Leave our troops in Iraq

Some clarifications - I'm assuming that my opponent meant for "our" troops to refer to American troops. However, I believe that "our" troops should also refer to the troops of American Allies, including Britain, South Korea, Poland, etc. [http://uspolitics.about.com...]. Additionally, I noticed that the resolution doesn't specify any kind of time limit for troop withdrawal. I must assume that Pro wishes to leave the troops in Iraq forever. I can use this premise while making my argument. My points - 1. I do not believe that U.S. and other outside troops should remain in Iraq forever. In that case, Iraq would just be an extension of a U.S. agenda, as they would be our military bitches, so to speak. Iraq has never been our ally and we haven't had bases or any type of control there before. So why should George W. be able to make false claims about them, and then break all rules of the United Nations by sending troops without proper authority into Iraq to remain there permanently? 2. The U.S. has been saying all along that this has been a strategic move to not only help the Iraqi citizens (namely women), but to keep the U.S. safe. For one thing, we don't know if the people of Iraq want this "help" or not. And for another, it's not fair to use possible terrorist threats from one particular country as a reason to invade their land with our military. In that case, we'd have to police the entire world, for every country has the ability to have some fanatical religious group willing to harm U.S. citizens... including the U.S. I mean, we're not putting troops in EVERY Muslim country, are we?! And if we WERE to do that, that would make the U.S. xenophobic jerks. So basically targeting Iraq is blatant discrimination, especially after they've been proven to pose no threat (via nukes) after intense military investigation. The refusal by the U.S. to leave is absurd, and a slap in the face to the rest of the world (U.N.). 3. The U.S. and our allies who have troops stationed in Iraq are being seen as bullies and have lost a great amount of respect in the world. This has been reflected culturally and in world markets. 4. It is not economically sound for the U.S. and other indebted countries to keep spending trillions of dollars on a war that many citizens and experts see as "pointless." Of course just because something is expensive doesn't make it immoral automatically. But in this case, the cons outweigh the pros of leaving the troops in Iraq. More people are dying, more tax dollars are being spent by citizens who as a majority do NOT support the war (meaning our taxes are being exploited against our will, which is also immorally sound), etc. Money can be spent SAVING lives by investing in medicine, research technology, being donated to charities or other good causes, or helping the people of Iraq establish a better government via education and other resources. Killing people and exploiting them with military prowess is immoral... and expensive. 5. If the U.S. is trying to "ensure that there is a stable environment/military" in Iraq before they leave, why not just pull out all at once? Why leave some troops behind and waste unnecessary resources and lives for an infinite period of time? I say once the "task", whatever that is, is accomplished, brings the troops home!