I have an interesting speech to give...

[U2democrat]

Coming up in my public speaking class we have persuasive speeches, and I chose why we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

I only have 4-5 minutes to deliver it, so I need to cut to the chase pretty quickly.

If y'all have (credible) articles, quotes from politicians, etc. that would help me that would be excellent. I plan to emphasize that whatever you thought of the beginning, it is no longer our war, that it belongs to the Iraqis, and we should focus our troops on Afghanistan, be ready in case heaven forbid something happens with Iran, and the genocide in Darfur.

This should be an interesting speech...thanks in advance!

 

[A_Wanderer]

An interesting speech may be why the US needs to keep troops in Iraq, everybody is calling for troops out, of course it is always more intellectually stimulating to argue for what you are dispassionate towards.

 

[deep]

An interesting speech may be why the US needs to keep troops in Iraq, everybody is calling for troops out.

interesting approach

"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

 

[A_Wanderer]

What do you think keeps me here?

 

[deep]

or to praise him?

Did you come to bury Caesar?

 

[deep]

The reason the troops should stay?


Because there was only ever "a one in ten chance of success".

And the first nine plans have failed.

How can we pull out now,
when we are due for success?

 

[BVS]

Maybe you should just PM Sting.

 

[deep]

I only have 4-5 minutes to deliver it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Arguing against Iraq and for Afghanistan/Darfur means that you can't argue against a liberventionist agenda.

In a machiavellian way you could argue that Iraq is going to be the meatgrinder between Iran and the Sunni states for the next 20 years diverting resources that could be used against the West; that it will weaken both blocs even furthur enabling future domination.

Evidence
> Iranian backing for the Madhi army and Shiite death squads.
> Saudi Arabia promising to support the Iraqi Sunnis in every way possible.
> Zarqawi labelling the Shiites heretical thus targets of justified holy war.
> Escelation of sectarian violence following the Golden Mosque attack.

Every option always involved blood, which sucks but at least theres no wrong answer.

 

[Irvine511]

for me, it was always fairly simple: the men in charge were never, ever up to the task, mostly because they thought they were up to the task (hubris, arrogance, etc.)

go to the new yorker website and look for articles by Sy Hersh. that would be a good start.

basically, for me, it now comes down to this: do we risk the chaos that leaving Iraq would entail or do we continue the current disasterous open-ended occupation that can only get more deadly and inspire more generations to hate the West and strap bombs to their chests and sprint into Kings Cross or Union Station in order to glorify god.