Iraq war/Afghanistan War/War on Terror

Thank you for making this debate, MarineCorpsConservative. I trust that it will be productive and entertaining. I will begin by addressing some of the points you have made in your opening statement. You said: "I believe it was right to go into iraq and it is right to stay the course." I say: The support for invading Iraq was based on what is now accepted as false information. Some even consider it to have been deliberate lies, although this is admittedly contentious. Still, it cannot be objected to that certain members of the Bush Administration had "regime change" in Iraq as part of their pre-9/11 agenda and were looking for any and every excuse to launch an invasion of Iraq. Finally, there was no formal declaration of war from Congress, nor did the president seek one. We have never won a major war without a formal declaration, and we've never lost one in which there has been a congressional declaration of war. It is unconstitutional to go to war without a formal declaration, and thus it cannot have been "right" to invade Iraq. The president, Congress, and military officers swear an allegiance to the Constitution, and they violated it with this war. You said: "I also believe that things are improving in Iraq due to the troop surge under the charge of General Patreus." I say: I will concede that things are "improving" but improving from what? From the utter devastation caused by our military intervention? Yes. But improving from what life was like under the admittedly brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein? No. Iraq enjoyed the largest middle class in the Arab world under Saddam. Life was good by Middle-Eastern standards in Iraq. Christians could practice freely and even enjoyed top positions in Saddam's admittedly fascist government. But now Christians are marked for death by the Islamic Radicals that Saddam kept at bay. This invasion has been good for some of Iraq's elites, but not the Iraqi people, and least of all, the Iraqi Christians. You said: "I believe that it is right to destroy the terrorist cells on their own turf because if not they would have more training camps and a wider support base." I say: The constitutional method for hunting down terrorists would be to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which Congress laughed at when one of its own members brought such a bill to the floor. Which founding father was it that said "We should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy?" (I looked it up; it was John Quincy Adams -- not technically a founding father, I guess, but close). The federal government's duty -- as outlined in the Constitution -- is to secure our borders and provide for the common defense. Terrorists plotting in Pakistan (whose military dictatorship we support, by the way -- despite the fact that the country undoubtedly hosts bin Laden) cannot hurt Americans within our borders if we never let them in. And finally, our intervention -- killing of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and children, and destroying private property -- is what expands the terrorists' support base. Our presence in the Arab World expands support for terrorists -- so says our own CIA. You said: "I believe that the majority of Iraqis want a free society where they are free to walk the streets without being in fear for their lives." I say: Unfortunately, your belief is incorrect. The vast majority of Iraqis want a religious dictatorship. The only thing they cannot agree on is whether the dictator should be Shiia or Sunni. Iraqis were safe to walk the streets under Saddam. That ended when he started dropping bombs on said streets. That ends my arguments for Round 1. Thank you.