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

CP- Not severance, theres no part of my plan that im severing out of. Secondly, im not extra topical, the resolution calls for a plan in which after it is carried out there will no longer be troops in south korea and thats presicely what my plan and perm do. The CP is plan plus Plan plus CPs are a voter. A. Not predictable- they can literally do the plan and anything else, then claim a net benefit off of it. B. Moots the 1ac- Doesn't allow the aff to defend their plan because it's already part of the CP.' C. Destroys plan focus-skirts around discussing around the merits of the plan with technicalities and silliness D. They still get pics and agent cps-we give them plenty of ground E. Even if we do limit your ground, we only limit out abusive and overly generic cps based off implementation or technicalities SKFTA Who cares if britain passed an FTA, my argument is that US and SK wont pass FTA, they dropped our Non unique and the fact that my plan solves for your impact. Also Fiat garentees that legical policy makers could pass both in the same world. Case -aff basically concdedes that there is no impact from an nk attack. He destroys his own case. My case is not at all based on a North Korean attack, its a collapse of the Regime that will cause a. Superpower confrontation b.Civil War c. Loose Fissile Material. Extend my ICG9 card that Regime Collapse of Nk will risk loose fissile material that could be stolen or detonated. This leads to Miscalculation and Extinction- SID-AHMED 04 (Mohamed, internationally renowned 4reporter and columnist in Al Ahram, "Extinction!" Al-Ahram Weekly, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg...) What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers. >>>could be argued that Kim Jong-il might launch an invasion of the South i -Kim jong il is out an his son Kim Jong-Un is now in power this argument is non-unique Im not saying that KJi is going to launch an attack. read the rest of the card it says they wont. And Kim Jong il is still in power, he just named his predessesor.(SP?) "And his entire paragraph basically concedes that there are no problems between north and south, so he has to either concede that the south and north will attack, this takes out his economic co-operation argument or he states that they have co-operation and therefore deterence is working. neg can run multiple worlds, aff cannot without concededing that their case does not wok" Once again none of my case says north will attack south. Its regime collapse. I dont advocate problems in my advantage. >Nuclear umbrella deters North Korea – not troops Obviously not if they attacked us. They attacked when our troops were there. Basically hes conceding that all of our deterance is failing by saying this. This proves that there is no impact. The US will provoke North Korea into war—South Korea will not BANDOW 2003 (Doug, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea, "Cutting the Tripwire: It's time to get out of Korea," Reason Magazine, July 2003, http://reason.com...) Calum Placing even greater pressure on this unequal arrangement is disagreement about proper policy toward North Korea. Some 24 million people, roughly half of South Korea's population, live in the Seoul-Inchon metropolitan region. Yet Seoul sits barely 25 miles from the border, vulnerable to artillery and Scud missile attack. Thus, the costs of mishandling the North would be horrific for the South. As President Roh has said, war "is such a catastrophic result that I cannot even imagine. We have to handle the North-South relations in such a way that we do not have to face such a situation." Washington, by contrast, has almost casually considered plunging the peninsula into war. Former President Bill Clinton admits that his administration prepared for a military strike against the North during the first nuclear crisis, without consulting the South. President Roh understandably complained. "We almost went to the brink of war in 1993 with North Korea," he later said, "and at the time we didn't even know it." Upon what can Seoul rely to avoid a new conflict? There are reports that President Bush rejected a military course after then-President Kim Dae-jung personally described the carnage of the Korean War. Yet Bush explicitly refuses to rule out any option. Secretary Rumsfeld has called the Kim Jong-il government a "terrorist regime," offering an obvious justification for action. And it is hard to find anyone who speaks with administration officials off the record who believes their publicly pacific intentions. Indeed, some hawks flaunt their lack of concern for Seoul's views. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) opines that "while they may risk their populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people. And spare us the usual lectures about American unilateralism. We would prefer the company of North Korea's neighbors, but we will make do without it if we must." Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy hits a similar note: "The desire of dangerous nations' neighbors to accommodate, rather than confront, them is understandable. But it should not be determinative of U.S. policy. Such pleading today from South Korea and Japan is reminiscent of the Cold War advocacy for dï¿½tente by leftists in the West German government." Apparently, America's allies should gaily commit suicide at Washington's command. >Nye 91 Super powers have confronted before in korea and vietnam. this argument has no uniqueness Extend our Cronin 12-21 evidence which says that countries like Russia, China and the US will confront. This is different from Vietnam. No internal link, he never states how superpowers will fight if we stay in Nk Our Nye 91 says that it is a nuclear war which leads to extinction Also all his advantages are historically disproven, we've been there for over 50 years don't you think something would have happened No the regime hasnt been in jeapordy in the past 50 years. Now is the time North Korea is in Dire Political and Economic Turmoil and Kim Jong Il righn is coming to an end. Lee, 5/27 [Jean H. Lee, Associated press Writer, "Cheonan attack may be tied to North Korean Succession"; Associated Press; May 27, 2010; http://www.csmonitor.com...] ..the nation is in turmoil, struggling to build its shattered economy and to feed its people...rising, and the encroachment of the outside world, through videos and films smuggled from China,...Kim Jong Il, now 68, is ailing... the persistent paralysis that left him ..limp "Never answers advantages. Our impacts are the most real world. Poverty, drug tafficking, HiV AiDs crime are happening now, prefer the cp and I urge you to vote neg" Doesnt matter if the perm solve He has not answered case