non-military foreign policy?

[JASON RUSSELL <jr0929@broncho.ucok.edu>]

hey, maybe someone out there can give me a hand. i've got a question 
about a non-military foreign policy. what if a foreign policy can serve 
two clear and distinct purposes, one military the other non-military. 
would that case be topical?

here is a scenario...

say that affirmative was to do something that intends to resolve the 
pow/mia situation with vietnam, short of sending in chuck norris and a 
bunch of covert operatives to free them. the plan would do negotiations 
or concessions of some sort with the vietnamese. of course, the plan 
would serve some military purposes, say getting their freaking soldiers 
back, but would also be non-military in means.

it seems to me that the resolution does not truly exclude military 
foreign policy changes as long as those military changes also serve wider 
non-military purposes. saying "change a non-x foreign policy" does not 
say "do not change an x foreign policy". in order to twist the 
resolution, one only needs to "change a y foreign policy which also 
changes an x foreign policy". am i wrong about this? 

jas

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: non-military foreign policy?
• From: Sean Upton <Sean.Upton@m.cc.utah.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Schedule for next year
• Next by Date: Re: non-military foreign policy?
• Prev by thread: Kentucky Fellows Debate #2
• Next by thread: Re: non-military foreign policy?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page