF IS STRAIGHT FOWDARD TO HALT ROGUE BEHAVIOR BY HITTING THE TARGET COUNTRY WHERE IT HURTS THE MOST – IN THE POCKETBOOK.

Now let’s go back to the days of the colonist in early America they embossed embargo’s on England after receiving the TOWNSEND ACTS and they worked, England was only able to comply with the Americans because they were holding their pocket book in their hand so they were helpless. Following this Madison AND Jefferson debated over forgein policy.
Jefferson and Madison happened to come to almost the same conc. about forgien policy about sanctions MADISION “1embargo 2 war 3 submission and tribute”. However Jefferson had a different idea. 1 diplomacy sanction and war. In Jefferson’s words how can America deal with terrorists, proliferarors, and genocidal dictators? Our options would be empty talk and send in the marines.
What Jefferson is trying to say is America needs away to be able to threaten terrorists, dictators etc. before they try to harm human life, the US needs away to to tell the world’s most deadly people that if they try things such as genoside or other wrong doings America will intervine to protect the welfare of life. Ex. nazi, Germany, Iraq, Kosho. All of these are prime examples that the US will intervene if such affiances occur.
Now lets consider a world with out sanctions a world in which goes from diplomacy to war skipping the sanctions. How could America prevent dictators such a Saddam in Iraq from making VX gas and other biological and chemical weapons of warfare? Could we stop a man in Kosovo form killing many innocent people because they weren’t the right color or religion? The answer in no we would be in constant war or we would just sit by and allow the present activity to proceed as human life was taken innocently. And let’s think, If we didn’t intervene in Iraq where would the weapons be pointing this very day. Our allies Israel, Kuat, or in the worst scenario the United States of America. I don’t know about you but that just doesn’t settle good with dinner to think one day I could be out in the yard fit playing Frisbee and the next watching my naborhors house be blown up followed by mine form a ballistic missile driven by a man that hates everything to do with America. So I can’t figure out how anyone thinks that this could be immoral?
From the forgein affairs committee in Washington DC.
Sanctions helped bring down the Soviet Union. They played a pivotal role forcing