Topic #34 - The US should adopt a timetable for Withdrawl from Iraq

As Pro, I will be defending that the United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Thus, the Polar opposite stance that my opponent will have to prove is that the united States should not adopt a timetable for withdrawlf from Iraq. To be judged by James Fong, Maximilian Powers, and Dan Alexander.
Definitions:
Timetable - A schedule listing the times at which certain events are expected to take place
Withdrawal - retreat or retirement of an army or other military force from an area in which it was fighting

In Laymans terms, The US needs to set up a time limit to get our troops out of Iraq

This war has cost America. Not only finacially[ http://www.msnbc.msn.com... ] but with lives as well [http://www.npr.org...]. The war was started in direct retribution of the acts on September 11, 2001. Further reason was given stating that there were WMD's, when in the last 7 years, a continuous search has still come up with nothing. Our main concern was supposed to be either the capture or destruction of the Taliban and Al Quada, yet, the last time I heard mention of Osama Bin Laden's name was in mention of his driver's trial. Clearly we've strayed from our original path, and it is costing us every single day. There are very definite trends towards a recession ever since the war has gone on, most noticably in the housing market, food produce, and especially gas prices. All of which where doing relativly well during pre-war days ( I bet we can all remember at time when the pump cost just $1.29 per gallon). There is no denying that this war has set us back severly. What is very troubling though, is that we shouldn't even be in this rut in the first place.

Our mission in Iraq, supposedly, is to rebuild it's government. The rub is, we were never asked to. What does this make us? Invader's, if not Conqueror's. We are occupying the State of Iraq. Does any of this sound familiar? It should, if you've ever taken U.S. History. In our early days, and by our I mean America's, we were occupied by Britain, and we did not like it. A foreign military, seemingly invinsible with better training and equiptment, patrolling our street, and enforcing their law from a country hundreds of miles away. So much did we dislike it that we eventually went to total war with them, and won. The British, despite our bias towards our own county, were also acting in their best interests, thinking us inept and unable to form and maintain our own government by ourselves. But we've certainly proved them wrong. Although we asked them many times to withdraw their troops, they didn't, probably also thinking they had a moral obligation towards us. Then came total war. My point in all this is that unless we learn from our very own history, we most certainly will be doomed to repeat it, but this time it will be much, much worse. Iraq has approved and submitted the request for US withdrawl [http://www.npr.org...] and we need to listen. We have no business being there. We were not asked, and we are not obligated. Our goal in this war is to avenge 9/11, and eradicated the terrorist threat, not rebuild a country, and especially not when they don't want us. We must get back on track and finish what we originally started before it hurts us even more than it already has. Whatever politics are going on there, they don't matter. They claim they can take care of themselves, and unless they want help, we have no obligation to assist them in any way. Our goal, selfish as it may sound, is to help ourselves by finishing the war on Terror so we can get back to our own problems, and by now, there are plenty.

Good luck to Darth, and thank you to the judges.

My opponent asserts twofold: the cost of life and the cost on the economy. I'd like to first attack the cost on the economy.

1. My opponent does my work for me. He suggests three alternative causalities to the recession: the increase in food prices, the United States' addiction to oil, and the collapse of the housing market. Most economists agree that these are causing the recession. If his logic was correct, we would've already seen a recession in between the time the war started and the collapse of the housing market. But no. The recession started AFTER the oil shocks, the spikes in food prices, and the collapse of the housing market.

2. Economic Growth is bad.

A. Economic Growth leads to massive amounts of poverty
The Nation, "Under the Veil of Economic Growth," 6-24-07

Whatever the degree of economic growth, if it is not concurrently translated into common good of the populace, it scarcely carries any meanings. The per capita income of $ 925 is analogous with per capita geographical area, which equals 0.004975 km or 5 meters per head (796,000 / 160 million). It would be childish to assume that each and every Pakistani essentially owns a 5 meters piece of land or it is only possible in a fool's paradise.
There is no denial that a historically positive and consistent economic growth rate has been achieved, but here we need to take a breath before we are carried too far away in the labyrinth of statistics. To Disraeli, 'there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics.' In the first place, the global economic expansion of 5.4 % had a wavelike impact on our economic growth, which is quite akin to global inflation which was 11 % and is believed by our economic managers to have adversely affected domestic price level... As said in the beginning, the colossal claims of economic growth remain hollow if the economic growth does not trickle down to general comfort and convenience of the people at large; 'poverty is not a vice but an inconvenience.' (Shakespeare). And the most gruesome inconvenience has been occasioned by high cost of living embedded in escalating inflationary trends. Understandably, inflation, poverty and inconvenience are interrelated and directly proportional to each other. We can all see around ourselves what the plight of the poor is which is yet inexplicable; to word it, still 25 % of our people live below one dollar per day and 74 % below two dollars per day. In fact, the major component of high cost of living that is food price is haunting. The reasons presented are global inflationary trends, ineffectiveness or insufficiency of supply chain, which is partly ascribable to poor infrastructure and the shortage of some of the food items at domestic level.

B. Poverty leads to a cycle of social inequality, mental suffering, hunger, and disease
Baresh and Webel 2002 [David and Charles, professor of psychology at University of Wisconsin and PhD at UC Berkeley, 2002, "Peace and Conflict Studies,"
One of the most important, if least recognized, aspects of poverty is its psychological effects, the bitter pill of perceived injustice and inequality that must be swallowed by those who observe the affluence of others while still mired in their own poverty. Even if one's purchasing power is adequate for survival, it can be painful to witness a dramatically higher level of consumption on the part of others—and with increased communication and transportation, even the most isolated people, living traditional and impoverished lives, are exposed to examples of affluence. The results are deep mental suffering: envy, shame, and either despair or anger. (Moreover, as we shall see, along with 'development' in the previously impoverished countries, there seems to be an inevitable widening of the gap between rich and poor, as has been the case—although to a lesser extent—for the U.S. as well.) Beyond the phenomenon of envy, there is the painful physical fact of deep, absolute poverty. Hunger is the most obvious manifestation, with disease being inevitably associated as well. Other deficits usually accompany poverty: Poor housing and inadequate sanitation contribute to disease, as does inadequate nutrition. Health care is minimal or nonexistent. Educational opportunities are very limited, because areas of extreme poverty frequently have few and typically inadequate schools, and also because the very poor often need their children to work, so they are denied whatever limited educational opportunities may be available. The result is a deepening of the cycle of poverty, making it even more difficult for such people, or their descendants, to escape. Not surprisingly, life spans are significantly shorter among the very poor.

NEXT I will attack my opponent's cost of life argument, and a little bit of the economic stuff, too. He makes the assumption that the government should do what's best for its people. This is inherently false. My opponent says the government should withdrawal to protect the interest of their people. I have two arguments:

1.PRO's attempt to rationalize and stabilize a chaotic world- in its prevention of chaos and suffering, goes on a constant search for what is inherently true in the world, IE the will to truth. (Paul Saurette, Prof Political Theory at John Hopkins University, 1996) The will to truth can only lead to destruction- systematically killing off every new idol eventually turning inward. Nihilism is inevitable- only experiencing nihilism can we escape the current value system and embrace new values.

The great philosopher Frederic Nietzsche wrote in his book 'Beyond Good and Evil' that the attempt to prevent suffering makes us all slaves to the so called good natured freedom. We have an obligation to break free of our current assumption of suffering must be resisted and the mass promotion of human rights as being championed by the assumption of a necessary truth.

2.SPECTACLES OF SUFFERING SERVE AS ALIBIS FOR OTHER FORMS OF OPPRESSION WHICH JUSTIFY VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION WORSE THAN THE CASE. SEEMING BENEVOLENT ACTORS LIKE THE RED CROSS CAN INSPIRE RACISM AND VIOLENCE WHEN CONSTRUCTING SPECTACLES OF SUFFERING. WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR POLICIES OR WE RISK REPRODUCING THE VERY HARMS WE SEEK TO ALLEVIATE. MY CRITICISM ASKS THE UNDERLYING QUESTION, "AT WHAT COST?"

One is obligated only to oneself- the attempt to perfect ones most utmost self- all other obligations are just illusions.

~Friedrich Nietzsche, Philosopher, 1872 (The Birth of Tragedy. Translated Golffing, 1956. p. 9-11)

"From the very first, Christianity spelled life loathing itself, and that loathing was simply disguised, tricked out, with notions of an "other" and "better" life. A hatred of the "world" a curse on the affective urges, a fear of beauty and sensuality, a transcendence rigged up to slander mortal existence, a yearning for extinction, cessation of all effort until the great "Sabbath of Sabbaths"—this whole cluster of distortions, together with the intransigent Christian assertion that nothing counts except moral values, had always struck me as being the most dangerous, most sinister form the will to destruction can take; at all events, as a sign of profound sickness, moroseness, exhaustion, biological etiolation. And since according to ethics (specifically Christian, absolute ethics) life will always be in the wrong, it followed quite naturally that one must smother it under a load of contempt and constant negation; must view it as an object not only unworthy of our desire but absolutely worthless in itself.
As for morality, on the other hand, could it be anything but a will to deny life, a secret instinct of destruction, a principle of calumny, a reductive agent---the beginning of the end?—and, for that very reason, the Supreme Danger?"

I eagerly await my opponent's response.

Economy Rebuttal's

1)The "oil shocks, the spikes in food prices, and the collapse of the housing market" all started after the war, when before it was doing fine. They are the leading causes of the recession as all three are incredibly major markets. Their collapse is a clear sign that the recession isn't starting, but that we are already in it. All of which started during wartime, when previously they were doing fine, or at least, noticeably better than now. The war is definitely a cause of the recession, and the trend of three markets failing after it started only backs that claim up.

2A) So this long article basically says that when the economy does well, it hurts the people. Does that really make any sense? Inflation is a problem, there is no doubt about that. But it isn't a major problem as long as people can keep up with it. In order for that to happen, the economy needs to be doing well, because that means money for the people. As much as we hate inflation, that is not a product of the government, but of business, usually big business. They determine prices of goods. The government should be keeping an eye on them, regulating their price changes, which would reduce inflation. Unfortunately, they are too busy with an overseas war they should not be fighting (reasons stated above). So right now the situation is: they are ignoring their original prerogatives, to fight an illegal war. So the easy solution to Con's copied article, is to get the government concentrating on what it's supposed to be doing, not fighting a war we aren't supposed to be in the first place.

2B) So poverty leads to depression. That's not new news. If only there was a solution to poverty. Like, some method of getting poor people money. How could we pull that off? Wait, what if we paid them money in equal exchange for their labor? And what if this act, lets call it a ‘job', was all over the place, and everyone could get one! Man, that's be perfect! If they had money they'd be happy! People wouldn't be depressed or envious or anything because they'd have money. But wait a second, just because they get paid doesn't mean they'd get paid well. Darn. Wait a tick, if the jobs they were working at were doing well, then the workers could get paid more. But for that to happen, I guess the economy would have to be doing well, and for that to happen, I guess the government would have to be paying attention to it. But they're too busy fighting that illegal war in Iraq. Guess it's back to the drawing board.

Life Rebuttals

1)My opponent argues that there is no way to establish peace. Saying that nihilism (absence/extinction of emotion) is the only way such a peace could ever exist (Equilibrium anyone?). I say this is false. We can notice, through history, that society is definitely on an upward trend towards global peace. Right now, we are not at that point, however, we are at a better state of cooperation than 1000 or even 100 years ago. England and France, two countries that for hundreds of years were almost constantly at war are now allies. In fact, Europe is nearly completely united. America is allied with it's old enemies from WW2, namely Germany, Italy and Japan. Even Russia can claim to be a friend, after years of distrust and near nuclear war. We are reaching the ultimate goal, but all of that can be blown away if we continue to fight Iraq, a war that our fellow members of the UN oppose. We need to get out for our own sake and for the worlds. We still must fight for world wide peace, but that only strays farther the longer we stay in Iraq.

2)This argument seems to imply that we need to take care of ourselves. Isn't this what I just said? This war is hurting us more than helping, infinitely more than helping. We need to pull out and fix ourselves up. We'll save our own citizens lives, and stop being responsible for the death of theirs. They can take care of themselves and fix themselves on their own. We need to recuperate ourselves from this mistake. Basically, this point of his works to my end.

Now, while this is all well and good, but Con's arguments (or atleast the Nations, Mister's Baresh, Webel and Nietzsche I should say), do very little to explain his resolution, which should be reasons why we should not withdraw from Iraq. Rather, they are philosophical arguments on economics and the responsibilities of life. Good things to ponder on, but little to do with the topic at hand. We are not supposed to be in Iraq, and are suffering because we are. We need to withdraw and fix ourselves. Iraq wants us out, most of America wants us out, and we were never supposed to be in there in the first place. We owe it to everyone to withdraw, morally and legally. So now, I eagerly await you to tell me why we need to stay.

I'll go straight down my opponent's last speech.

1) My opponent's argument is non-responsive. My argument is this- we weren't in a recession in 2001, when we went into Iraq, nor were we in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. We're in it NOW, 2008. Isn't it odd that oil prices jumped $50 a barrel from the beginning of this year? Isn't it odd that the housing market collapsed last year? Isn't it odd that food prices have skyrocketed in 2008? Coincidence? I think not. My argument is that if the war was the cause of the recession, we would've seen a recession in 2001-06.

2)a. My first is that my opponent is not an economist nor qualified at all. Trust any evidence I bring into this round over his arguments.

My second is that he grossly misinterprets the logic behind that article. The article shows a specific instance in which the global economy grew by about 5% and inflation rose 11%, almost at exactly the same time. When inflation goes up, so does the cost of living. The world's poor cannot afford this, and they suffer, not to mention the more and more people that become poor because they cannot keep up with the high cost of living. It also states this "Understandably, inflation, poverty and inconvenience are interrelated and directly proportional to each other."

His argument about business regulation has nothing to do with this whatsoever. When more money is being fluxuated in the economy, inflation rises. Basic economics.

2)b. This argument is just an impact to by 2a. He goes on some sarcastic tangent that doesn't disprove this at all. My impact here still remains.

NIETZSCHE-
1)My opponent makes a huge mistake in bringing up EXAMPLES. Our fear has definitely gotten worse, and we've acted based on that. For instance, as my opponent admits, we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons- mainly because the Bush administration was a major fear monger and initiated so many threats into people. Now he wants every problem to go away, so he's trying to fix all these things. When we do that, we go on this search for ‘inherent truth' to find what's right and wrong, what we should do about our problems, and what's best for US. When we get caught up in the will to truth, we are only going to kill off and destroy these things that get in the way. In other words, eternal bliss will never happen. SUFFERING IS INEVITABLE. This is only going to lead to the continuation of these deaths and economic struggle. A vote for PRO is a vote for the continuation of these problems: maybe not in Iraq, but nonetheless continuing.

2)This is a very important argument. When PRO will stop at nothing to stop suffering, that will lead to the suffering of others. I'll give an example in the context of this resolution: say the troops are pulled out. Sure, they don't die, but what about the Iraqis? What if they were dependent on American aid? What about street crime and violence? EVEN IF you think that more people will be saved if the troops were pulled out, there is a 100% chance that someone is going to die based on that withdrawal. AND, what it if PRO will do anything to stop it? We will divert humanitarian resources to fund it, we will become blind to other oppressions within our country, and we will not face other ‘real' challenges. Is PRO really going to go as far as to kill everyone that stands in the way of the withdrawal? That's what you're voting for if you vote PRO.

Finally, I'd like you to look at my analysis between points 1 and 2. The attempt to stop suffering will make us slaves to ‘good natured freedom.' In order to stop oppression, we should help ourselves, and only ourselves, not the American people, not Iraqis, not anyone. OURSELVES. Only then can we stop these problems that PRO presents.

Still, Con has yet to give any actual reasoning as to why we should not adopt a time table to withdraw from Iraq. The only real arguments he's made is that America has not been in a recession (which it has been) and the philosophy of suffering, niether of which is a real argument to proving his resolution. This debate has clearly gotten as off topic as the war itself. I maintain that the war has caused our economy to fail, that withdrawl would save lives, and that we are there illegally. Still, I will rebutte his arguments, pointless as they may be.

1) My responce is responsive. The government has not been able to police the businesses of it's own country because it is busy elsewhere. Thus, they take advantage of the war and it's need for supplies. They then raise the prices of their goods, making it more expensive to buy items they know people need. Evidence is all over the place, as I mentioned before, most noticably in the food, fuel, and housing markets. COnsumer cannot maintain the cost to continue to live in their own home, so they sell it, however, pople don't have enough money to buy that house, causing the housing market to plumet. They need cheap housing so that they will still have enough money for food. Food is being used as ethenol because gas prices are rediculous. And those are definetly effected by the war because we have a dependency on foreign oil, most from the middle east. THe price of oil started to increase way before 2008. It is just now that it is at it's worst. Because one of our most major markets was impacted by the war, a domino effect started, and is knocking down other markets. We've been in a steady recession ohase ever since we went to war, but it is only now, after we've finally realized that things are getting worse, that we are recognizing it. So we have been able to see it, we just haven't noticed it.

2a&b) My opponent is also not an economist, which is why we should trust evidence made by actual economists, which I have provided. Next, con only back up my claim further. He admits that inflation and high costs of living cause strife amoung the poor, something I've said from the start. The government needs to get back to handeling it's own problems and stopping this inflation nightmare. My next argument is only a restatement of the first, which both can address Cons concerns.

1) Con should be using this time to discuss why we should stay in Iraq, yet continues to agree with me despite himself. He agrees we are there illegally, basically destroying the stance he should be defending. All of this is argument is based off of hypothetical philosophy, whereas mine is based off fact. There is no proof to show suffering is inevitable, except if the case is us staying in Iraq. War and suffering go hand in hand. Without war, there will be either no suffering or it will be greatly reduces. At least, if suffering continues, and we've withdrawn, we won't be responsible.

2) What if Iraq wants us out anyway? Even if they are better off with us there we have no right and they want us out. There's a thought that just happens to be true, not just theory.

SO my points are
-America needs to withdraw in order to pay attention to it's own plentiful problems, caused by war or not
-Iraq wants us out so we should get out
-We are there illegally, basically making us invaders. We need to get out so we don't provoke another war with even more outraged countries

And assuming Con thinks these arguments prove his resolution, they come down to
-We're not in a recession, even though the markets are bad now, so... stay in Iraq
-People are going to suffer anyway so... stay in Iraq
-GO ANARCHY! And stay in Iraq

None of which prove his resolution. They only state that he doesn't think the years of market failings mean we are in a recession, he likes Nietzsche, and has still not gotten on topic. So Con has one final round to attempt and say something productive for himself. Otherwise, I'd say the vote has to go to Pro, as it seems I'm the only one who tried to argue on topic 34. Darth_Grievous_42 out.

Okay, there's gonna be an 2 easy ways out in this debate: First, my opponent severely misinterprets the growth bad argument: no where in his speech does he argue that growth is good. This is granted for the CON side. Even if you don't buy that, I still have the argument about my opponent's misconceptions of dying. My opponent keeps saying my arguments are pointless, yet never gives any reasons why. Also, here's the end all: his final conclusions about why you should vote PRO is that our economy is failing and lives will be lost. Even I AGREE with those, I just say that a failing economy is good and trying to prevent the loss of life will only lead to more things- not caring is the only thing we can do. I heavily urge you to think outside of the box on this one and deeply think about this philosophy. I'll clarify on the line-by-line.

1. I will concede that the war is causing the recession. HOWEVER, this works FOR ME. He massively undercuts the two other arguments about how growth is bad.

2. My opponent obviously is not great at economics. I'll try to explain this as best as I can. I'm sure if you get what I'm saying, you have to vote for CON. When the economy goes up, so does inflation, not the other way around as he suggests. Pulling out of Iraq will cause the economy to go up. Econ goes up, inflation goes up, poor people can't afford stuff. HE HAS NEVER ARGUED THAT A WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ WILL DECREASE INFLATION. He also has dropped the terminal impact to this: poverty leads to social injustice, hunger, and disease. In order to prevent this from happening, you must vote for CON in this debate.

Also, I'd like you to extend that my opponent is not an economist. I provided an article from a revered newspaper and an article by TWO PhD.S. He says "which is why we should trust evidence made by actual economists, which I have provided," but I see no article, reference, or MENTION of an economist on the PRO side yet. Trust my argument.

NIETZSCHE

Judges, I know this can be confusing. But come on. He argued less than 6 lines on this, and most of it was talking about his arguments! Again, I'll explain this to the best of my ability, and if you understand it, you will vote CON.

Overview: PRO's justification for withdrawing from Iraq is that people are dying and suffering. Throughout history, we have tried to prevent suffering.

How many disease prevention research programs have we had?
How many wars did we fight to keep ourselves safe and prevent dying?
How much money have we sent to starving children?
How many drug treatment programs are there?

Now think about this:

Is there still disease?
Has war ended?
Are there still starving children?
Do people still take drugs?

Yes. Yes to all of them. In fact, many have gotten worse: AIDS ravages Africa and other parts of the world, we are creating a nuclear weapons generation, the rich- poor gap is at an all- time high and millions of children die of starvation a year, and we now have a generation of kids that think drugs are actually GOOD. How, my friends, has suffering stopped?

I want you to also look at my # 1 and 2 analysis in R2, where I said that this 'making everything better' attitude makes us go on this search for what is always right and what is always wrong (inherent truth). When we try to do that, that leads to this mindset that "this thing doesn't matter because it is standing in our way of truth." When that happens, more people suffer.

A vote for PRO means a vote for continued oppression. His only argument is that I'm not based in fact about how suffering is inevitable, but 1. Look at my narrative from above and 2. THAT'S CALLED PHILOSOPHY.

I know I've said it a thousand times, but you need to vote CON to prevent endless suffering. He suggests my arguments are three-fold:
"-We're not in a recession, even though the markets are bad now" We ARE in a recession, that's good,

"-People are going to suffer anyway so... stay in Iraq" Not that they're going to SUFFER ANYWAY, that PRO can never STOP suffering,

"-GO ANARCHY! And stay in Iraq," I guess so... We are only obligated to help ourselves, he never gives any reason why "anarchy" would be bad, not that I'm adovacting it (I think he's just name-calling).

AND THAT'S the tip of the ice-berg. Responsive, clear, easy vote for CON.