The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Thanks and good luck.... QUOTE>>> You know, he talks about demoralizing the Iraqi people and setting a date for failure. But there is something much worse than that if we DON'T set a deadline. That would be no one winning and no one losing. The "War on Terror" is a war that can not be won. If we continue to stay in Iraq we will be wasting money because we couldn't accept this war as being useless and unnecessary. IA.>>> I'm going to be attacking this argument by using the reasons we went into Iraq to show how these hold no more weight anymore. 1. Threat of Saddam Hussein>>> Saddam's power is now gone (obviously). In this debate, I'd just like to note that we are NOT debating if going in there was a good idea but rather if we should set a timetable to get out. Saddam's power holds no weight anymore. 2. Weapons of Mass Destruction>>> We found no WMD's thus this holds no weight in if we should set a timetable or not. 3. Terrorism>>> Again, I'd like to bring up that we can NEVER win the "War on Terror". There is nothing more that we can do to stop terrorism.... it will always exist. 4. Human Right Abuses>>> Now that Iraq is out of Saddam's power, it is time we turn over Iraq to Iraqi leaders. If we set a timetable, then Iraqi people will realize that they have to take over soon... thus our timetable will push actions to happen MUCH MORE than if we just pulled out randomly one day. We can't wait forever... 5. Iraq's Oil>>> haha... since the war oil has jumped in price. If we were to pull out of Iraq, oil prices would go down. Turn this to an advantage for the PRO side. 6. To spread democracy>>> Okay... let's spread democracy. The only way we can do that is if we set a timetable in order to push actions further. If we set a timetable, democracy would spread MORE than if America remained the dictatorship-like rulers of Iraq. For the past five years WE have been telling Iraq what to do. Let's put that to a stop and set a timetable. 7. UN resolution violations>>> This holds no weight in the present day and age. This gives no reason as to why to not set a timetable. 8. Preemption and intelligence>>> I'm grouping these together because my argument against them is the same. We can gain nothing more of either of these by staying in Iraq. Therefore, we should set a timetable. 9. Commitments>>> Later in the argument, she talks about commitments. But our commitments will only be met (democracy) if we pull out of Iraq with a timetable. I challenge my opponent to come up with other commitments that won't be met with a timetable. B.>>> Two things... 1) We haven't always been in debt. And even if we had, that shouldn't mean that we just go and spend whatever we want just because "we've always been in debt." Therefore we should save money where we can and in today's age that is the War in Iraq. 2) Our economy is CONSTANTLY being passed by other economy's because (in major part) of the War in Iraq. If we were to set a timetable, then we could turn our attention to the economy and make it what it used to be. C.>>> Iraq's improvement is at a slow down. There isn't much more that we can do. Also, she talks about a 1990 idea of Saddam Hussein and his WMD advancements. But today we know that nothing was ever accomplished AND this debate is not about if we should have gone in there but rather if we should set a timetable to come out. As of now, I see no reason as to not set a timetable. IIA.>>> It can't be adequately proven if the troops of Iraq will be ready or if they won't be ready (no benefit for either of us). But what CAN be proven is if we told Iraqi soldiers that in "X" time they will take over. Then their mind set would immediately move to preparing for that date. She talks about the United States and them no needing to change anything. But us setting a timetable doesn't affect us, but rather the Iraqi people. Therefore, THEY would need to be the people to make the changes, and I really don't see EITHER the US or Iraq as doing everything that they can (as my opponent insists). What I do know is that they WILL be doing everything they can if a timetable is set. B.>>> Let's get one thing straight, we ARE going to have to get out of Iraq sometime. What is the best way? To set a timetable. (specifically what my opponent said in "B" in her last speech) She says that we can't be sure if they will be ready, but will we ever "know"? NO... We may have to take some risks but to just sit until we're 100% then we will never get out of Iraq. Also, this timetable will be set by our government and will set an appropriate date for when America believes that Iraq will be ready. My opponent assumes that this timetable is a "one second" timetable but that simply is not true. I'm sure that our government will look at all angles to determine what the best "timetable" time is. AND if emergency time extensions are needed, they can be originally included in the plan. All I have to show is that a timetable SHOULD be adopted, and I would assume that emergency actions can be included in that plan if need be (but once again I do not have to show WHAT it is but if there SHOULD be one). C(one)>>> We will still be in debt but that is NOT a reason to make our debt any worse. A timetable will eventually allow this debt to slow down so we aren't going in debt an extra million dollars every 12 seconds. C(second)>>> Setting a timetable will have NO negative effect on how much people will like us. It may actually help us in trying to make Iraq itself again. That should make people like us more. But if we are to stay in there, it won't make people like us more and it will instead push peoples hate for us. That is what I meant by this argument. C(general)>>> Our mission can be accomplished if we set a timetable. We must do this sometime and as this topic of debate does not set a WHEN but rather an IF... we SHOULD do this. To conclude, I offer a quote from me... "Again the quote... we already have failure and the sooner we accept it the better off all of us will be."-- quote from me ;-) Thanks!