Obama is murdering and terrorizing men women and children in Afghanistan

My opponent's first statement has nothing to do with this debate. Neither does the entire second paragraph in which he describes the process of Bush getting authorization for a troop surge in Iraq. His next paragraph reads "Afghanistan has no weapons of mass destruction they are not a threat to The US. There is no terror threat.". My opponent seems to be forgetting a few facts here. Fact #1- Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the 2003 invasion. Though "munitions" have been found containing "degraded mustard and sarin" that could possibly be converted by terrorists, and metric tonnes of yellowcake were found- there were no useful weapons of mass destruction as we were told by the Bush Administration. Most Republicans have learned to accept that the cause for war in Iraq was phony... my opponent is still one of the disgruntled few who do not accept we were tricked into war with Iraq. Furthermore, there is no proof that Afghanistan does not have weapons of mass destruction, yet there is proof they are gaining access to them. Al Qaeda's stronghold is a region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan's government is fragile, and Pakistan DOES possess weapons of mass destruction. With the gains seen recently for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, ignoring the war in Afghanistan could be much more disastrous to American security than my opponent would lead us all to believe. According to the 2007 National Security Estimate, Al Qaeda remains "the most serious terrorist threat" to the US. http://intelligence.house.gov... http://www.cfr.org... http://www.ptinews.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... Fact #2- Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, poses the most serious terror threat to the US. As referenced above in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, they are "the MOST serious terrorist threat" to the US. http://www.usnews.com... http://www.heritage.org... Fact #3- No Iraqi terrorists, terrorist organizations, or terrorist cells have ever attacked on US soil. My opponent implies the war in Iraq is justified, but if it is, it is only justified by the actions of Saudi Arabian, Yemenese, and other Arab terrorists belonging to Osama bin Laden's terrorist group, Al Qaeda, which is based in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban which was the government in Afghanistan in 2002 when the war in Afghanistan began, and who have free travel between Afghanistan and Pakistan- a nation with weapons of mass destruction and a weak government. There can be no war on terror, no hunting for bin Laden, and no resolution to the attacks on 9/11 without some type of progress in Afghanistan. My opponent then goes on to explain how the US concedes that "mostly civilians" were killed in an attack on Tuesday, February 17, 2009. Now, in his first round argument he was referring to an incident in January. But let's address the issue nonetheless. No one is arguing that loss of civilian life is repulsive and reprehensible. BUT to claim that Obama is "murdering and terrorizing men, women, and children" is a stretch. The attack killed 3 militants, and a stockpile of weapons were found. Though the loss of civilian life is tragic and should be avoided, it should not completely tie the hands of those carrying out a war against an ever adaptive military force like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The same article references a deal with Afghan forces on "planning and execution of counterterrorism missions" to minimize civilian casualties. This is progress, and if you attribute the deaths within the past two months to Obama's mismanagement, then you must also attribute any progress to him as well. The article also mentions the loss of life of US Soldiers, something my opponent fails to mention. My opponent makes the following statement: "Every single civilian loss of life under the bush Administration was blamed directly on Bush not the US military". If my opponent is so angry about this, turning the tables on the new President does not make him right, and it does not make an argument against those who made similar claims against Bush. I attribute a level of maturity to the readers that would preclude them from making similar judgments to somehow make them feel better, or as retribution against the judgments made against the previous President. My opponent claims that Obama's policy in Afghanistan "got those people killed". How is that so? This is not Obama's war, this is America's war and we were brought into it by a President who decided to wage wars on two fronts without finishing the initial task of capturing those responsible for the attacks on 9/11. That is why we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, not because of Obama's policies. Obama's policy is to complete the war in Iraq in accordance with the desires of the Iraqi government- something Bush put into motion during his last few months in office, and his policy in Afghanistan is to attempt to re-gain control of a war that was neglected by the Bush Administration for the past 7 years. If Bush was responsible for anything in Afghanistan it is allowing a resurgence in the Taliban, allowing a fragile, and at times rogue, government to operate in neighboring Pakistan, and to hand off a possible quagmire to a vastly more competent President in Barack Obama. Though I believe McCain would have been even more competent still, I don't believe a different President would have prevented these casualties as they are the result of operations on the ground, and not orders from the President. The President does not direct day to day operations on the ground, as I stated in my round one argument. My opponent also claims that "This is a unjust war, it does not have congressional approval or approval from the UN. Obama is a murderer". Again, he is ignoring a few facts. Fact #1- This war began under Bush's orders, not those of Barack Obama. Fact #2- Operation Enduring Freedom was authorized by Congress. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov... Fact #3- The US did not require UN approval for the war in Afghanistan. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for collective self defense. When the US invaded Afghanistan, only one government recognized the Taliban as an official government- Pakistan- and they later retracted that recognition (Iran retracted recognition almost immediately). On December 20, 2001, the UNSC did authorize the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with authority to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security. Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on August 11, 2003. Fact #4- My opponent has no direct or indirect proof that Obama is a murderer, or a terrorist. He simply states so as rhetoric to somehow get back at Democrats for making the same false claims against George W. Bush. If his opposition to this war were moral as he now implies, he would have opposed it under Bush as well. He has made no such claims, and has only stated that Obama deserves the same disdain for continuing this war. I believe we all want these wars to be over, but we all know they cannot be ended without bloodshed- be that US troops, Arab militants, or civilians, but none of this makes Obama a murderer.