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

"I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments," the president said. "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible." I agree with this quote from President Bush, which is why I must strongly disagree with the resolution that: The United States should adopt a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq. I. Against Pro's: The United States has been in Iraq for too long argument: A. Against Pro's: World Affairs have been upset because of the war: -We went into this war for many reasons, being the threat from Saddam Hussein, Iraq possibly producing Weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and terrorist links, human rights abuses, Iraq's oil, to spread a Democracy, U.N Resolution Violations, Preemption, and also for intelligence. These were issues that needed to be resolved. Even if resulting in being looked at as the "police of the world". Other countries have always seen us as the "police of the world" so why is this so significant now? Also, if other countries already don't like us, how will they feel about us when we don't keep our commitments and allow Iraq to worsen all because we just wanted out? B. Against Pro's: Money is wasted: Debt is something our country has always had. And while this is costing money our economy still remains one of the best in the world and continues to adjust with this debt. We are accomplishing things in the Iraq war that will help the United States, so the money is not wasted as Pro claims. C. Against Pro's: If a solution hasn't been reached by now, one won't ever be reached. After Saddam's overthrow Iraq has been showing signs of significant improvement which can be linked to the fact that we've been over there for this time. Some solutions take time. Pro says that we can stay over there to solve these problems, we just need to set a date to get out of there, but in this point claims that we're not going to get any further than we already have. Confusing and Contradicting. In 1990 the IAEA had confirmed that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, that he had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The United States, had this previous knowledge and knew that Iraq was working to produce WMD's. If we wouldn't have intervened who knows if they would have accomplished this mission or not. That's a pretty big risk. II. Against Pro's: With a goal (timetable), things will be done in a more efficient way argument: A. Against Pro's: Iraqi troops/government will be ready to take over. It cannot be adequately proven that the Iraqi troops and government will be able to take over in what ever allotted time we choose. The United States would not start doing more to get to the final goal, if it was that easy we would have acquired a timetable a long time ago, we're doing all we can right now. And if the case is that this time table would cause the United States to take different and more effective measures-- why do we need a time table as an excuse to take these different measures? We can take them without a timetable and allow them to take the time they need. B. Against Pro's: If they are not ready, the timetable could prepare emergency extensions: What qualifies as an emergency situation?? And how can we tell if they are honestly ready to be on their own. What is most likely to happen is that Iraq we'll continue to improve and then we'll deploy all troops on the date set because we expect that they'll continue to improve. But if we take out the most important element- the U.S.- how can we know for sure that they won't go back to being similar to where they started? We can't risk that- because that would be truly wasting our money. We need to be sure. And that can't happen if we have a timetable. C. Against Pro's: A timetable should be adopted: -To Conclude, the only thing that will be accomplished by a timetable is getting out of Iraq. Pro says this will be good because we'll be able to save our money and other countries won't hate us. For one, we're still going to have a lot of debt--- and out economy is fine, as I have stated before. Second, this isn't going to magically make other countries like us, they weren't to fond of us before this war, why would they be after this war? This makes Pro's reasons invalid. Just getting out of Iraq is not going to be for the good. We need to make sure our mission in Iraq is accomplished without the pressure of a timetable. As President Bush stated in his quote- "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible."