Jump to content
Killa Kev

Obama says no more troop presence in Iraq

Recommended Posts

So, technically I guess this isn't official, but Obama has said that he will diminish troop in Iraq by the Summer. So tell me, How ON EARTH did the dam NFL vote on a resolution that half of it will be non Inherent before the year even begins!!!!

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/22/AR2010052201586.html?hpid=topnews

 

Seriously, now the only like important region left is Korea and Japan.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, technically I guess this isn't official, but Obama has said that he will diminish troop in Iraq by the Summer. So tell me, How ON EARTH did the dam NFL vote on a resolution that half of it will be non Inherent before the year even begins!!!!

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/22/AR2010052201586.html?hpid=topnews

 

Seriously, now the only like important region left is Korea and Japan.

 

 

1/6 non-inherent, way to hate on the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure they can change the rez during the summer.

 

Also, when did Iraq become the combined countries of Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq? It's one country. Though it does change the scope of the rez..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, now the only like important region left is Korea and Japan.

 

I predict this kid getting his shit kicked in by the TNWs in Turkey aff all year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Iraq, he said, the United States is "poised" to end its combat operations this summer, leaving behind "an Iraq that provides no safe haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant."
Ending combat operations doesn't mean troop levels = zero.

 

One would think we would still have military training indigenous Iraqi forces and perhaps a "police pressense" of some sort.

 

For instance, Business Week says:

 

About 94,000 U.S. troops are currently in Iraq, down from a peak during the war of 164,000. About 50,000 will remain by the end of August.

 

(link)

 

Afghan #s are eventually going to decrease too...

 

An important part of the Democratic Obama administration’s policy will be the war in Afghanistan, where about 92,000 U.S. troops are deployed.

 

 

Obama took responsibility for the conduct of the eight-year old Afghan war in a Dec. 1 speech at the Military Academy, and called for 30,000 more troops to help stabilize the country. At the same time he said U.S. forces will begin to withdraw in July of 2011 and turn over security duties to the Afghan government.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama plans to leave 50,000 troops in even in his plans for "withdrawal". This issue is also addressed in topic paper/all of Stefan's articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama plans to leave 50,000 troops in even in his plans for "withdrawal". This issue is also addressed in topic paper/all of Stefan's articles.

It's over 9000!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's over 9000!!!

 

 

As much as I wanna give you props for that, I'm forcing myself to be dismissive, saying that is pointless without pics of vegeta, so gtfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama plans to leave 50,000 troops in even in his plans for "withdrawal". This issue is also addressed in topic paper/all of Stefan's articles.

 

A2 Nathan Debate

 

I found a better article from the White House, Obama will decrease troop presence to 35,000 and then will pull out all troops in 2011 officially making Iraq nonunique

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-responsibly-ending-the-war-in-Iraq/

 

A2 JustAlex, I havent thought of that however I doubt it because you would have to vote for the resoultion, and either the NFL would have to change the resolution and that would piss off all the schools and maybe lead to less teams debating and/or less donations or they could rewrite the resolve. have another vote on it, but that would mess up the debate camps, which doesn't ruin the debate year, but, ehh makes it still suck.

 

Also Im not combing the other regions (well I am combining Kuwait and Iraq.) But still whats the advantage to decreasing troops in Afghanistan? Sure maybe you can run threat construction or your typical generic advantages, BUT, will that have a strong internal link to its impact in comparison to the Taliban victory in Afghanistan impact turn?

 

A2 Studly Dudley, okay your right, I didn't know we still had TNW's in Turkey.

 

"It's over 9000!!!"

 

FUCK

 

But really though Japan and Korea is all going to revolve around Japanese Soft Power and I haven't found a strong yard stick in that debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killa,

 

That evidence is from February 2009. I'm confused how thats better. The evidence above is from 14 months later your evidence.

 

I found a better article from the White House, Obama will decrease troop presence to 35,000 and then will pull out all troops in 2011 officially making Iraq nonunique

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...e-war-in-Iraq/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Killa,

 

That evidence is from February 2009. I'm confused how thats better. The evidence above is from 14 months later your evidence.

These sentences consist of several atrocious grammatical errors.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Killa,

 

That evidence is from February 2009. I'm confused how thats better. The evidence above is from 14 months later your evidence.

 

Yeah, your right, when I searched it on google it said 2010 in gray, but the real page was written in 09, okay, Ill shut up now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But really though Japan and Korea is all going to revolve around Japanese Soft Power and I haven't found a strong yard stick in that debate.

 

It's okay, college debate didn't just discuss the merits of Japanese nuclear re-armament or anything like that.

 

You're really exceptionally ignorant, stop saying stupid things.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it only is 1/6th of the resolution, it's potentially a big impact against generic DAs and Mid-East neg offense if the promise is followed through on.

 

Not as catastrophic as Kev puts it, but an issue none-the-less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty sure they can change the rez during the summer.
Yeah, we don't even need to vote or anything... ;)
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although it only is 1/6th of the resolution, it's potentially a big impact against generic DAs and Mid-East neg offense if the promise is followed through on.

 

Not as catastrophic as Kev puts it, but an issue none-the-less

 

Chill......

 

Just look at what Scotty P says above--it subsumes most if not all worries about this.

 

Read Stefan B's topic paper for the military topic.

 

Personally I've been a part of two resolutions which early changes seemed like they might significantly alter the availability of cases to debate (college topic: sanctions--specifically north korean and college topic: treaties--specifically the SORT treaty for arms reductions with Russia). In both of these cases there were plenty of other issues to debate and these two cases were still part of the debate. Also, this resolution is arguably bigger as it includes more countries.

 

How does the reduction effect debates:

1) The reduction does non-unique "generic reductions in troops bad"--however a smart counterplan and disad story can solve this (also running disad turns the case can minimize this defensive strategy.)

Also, given the size of the resolution--60 to 70% all of these will be specific links to specific countries which is a way of avoiding the above problem as well.

2) It does make debating Iraq harder on the negative.

3) Until we have zero troops on the ground in Iraq--its still debatable in debate terms. (when politicians speak of pullout they often end up meaning leaving some residual forces on the ground)

4) Even if Iraq is "eliminated"--which it probably wont--the police pressense portion will probably still be debatable

 

Beyond typical agent and process counter plans.....the negative can also counter plan with maintain current troop levels so Obama's reduction in troops never happens in the world of the debate.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be able to claim a logical internal link to an advantage that isn't subsumed by squo decreases, an aff will have to overshoot the current withdrawal number by quite a bit. In that world - true, the neg losses some uniqueness to super generics - but the neg also gets to defend "slow/limited withdrawal good" which is a much more feasible position in terms of the Iraq debate. And every uniqueness update done after this withdrawal will assume the current pullout in some fashion.

 

This neither dooms or hurts the aff or neg - this just makes the debate more interesting and palatable than just "Stay there vs. Pull out." This is also distinct from the NPR CP conundrum that occurred on the college nuclear weapons topic, since there is comparative literature between slow pullout vs. immediate, fast, complete pullout. In fact, this has been the debate since before Obama took office. Not a whole lot in terms of the uniqueness story has changed in this light.

 

There's a basic community consensus that debate should be hard, but not impossible. I don't see why the current Obama policy doesn't exemplify this desire of the community. Debates will be a lot more interesting in the Iraq field - negs will run towards focused case debates with massive generics having uniqueness problems. Sadly, most negs that don't want to run from their generics will likely just Uniqueness CP - community acceptance of not only uniqueness CP's but multiple conditional CP's in the 1NC basically means a neg's approach to Iraq doesn't even have to change at all. They'll just have to add one more off to the 1NC...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still bitter after all this time, Terrance?
:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's bullshit. I have a very good friend who was just deployed to Iraq a few weeks ago with the Army and another who is going in a few weeks with the Navy.

 

He's not stopping anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, technically I guess this isn't official, but Obama has said that he will diminish troop in Iraq by the Summer. So tell me, How ON EARTH did the dam NFL vote on a resolution that half of it will be non Inherent before the year even begins!!!!

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/22/AR2010052201586.html?hpid=topnews

 

Seriously, now the only like important region left is Korea and Japan.

 

Google "US will stay in Iraq". Tons of authors say that we're not going to leave. Reasons for this:

 

1. Leading military officials say their plans are to stay.

2. We're building "enduring bases" that are designed to be semi-permanent. Why, if we're "going to leave"?

3. The SOFA gives tons of ways we can get out of leaving--lots of loopholes.

 

This may be one of the few affs that could easily lose on Inherency if you're not careful--that said, just be well researched on the issue and be ready to sell the story that we're not going to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll make for a tricky aff area, yes, since it'll be constantly changing over the course of the year, but the august 2010 deadline is still leaving 50,000 combat troops in iraq in addition to everything else, they're building permanent bases there (http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases_text.htm), as has been mentioned, tons of authors argue US will exercise loopholes to keep troops there, you obviously don't know that kuwait is pretty important in the middle east too, that's where the invasion for iraq was staged from + has 100k troops atm with stable uniquiness, turkey is similarly off.

 

so chill, we'll all be fine. worst case scenario, don't pick an iraq aff. we'll all be fine, if you're worried about an over-limiting rez, let the camps figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, the Iraq affirmative from the CNDI Regents lab literally advocates the current timetable but cites a ton of articles on how Obama's not going to follow through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...