Resolution to long. Posted in Round 1.

I will begin by refuting my opponent's contention and building up my own case. My opponent provides one contention, thus one area for me to attack: Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country. His first paragraph supposedly regarding the aforementioned tagline is irrelevant. It must be remembered that this debate focuses on Obama's plan for Afghanistan, which centers around the 30,000 troops expected to be sent there. The United States themselves, already have sent more than 70,000 troops to Afghan, approx. 71,000. Allied forces have sent much, much less, around 10,000. Why then, should the United States be expected to carry this burden and send another 30,000 troops? Why hasn't Obama requested a greater amount of support from countries such as France and Britain, for they have only sent a miniscule amount compared to us. Why then, is it in the United States best interest to send 30,000 more troops. The hard truth is, it's not. So regarding my opponent's contention, "Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country. " I would have to agree that yes, establishing a democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country, but sending more and more troops is NOT in the United States best interest. I will now move on to my opponent's problems with my case, as characters are running short. 1) I never said that specialized in military affairs. Therefore your first point is irrelevant. 2) ((Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. )) I do not see how you can argue with this. It is well-known that terrorists operate very differently than stable armies. It is reasonable to suggest, that you can't just send troops into a village against enemies that have to morals. 3) (( Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. )) Again, this is common-knowledge. Terrorists cannot be handled in the same way. It has already been proven. Our wars in the Middle East are becoming some of the longest in our history. That is because we are going about it wrong. 4) I would just like to mention now, that my opponent spends points 1-5 arguing against my intro. My intro isn't as relevant as my actual contentions. I urge the voters to keep this in mind. 5) Once again, not extremely relevant. 6) Obama's plan, is to send 30,000 more troops to Afghan. My opponent tries to refute this by saying that his plan is also to win. I never made the notion that Obama's plan isn't to win. 7) Greatest benefit . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 8) I would advise that you don't use wikipedia as it is not always the most credible source. . http://www.usconstitution.net... 9) I guess you skipped this one. 10) Only thing regarding my contention TWO: The man you spoke of has no way of proving there are only 100 Al-Quida. Even so, what of the other terroists? The president's National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones. Who else would know the number of Al-Quida in Afghanistan. Through intelligence reports and other government means. What of the other terrorists? ? They have all retreated to Pakistan, and the United States has already deployed combat drones to that area. 11) Only thing regarding my contention THREE: Since this is a policy form, and is not a fact, I will disreguard it. Disregard it? This is a crucial contention that my opponent has failed to recognize. This has shown what has happened in the past. What Obama is doing now is exactly what the Soviets did, and they failed. This supports my position that it is not in the United States best interests to send an additional 30,000 troops. Now to build up my own case. 1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional. My opponent has not sufficiently refuted this contention. Instead, he pastes a wikipedia link, which is hardly credible when compared to the source I provided. 2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense. As I have shown, there is an extremely small amount of Al-Quida in Afghanistan that does not constitute a deployment of 30,000 American soldiers. 3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's. This contention has not been refuted, and adds to my position. The same events occured then that led to the retreat of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Characters are running low. === Sources === . http://www.campaignforliberty.com... . http://www.campaignforliberty.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.usconstitution.net... . http://www.capecodonline.com...