Every soldier who dies in Iraq, dies in vein

Pro obviously means "in vain" not "in vein." Pro gave no definition. A dictionary definition http://www.answers.com... is: "To no avail; without success: Our labor was in vain." To consider the resolution we must establish what the objectives were and then whether or not any success has been attained in achieving the objectives. For the resolution to be affirmed all objectives must have completely failed to meet the definition of "no success." Pro made no explicit claim as to what the objectives were in the Iraq war. Our first task, therefore, is to try to deduce from his arguments what the objectives were. He seems to think there were two objectives: (1) to discover and destroy Saddam's WMDs, and (2) to fight al Qaeda. He supposes there were no other objectives. Saddam's brutal regime was ended, Saddam's belligerence based on his hoax of having WMDs was ended, Saddam's threat to the stability of the region was ended, Iraq was removed as untouchable safe haven for terrorists, and the US showed it would demand compliance with the 1991 ceasefire agreement. Perhaps most significant, the US proved it was not a paper tiger. It certainly was believed that Saddam had WMDs. The evidence included the independent assessments of the British, French, German, Russian, and Israeli intelligence organizations, and each of the dozen US intelligence agencies. Hans Blix, the UN agent responsible for inspections, said in his book that he believed Saddam had WMDs. President Clinton believed Saddam had WMDs. Then Senator Obama believed that Saddam had WMDs, but opposed the war based upon Saddam's not having used them against the US; he was opposed to preemption. Before Saddam's execution FBI agent George Piro "made friends" with Saddam, and Saddam revealed that he deliberately gave the impression that he had WMDs. http://www.cbsnews.com... Saddam was concerned with deterring Iran, and felt the U.S. would not intervene, no matter what. Journalist Carl Bernstein, famous for uncovering Watergate, investigated the decision-making process in the White House leading up to the Iraq War and concluded that all the right questions were asked by Bush, and the intel agencies were not pressured. The related objective of the War was to find out whether or not Saddam had WMDs. The assessment was that the risk of Saddam having WMDs was too high too ignore, even though there was less than certainty that Saddam had them. Since Saddam was an absolute ruler who wanted the world to believe he had WMDs, it should not be surprising that his efforts succeeded. Even Saddam's own generals believed they existed. The formal objective was to enforce the agreement obtained after the first Gulf War by which inspections were to take place. Saddam had failed to cooperate. The objective was to enforce the agreement and to find out whether or not Saddam had WMDs. That objective was achieved. The Administration claimed that Saddam supported terrorism, and there is no question that Saddam was supporting Palestinian terrorists. Links to al Qaeda were also alleged. It was not alleged by the Bush Administration that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The objectives of the Iraq War are revealed in the Iraq War Resolution that gave the reasons for the use of military force. These were (a) Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors; (b) Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."; (c) Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."; (d) Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"; (e) Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War; (f) Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."; (g) Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations; (h) The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them; (i) The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. (j) Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. http://en.wikipedia.org.... Each reason for the War translates to an objective of removing that complaint through military force. Four of the objectives were clearly met: (a) compliance with the 1991 ceasefire was achieved; (c) Saddam's brutal repression was stopped; (e) the firing on coalition aircraft was stopped; and (j) removal of Saddam and promotion of a democratic regime. These accomplishments are all significant. Therefore Pro's contention that all of the soldier's efforts were in vain is untrue, and the resolution fails. The objective (b) to find WMDs failed, but the objective to remove the threat succeeded. Saddam was using the threat of WMDs to gain leverage and influence; that ability to threaten was ended. With respect to the other objectives, the results are unclear but contain considerable promise for success. Whatever al Qaeda's original presence in Iraq, they entered the conflict in force, and now seem to have been defeated. Iraq is not providing aid to terrorists in Palestine or elsewhere. If it transpires that a stable democratic regime endures in Iraq, that would be tremendous defeat for terrorism. Pro's argument that Drumheller should have been believed and the all world's intel organizations not believed is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution asserts that all the objectives failed completely. Faulty intelligence planted by a dictator does not obviate the brutal nature of the regime, his failure to comply with the ceasefire agreement, or that his interests were contrary to those of the US. Another intelligence failure was the Saddam's stockpile of one billion tons of conventional arms was unknown to the US. That posed a threat to the US and its allies, and to the stability of the region. Had it been known, there would have been another valid objective to remove them. Pro's argument that the military would have been better deployed fighting Iran is irrelevant. If it were better, it would not mean that the Iraq War accomplished nothing. Iran was a much more powerful country and the moral case against Saddam was abundantly clear. One important accomplishment of the Iraq War was to demonstrate that the U.S. has limits beyond which we will follow through with military action. A clean record of always caving to dictators would make negotiations with Iran and North Korea pointless; those countries could be confident that the US would never do anything. Now they have to worry. That alone is proof that allied soldiers did not die in vain. Pro bears the burden of proving not only that no objective of the Iraq War was met, but that none will be met and that no other worthy achievement is possible. If it happens, as now seems likely, that the first democratic Muslim regime is established and endures in the Middle East, that would be an extraordinary victory in the war against terrorism. It would further validate the soldier's sacrifices. Pro must prove there is no hope of that to establish the truth of the resolution. He cannot prove that. The resolution is negated.