[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: generic treaties bad and empirically denied answers.
In a message dated 97-04-25 14:16:13 EDT, lkahng@osf1.gmu.edu (Lucius K
Kahng) writes:
<<
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, RACE --- wrote:
> if the negative reads generic treaties "bad" arguments.
> and the affirmative says
> EMPIRICALLY DENIED. the recent ratification of CWC should have caused.
> how does the negative reply????
> either they get no link or only a very marginal linear link.
> just a thought about negative ground prompted by today's headlines.
> >>
This is silly. First of all, there would be little excuse for generic
"treaties bad" evidence on this limited topic. Above and beyond that, the
CWC does nothing more than what exists now--it's not like there's no treaties
already, and it's not like anyone is going to be reading the "all treaties
cause war" position. My suspicion is that there is a difference between the
CWC and, oh, I don't know, something like the Treaty of Versailles.
In other words, there is a distinction between disads to the action of the
treaty, which will almost certainly be specific to the treaty thats adopted,
and disads to the process of ratification, like Clinton. All this does is
make disads to the ratification PROCESS not unique......
Wait a minute....
For the love of God, could this hurt the previously impeccable Clinton
disadvantage? This is an unparalleled crisis!
Homer J. Simpson
P.S. Vote for treaties.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page