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

Hola Luke, well here goes round 3… 1. A timetable is ineffective. It's obvious that I can't deny that we should get out of Iraq, but this debate is not about whether or not we should get out of Iraq, but rather how we go about the process and which would be more effective. Hopefully through this final speech you will see that best and MOST EFFECTIVE way to go about a withdrawal for Iraq would be WITHOUT a timetable. Because the ONLY thing a timetable accomplishes is getting out of Iraq by a certain date. It does not uniquely have any different effects than any other option. A timetable is inappropriate. 2. My opponent can assume that our government would be appropriate with it, but if that was true then why haven't they created one yet? There have been propositions for a timetable in Washington, and yet constantly vetoed. Therefore I can assume they have their reasons for rejecting this idea, and obviously it's because a timetable would be a bad idea. 3. Just because we don't have a time table doesn't me that were just going to randomly pull out all of our troops one day. A much better idea would be to gradually reduce our troops without a planned date. A planned date just overwhelms both the U.S. and Iraq and takes away from our true goal, being to help Iraq. With a time table all we're thinking about is helping ourselves. And if we do that, we're just wasting money, and valuable lives over in Iraq. Which is why we shouldn't have a timetable, and this resolution should be rejected. 4. If were going to need these emergency extensions then how obviously the government wasn't able to think our withdrawal date through as Pro claims they would be able to. Because if the emergency extensions end up needing to be used, then it further proves that having a time table in Iraq was a bad idea in the first place. It would be the fact that we would end up saying that were going to deploy at a certain date, and putting Iraq, and United States, under pressure that caused the trouble that would call for an emergency extension. A trouble that can be avoided if we don't have a timetable. This debate has mainly come down to which method would be the best and most effective way to get out of Iraq. The best and most effective way will be without a timetable. Because without a timetable we can still accomplish all the things that are supposedly accomplished through a time table. Pro's argument is that: A timetable will have Iraq realize there going to have to take over soon. But what needs to be seen is that we do NOT need a time table for this effect, gradually reducing the number of troops and easing them off our help will be most effective. Pro has also claimed that we can still do this with a timetable and set dates for deployment of a certain number of troops, but that won't help because we may still need those troops over there to accomplish our mission, we need to gradually reduce the number when we feel and know they're ready to be without them…not just a guess of when they will be ...in other words, not a timetable. The Pro side of this debate is selfish, because all it thinks about is getting out of Iraq, not truly helping Iraq. Which is why it should result in a CON vote. The Pro side is only able to uniquely accomplish one thing. And that's having the certainty of when we will get out-- and that's not necessarily a good thing. Because it can result in being a waste of money, time, and lives. In the end, setting a date for withdrawal IS, in fact, setting a date for failure. And that is irresponsible. Thanks for the great debate Luke :) and good luck.