Resolved: The USFG should withdraw the United States Forces of Korea

On all arguments, no evidence,(only author/year) i assume they are analytics Topicality- 1. We meet, we reduce the USFK which is all troops 2. The resolution says nothing about turkey, it says the USFG should withdraw the USFK which is in South Korea, not turkey 3. There is literally no abuse here CP Perm do the CP, it's plan plus. You are literally doing the same thign as my plan except and addition on the end. No reason We cant do both in the same world. It's not mutually exclusive, we can withdraw then move to Latin America No difference and I access the same solvency. SKFTA 1. Korean Democratic Party opposes China Post 2/15 (2/15/11, " South Korea parliament set to end FTA legal gridlock ", http://www.chinapost.com.tw...) The Democrats have also indicated that they will fight to block a free trade deal signed with the U.S. after the two countries agreed to a revision to reflect U.S. Congress and industry concerns about a large imbalance in auto trade. "Our position is that the government agreed to a revision to the FTA which is unfair and humiliating and we're not going to respond to any discussions about that," Democratic Party spokesman Cho Young-teck said. U.S. Congress has also yet to pass the bill to approve the trade pact with South Korea that the two sides reworked in December and is expected to create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. 2. Not at the top of the South Korean docket Sun-ah 2/9 (Shim, "Seoul to prioritize ratification of South Korea-EU FTA", http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr... 000AEN20110209009700315F.HTML) The South Korean government and the ruling party on Wednesday decided to prioritize the nation's free trade agreement (FTA) with the European Union (EU) over a free trade deal with the United States in getting local parliamentary ratification, party officials said. 3. I solve for NK prolif through the Case. China will denuclearize...thats our Nguyen 9 evidence. 4. Our evidence is far more recent. Your evidence is WAAy to old to prove anything CASE/Invasion DA No evidence that they failed, and that doesnt mean anything. Thats exactly why we need my plan. No barrier plus in debate the aff can claim fiat. On their deterance argument, the North literally attacked in November, no impact. This also proves our deterance is failig anyways North Korea will never invade – they aren't stupid Snyder 7 (Joshua, Professor – Pohang University of Science and Technology, "America's Entangling East Asian Alliances", 10-17, http://www.lewrockwell.com...) It could be argued that Kim Jong-il might launch an invasion of the South in order to cement his place in power, after which ruling over a reunified Korea with all the South's resources in his control. But he is no moron, and realizes that there is no Soviet Bloc to support him or even trade with him after such an invasion. An invasion would simply make him the leader of a larger, war-devastated, and even more isolated pariah state. Kim Jong-il has witnessed first-hand the market successes of China and his children have been educated abroad, in Switzerland. While he has a genius for brinkmanship, he realizes that further isolation will only weaken his hold on power, which is why he has been scurrying to further economic cooperation with the South. And even if this North-South cooperation were but a ruse, South Korea has the means to protect itself; its high-tech juggernaut economy is the world's twelfth largest and is forty times larger than that of the North. Also, my plan solves this through collapse. China will denuclearize NK, that was the Nguyen 9 evidence. 3.Nuclear umbrella deters North Korea – not troops Alagappa 2009 – distinguished senior scholar at East-West Center (Muthiah, Global Asia, "nuclear weapons reinforce stability and security in 21st century Asia." Google scholar) For non-nuclear weapon states like Japan and South Korea, the U.S. extended deterrence commitments have been a significant factor in assuaging their security vulnerabilities in the wake of the North Korean nuclear test. Both countries insisted on reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment, and Japan is exploring measures to increase the credibility of that commitment. In reassuring Japan, the U.S. commitment is a significant factor along with others in forestalling exploration of an independent nuclear option by that country. The U.S. commitment enables South Korea to maintain a nonnuclear posture, provides time to build a self-reliant defense capability, and is a fallback in dealing with a nucleararmed North Korea. Regime Collapse causes loss of command and control- causes conflict and leads to great power entanglement Dr. Patrick Cronin CNAS Autho ,12/21/2010 (CNN, "Paths to War On Korean Peninsula". http://www.cnas.org...) War could also be catalyzed by sudden regime change or collapse in North Korea. The resulting uncertainty and potential loss of command and control, including over the North's nuclear weapons, might well find China, Russia, and the United States in conflict. One reason why this sudden change or collapse scenario is so dangerous is that different countries might perceive their overriding interests very differently in the heat of a crisis. Most importantly, for South Korea, it may appear that rather than achieving reunification either by the soft landing of gradual absorption or the hard landing of North Korea's political failure, China's growing influence over the North could be leading to the permanent division of the Peninsula. Superpower confrontation risks extinction Nye ‘91 (Joseph-, Dean of Kennedy School of Gov. @ Harvard, Bound to Lead, P. 17) Perceptions of change in the relative power of nations are of critical importance to understanding the relationship between decline and war. One of the oldest generalizations about international politics attributes the onset of major wars to shifts in power among the leading nations. Thus Thucydides accounted for the onset of the Peloponnesian War which destroyed the power of ancient Athens. The history of the interstate system since 1500 is punctuated by severe wars in which one country struggled to surpass another as the leading state. If, as Robert Gilpin argues, "international politics has not changed fundamentally over the millennia," the implications for the future are bleak .45 And if fears about shifting power precipitate a major war in a world with 50,000 nuclear weapons, history as we know it may end.   Independently, violent regime collapse risks nuclear strike and loose fissile material International Crisis Group 2009 (18 June, "NORTH KOREA'S CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMS", Asia Report No. 167,:www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/167-north-koreas-chemical-and-biological-weaponsprograms.aspx+north+korea's+chemical+and+biological-weapons+program+international+crisis+group&cd =1 &hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) In a struggle for power or a coup d'ï¿½tat, the use or transfer of North Korean WMD would be unlikely but cannot be ruled out. In the case of state collapse, WMD and related materials would have to be secured as quickly as possible. This would require considerable planning and resources, but current international mechanisms would probably be inadequate in a sudden crisis. Diplomatic efforts should focus on the nuclear issue now, but preliminary efforts should also be made to address Pyongyang's chemical weapons and possible biological weapons. Understand- ing the motivations of North Korean leaders is essen- tial to structuring a diplomatic solution for the elimi- nation of their WMD, and if diplomacy fails, a clear assessment of capabilities and intentions will be im- perative to counter the threats. The proliferation of North Korean WMD materials or technology would endanger global security and non- proliferation regimes. A