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

I will once again begin with my topicality argument. My opponent quite clearly argues that, "Notice how I've just advocated taking it (The US Military) off. " While the pronoun it can work to describe a body, the preposition "off" cannot be applied to the U. S military in this circumstance. The U. S military in other words cannot be taken off. It can be removed, withdrawn, relocated, but not taken off. Furthermore notice the resolution says that "This house would take it off, take it all off. " In this instance my opponent is advocating that the United States represents this house, and the military is what should be taken off. However the resolution clearly states all off, where as my opponent just plans to take "if off" of Iraq. Thus my opponents case clearly does not fall under the resolution. Which brings me to the no solvency issue. That being, my opponent can offer absolutely no gaurantee that he will be able to recruit 2 million people from financially struggling countries. Furthermore he has no gaurantee that their are 2 million "adequately trained conscripts" to even be found in said struggling countries. And! Why would these people join this campaign for such low wages if they could just as easily emigrate to the United States and actually enlist in our army for higher wages without ever having to fight? IV. Externalities From here my opponent attempts to belittle one of my most important arguments made in the last round, "Safety of the Iraqi people. .. . ? The Blackwater soldier's are culpable to the United States government for war crimes because they are mostly American's and Blackwater is based in America. This has not stopped Blackwater soldiers from simply slaughtering innocent Iraqis. So what makes my opponent think that foreign troops, not liable to the United States at all for war crimes, are going to be better? I think they'll be worse. " I clearly advocate that we will find it difficult if not impossible to control these foreign troops as they hold no real allegiance or culpability to the United States. My opponent responds with, "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. " This is a direct turn, the idea of implementing an army that we may not be able to control simply increases the chance of said civil war. This possibility would not only be increased by our actual lack of control but encouraged if not necessitated by the shameful acts of violence these troops would be committing against the Iraqi people. III. Greater US Security My opponent also continues his line of argument consisting of the idea that 2 million troops will intimidate our enemies in the future. He attempts to discredit my point about nuclear warheads by stating that they have not been used since Japan. This is true, so let me re advocate. Non-Nuclear bombs make ground troops seems utterly pointless. When we can accurately guide a smart bomb down someones chimney from halfway across the world it makes a large army seem small. II. Resolving the Iraq Crisis. My opponents advocacy here can simply be summed up with a direct quote from his last round, "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. " This being in response to my statement in round two stating, "Thus he advocates that we send in 11 times the current force to crush them. .. .. .. at which point they will love us. " They already have a 51% disapproval rating of us, how is sending 11x the current force over their going to make them like us in any way? My opponent simply states that he has a plan which will stop them from hating us while stabilizing the reason, yet he offers absolutely no analysis on why this could possibly be. On the other hand I offer reasons why it this wouldn't be the case. I. Economics Finally and saved for last because it is the most important issue in this round. In my second round I clearly state that, "My opponent assumes that the money going towards Iraq is specifically in wages for troops, but its not true if it were true the 200 billion dollars spaced out over the 180,000 troops would mean that each troop was attaining a salary of over 1 million dollars per year. " I go on to analyze this statement and liberally decide that each troop actually gets payed $100,000 dollars. This means that for every troop enlisted a million dollars is spent on gear. Aircraft, guns, body armor, tanks etc. .. . But this is a liberal estimate. Really a troop probably only gets payed about $50,000. But to pacify my opponent we will assume that each of these new troops is getting payed absolutely nothing. They just enlist for free. That doesn't change the fact that they need gear, tanks, planes, bombs, etc. .. This means that for each free troop my opponent enlists about 1 million dollars will be spent on gear to fight this war. A. K. A 2 million troops x 1 million dollars = $2,000,000,000,000. Or 2 trillion dollars. (This is taken from the idea that we currently shell about 200 billion a year into a war that currently contains 180,000 troops. This means each troop if given an equal share of that money would receive a little over 1.1 million dollars. This however is not true as each troop is doubtlessly getting less than $100,000. Thus the 2 trillion dollars would actually be slightly higher if I actually had proper wages. ) In summary my opponent advocates we pay these people little, which is fine. And yes my opponent has some minor benefit, considering that the cost of raising our own army to 2 million would be 2.222 trillion dollars ((2,000,000/180,000) x 2,000,000,000). In fact my opponent is saving about 200 million dollars with his plan. Sadly the United States either way is incapable of sustaining a 2 trillion dollar war. This turns my opponents entire economic benefit. Thank you for the debate.