Parli: This house would take it off, take it all off.

My opponent claimed I didn't follow the resolution. A careful reading would reveal otherwise. Notice how I've just advocated taking it (The US Military) off. Take it all off. Of course I took it an extra step and threw in a replacement. So with that being said, time to delve into points and counter points. On Case: I. Economics My opponent uses Blackwater as an example. 21,000 very highly trained, skilled mercenaries which serve as private body guards and engage in specialized missions. I'm sure my opponent has carefully read the part of the resolution which said "any country with a GDP per capita below 2,500". I'm not talking about building a 2 million strong army of elite mercenaries. I'm taking about building a 2 million strong army of adequately trained conscripts. I'm talking about recruiting from Sudan or Ethiopia or the Congo, Recruiting from Soviet break away states suffering from severe economic distress. My opponent's numbers are ludicrously off the mark since he's using the wages for US troops. The GDP per capita in the United States is a whopping 44,000. Use that as a comparison. II. Resolving the Iraq Crisis. Of course a portion of Iraq will dislike us no matter what happens. In regards to the March 2007 survey, that's only a glimpse as to the broader data. Which I have. All of it. Except for the Kurds, we have seen a continued decrease of support for American troops as well as a decrease of the feeling of security by the people of Iraq since "Mission Accomplished". Now I have suggested a method to resolve the Iraq Crisis that would not leave in power a government which vehemently hates America and will destabilize the region. My opponent ... hasn't. His criticism of the likelihood of the success of my operation is irrelevant. Even if my proposal is not guaranteed to succeed, so long as it has the Possibility of improving the current situation, the resolution should be supported. Notice my opponent has NOT dispute my outlook on the eventual progression of the situation in Iraq. Thus my proposal stands, regardless of his criticism, as the only option avaliable. III. Greater US Security Having nuclear weapons does not give us the numerical superiority necessary to take military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. My opponent might be good at drawing pictures with words, but be that as it may, we have not used nuclear weapons since 1945. Every action taken since then for US Security or in US interests has relied on missiles, planes, and ground troops. IV. Externalities a. Actually ... the case construct spells that part out. We are recruiting, and then training, mercenaries from struggling countries to fight for us. These people are cheap to hire, cheap to train, and cheap to insure. b. As I mentioned earlier, Iraq is in a precarious position. When they erupt into a full civil war, an eventuality my opponent has acquiesced, the current violence there would be just a pale shadow of what is to come. Open warfare. Genocide. Religious fanaticism on both sides. And of course throw in the Kurds and you have a blood bath worse than what we've seen in Sudan. So let's compare. Mercenaries who MIGHT be harsh or brutal. Versus the catastrophic civil war which WILL be destructive. For these reasons the Government is proud to stand by its resolution. -Hear me Roar!