The Wars in Iraq,Afghanistan,and the imminent war in Iran

For this debate, I'm going to argue specifically your claims, but here is my position. The War in Afghanistan was justified, but mismanaged under President Bush The War in Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, however was the right thing to do. It was mismanaged under President Bush. The United States should NOT attack Iran. First, I'd like to briefly strengthen my own case, then move onto direct refutation of my opponent. In explaining on Afghanistan, my simple conclusion is that the United States did not devote enough attention to the Al-Quaeda operatives there, and allowed the herion production to grow. The US under President Bush went in slowly, and left it to NATO, which mismanaged the entire operation, and has unsuccessfully lead the war. Because Bush not only changed US focus, but neglected support and aid from NATO, he is partially at fault. (notice partially) Next, I'd like to first say Saddam Hussein was an evil man who should have been taken out, however it was done incorrectly. Bush did not wait for more countries, and acted on faulty intelligence. As David Kaye reports on the subject "curveball" this was a huge claim on the Iraq war, and whether it be intentional or not, the intelligence, such as this which was crucial, was either falsified or inaccurate, as seen today. Next, although the surge is working militarily, the US has no definition of success under President Bush, and no real goals. The idea of the surge was that things would quiet down so the Iraqis could sort things out. Things are quiet, but still in political chaos. As the troops from the surge leave, and violence will begin to escalate due to the lack of troops and re-emergence of Sunni attacks. Finally, the US should not attack Iran. Not to mention the fact that Iran posses no real imminent threat to the US whatsoever, it isn't in our best interests. We don't have the military capablities to attack/invade, invasion would be a strategical nightmare, we wouldn't have international or national support, and it's unneccessary. The youth in Iran will eventually overtake the power in the country within the next few years, and modernize it more and more. Also, the sanctions placed on Iran are currently working, as Ayatollah's approval ratings are dropping. Next, my opponents arguments. "First i will start with afghanistan, the war there is necessary ,On September 11th , 2001 Extremist terrorists attacked our country and 3,000 people were killed in the brutal attacks. On october 7th 2001 George W Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to spell down the taliban regime in afghanistan. They have been a threat to the Western worlds and we had to face them sooner or later rather than letting them get away with the attacks. Since may of 1996 Osama bin laden who was the mastermind of the attacks had been living ther commanding Al qaeda and Taliban camps of destruction. In order to quell the Terrorist regimes we must go through that country and fight for our lives back at home and for the free nation's of the world." The war there is necessary, but mismanaged. As the economist reports, the US would have many more terrorist operatives and Taliban operatives had the war been given more focus and attention, and attention not been shifted to Iraq, thus your claims, although partially true, are outweighed. Next, my opponent claims "In Iraq we thought Saddam had WMD's although they have never found those....you have to remember that they also have'nt found them either....what was that big convoy leaving the border of iraq and crossing into Syria the week before the invasion??we've lost close to 4,000 men and women in the war so why pull out??WE might as well win then pull out and waste the lives of men and women who are already dead." My point on Iraq partially addresses this, however I'd like to further argue some of these claims. First, the idea that the US would miss the exchange of thousands of tons of WMD's is absurd. We can find Saddam in a foxhole, but we miss 1,000,000,000 lbs of material? The CIA reported in 2004 that Iraq was mostly disarmed, and ended it's search for WMD's asserting that it would be futile. I'm not arguing a "pull out of troops" so that argument doesn't really apply, what I am arguing is a shift in President Bush's strategy, and if necessary a troop withdrawal to force the Iraqi's to do something. Finally my opponent claims "Iran now? BECAUSE A-JAD IS A CRAZY NUT AND WANTS TO KILL US ALL!!" This is completely false, and even if it were true, wouldn't matter. First, Ahmadinejad is a figurehead with no political power whatsoever. What he says means nothing, since he is not the supreme leader in charge of foreign policy. Secondly, anti-Israeli sentiment is falsely given to Ahmadinejad. Not only does "wipe off the face of the earth" not exist linguistically in Persian, but also the quote was a mistranslation. The actual estimated translation is a reference to the Ayatollah's comments regarding positive regime change in Israel, however many are afraid to translate it because it is highly abstract and not intentionally concrete. Thus after weighing the facts, my case stands.