War in Afghanistan

1. Here Con attempts to manipulate the reader into thinking that I don't care about the casualties of war. That is false. What I said is that just because people have died in this war thus far, doesn't mean that we should pull out of war necessarily. In entering war, we accept that casualties are inevitable. What we must work to do is continue to specialize in efficiency and minimizing the costs but especially the lives of war. If that includes switching to using specialized troops as my opponent has suggested, then fine, but note that sending in specialized forces does NOT indicate us backing out of the war. So here it seems as if my opponent and I agree that Americans need to do more in Afghanistan. 2. Con, here's the thing: Bush needed an excuse to invade Iraq. So, he made up the idea that al Qaeda (the terrorist organization that attacked the US) were somehow linked to Saddam Hussein. Regardless, we invaded Iraq and there were no WMDs. The only way al Qaeda could have had access to WMDs was if they were linked to Hussein. Since Hussein didn't have WMDs either way, then we've accepted that al Qaeda probably doesn't. You probably misconstrued what the connection actually was. 3. Regarding Taliban agreements, Con says that he never suggested or mentioned such a thing. The thing is, Con absolutely did mention them in R1 when he stated (and I quote), "Overtures have already been made to moderate factions of the Taliban about a power-sharing agreement" as a suggestion or point in his favor for why we should end the war. Because Con completely plagiarized his R1 argument, he didn't realize that he suggested this - but he did, and I responded to it. Also, you'll notice that the FIRST time Pro suggested using special forces was in the last round. 4. Con got the points mixed up; the part about Taliban agreements was actually #4. 5. I had said that one way to solve the problem of us making little gain in Afghanistan is to leave Iraq and invest more resources in Afghanistan; a war that's actually not unwarranted. This idea is favored by many politicians, some of which I have sourced (such as Barney Frank). Con writes, "This may be true, but only the instigator has the right, duty, and honor, to send out A PROPOSAL to this shall be REGARDED AS IRRELEVANT." You'll notice that here (a) Con agrees with me and (b) does nothing to dismantle my point or make a cohesive one of his own. My argument still stands. 6. Once again, Con brings up the special forces idea; however, he only mentioned this for the first time IN THE LAST ROUND. This is the first opportunity I have to address it. And, my answer is still the same: it's a great solution, but still perpetuates the war in Afghanistan (just a shift in strategy). As such, the resolution is affirmed. 7. Again, Con mentions the special forces; I've addressed this point many times. Also, Con write that if we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban might not take control. That is false. The Taliban would inevitably take control because (a) they have a lot of resources and (b) they have an increasingly desperate population. Con also suggests that we train the Afghan people to defend themselves; again this requires our army SO the resolution is once more affirmed. Implementing a different war strategy is not eliminating the war all together. I win this point. 8. Con mistakenly notes that countries like Pakistan should be considered irrelevant regarding the war in Afghanistan. He yelled (in all caps) that Pakistan had nothing to do with this debate! Rar rar rar! However, once again you'll notice that Con is just COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO WHAT HE PLAGIARIZED IN ROUND ONE. In fact, Con wrote in R1, ".Western 'occupation' of Afghanistan, particularly when it involves civilian casualties, is a powerful recruiting agent for Islamic extremists in Pakistan, and thereby increases the terrorist threat to countries such as Britain." So, HE TALKED ABOUT PAKISTAN - and then when I refuted his point - he says that I am making an irrelevant point. Perhaps if Con wasn't such a mindless CHEATER, he would be aware of what was going on in this debate. 9. Con says that I said we should leave the war in Iraq. Then he writes, "AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, ONLY THE INSTIGATOR, NOT THE CONTENDER HAS THE POWER TO PROPOSE." Uh, yeah. And we instigated the war, SO, we can end it. Nevertheless, my 9th point did NOT mention leaving Iraq at ALL. It was actually about the economic effects the war in Afghanistan has on the U.S. Since Con ignored this point completely, it should be awarded to the Pro. 10. My 10th point was about Taliban recruitment; I pointed out that they would have the same or still high ability to recruit due to previous things I've mentioned (resources and a desperate population). Con has refused to accept this. He needs a history lesson. When the Russians tried to make Afghanistan Communist, the Americans equipped Afghanistan and the Taliban to fight them off. The Taliban then gained power and proceeds to utilize anti-American propaganda. However, while Americans still do good over there, some have hope in our efforts. Yes, it's unfortunate that our military keeps sucking so hard and accidentally killing civilians. The military needs to become strict, harsh and extremely disciplined in their morality, efforts and skill (and tactics used) in that regard. We also DO need to use special forces as Con suggested, as well as increased intelligence and help in stabilizing an uncorrupted government. However, in ADDITION, the army needs to continue efforts to take out the Taliban to remove them from power completely. As such, the resolution is affirmed.