We should withdraw from Iraq.

"One argument of my opponent's is that the millitary wants to stay in Iraq. So who do you agree more with General Patraeus, or the civilians,and now even Iraqi Prime Minister Malliki?" My Response: I agree with the military because they are the ones actually fighting. They know whats going on, they have the strategies. The US people and politicians don't know exactly what is hapeening. Therefore, I believe that the US its soldiers and it's commanders/generals should be the ones to say when we should withdraw or not. "The words "strongly opposed" are strong, and indicate civilian misery. Is it moral to ignore a rate of 82% strong opposition?" My Response: The words strongly oppsoe arent coming from the people themselves. Also, this argument is a logical fallacy. Specifically argumentum ad populum. "Besides the argument of General Patraeus is equivalent to the argument of George W. Bush, and from the past, Lyndon B. Johnson. Of course the Millitary says they want to stay in Iraq, the Millitary leaders wanted to stay in Vietnam. My point is that the Millitary as the only supporter of Bush is a group that allways would like to stay at war." My Response: Ok, and look what happened when we left Vietnam. More then 1,000,000 Vietnamese were killed by the Communists. It seems that the military knew when the time was right and wrong to withdraw. "As to the argument that those 4,124 troops would have died in vain, what would you prefer, the lives of their friends and comrads, or a cause that 64% of Americans say is lost?" My Response: you like to jump around in your arguments don't you? These 4,124 people would have died in vain if victory is not taken. The soldiers know about their own friends and comrads. And I see you like to throw American populous stats out. 80% of the SOLDIERS not jsut generals believe we should stay. "I noticed CiRrO mentioned some of the stances on Iraq, Obama v McCain. So I will once again ask CiRrO and the judges, is it more expensive to withdraw immediatly, or stay in Iraq for one hundred years?" My Response: My stance isn't that we stay a hundred years. It is gaining a victory and using soft partition. "As I said earlier, including postwar costs were at about three trillion dollars of war debt in five years. 5,000 dollars a second is being spent. It costs the government tens of thousands of dollars to deploy one soldier" My Response: I have already explained that withdrawing without soft partition would be more costly. "Another of my opponents counter arguments is about Iraq being more important than our international standing. This seems to be the theme of my opponents argument: The morality of Iraq's best interests is more important than our own. This is why it's an obvious Pro ballot." My Response: It is better for us that we stay. Our international standing really means nothing. My opponent is making unwarranted claims. Essentially, we must finish what we started. ============================================================================== Extensions: Extend all these arguments since they went unrefuted/dropped by my opponent in his last round. Therefore, they extend for all remaining rounds. 1) Contention I: Humanitarian/Moral Reasons A. Civilian deaths by withdrawing B. Fix what we started C. Soldiers die in vain 2) Contention II: The Success of the Surge 3) Contention III: Iranian Threat 4) *My opponent didn't neatly go down the flow so I can't see what else he dropped. If you the reader finds something he dropped just make a mental note. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.