Parli: This house would take it off, take it all off.

I will begin by thanking my opponent for taking this round and also my voters for voting. Thus I will offer a brief roadmap of where I will be going, that being: I will start with a topicality, and then moving onto all four of my opponents points. Topicality: My opponents case does not actually fall under the resolution at all. The resolution clearly says that this house would take it off, take it all off. Thus my opponent has decided to withdraw troops from Iraq, all of them. Sadly the plural word troops cannot be supported by the singular pronoun it. If the resolution had perhaps said, "This house would take them off, take them all off" then it might have worked. Even then we still have the problem of the phrase "take... off", last time I checked "take... off" and "remove... from" were not synonyms. While they can mean the same thing they often don't, this is a scenario where removing troops is not synonymous with taking them off. Furthermore the resolution quite clearly states that we should take it off take it all off. Not "replace" as my opponent seems to want to do. Which leads me into my opponents points. 1. Economics. The first thing voters need to see on this point is the fact that my opponent has no way to gaurantee solvency. I challenge him to offer me any source that actually says we will be able to convince 2 million foreign soldiers to fight for us. Furthermore this is actually a turn and an advantage for me. Right now we hire mercenaries to aid us in Iraq, these mercenaries are from a company known as Blackwater. Currently they have 21,000 soldiers in Iraq, and as a consequence we are paying them 1 billion dollars over a 5 year period (http://en.wikipedia.org...). My opponent doesn't want 21,000 soldiers though, he wants 2 million, a number 95 times greater. Thus instead of 1 billion dollars over 5 years we will be dishing out 95 billion dollars over 5 years to support 2 million troops. Thus we would seem to have an advantage, sadly it isn't. My opponent assumes that the money going towards Iraq is specifically in wages for troops, but its not true if it were true the 200 billion dollars spaced out over the 180,000 troops would mean that each troop was attaining a salary of over 1 million dollars per year. Sadly the best salary for a United States Marine is liberally 100,000 per year. Taking this number as a basis means that for every 100,000 spent on a troop and additional 1,000,000 will be spent on gear, supplies, planes, ships, etc... Thus for the 2 million troops that my opponent plans to put into action costing about 100 billion we will be shelling out another 1 trillion for gear in order for them to succeed. Unless of course it would be my opponents plan to send in 2 million troops trained in martial arts. 2. Resolving the Iraq crisis. This is interesting, my opponent points out that if we leave now Iraq will hate us in the future. Thus he advocates that we send in 11 times the current force to crush them....... at which point they will love us. I do not see the logic in my opponent claims, and can only advocate myself that a large portion of Iraq is going to dislike us no matter what happens. "A March 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis commissioned by the BBC and three other news organizations found that 51% of the population consider attacks on coalition forces "acceptable,"" - http://en.wikipedia.org... Secondly this is yet another turn for me. My opponent advocates that with 2 million mercenaries we will be able to control Iraq, this however relies on the fact that we can control the mercenaries. We can barely control Blackwater's American mercenaries, what evidence can my opponent possibly show that will gaurantee we can control foreign mercenaries? 2 million foreign mercenaries. Finally please examine this statement made by my opponent, "With a combination of a huge army and an army that will stay until Iraq's pacification". My opponent is clearly advocating that we create a military state, and advocates it stays that way until pacification. Can my opponent gaurantee pacification? 3. Greater safety for America overall.... This has no solvency. We already wield the nuclear bomb and arguably the greatest air force in the world. Pumping 2 million troops into a country at this point is pointless. It would be like me beating someone senseless (the nuclear bomb), and then turning around and pushing someone else (2 million troops). The fact that I just beat someone senseless is going to make the push look like nothing. The fact that we have launched two nuclear bombs in the past makes any number of ground forces seem like an innocent baby. 4. Finally we have positive externalities. My opponent offers 2 scenarios. a. The first one is that of giving desperate countries foreign capital. First off this is untrue, we are not going to be paying mercenaries from struggling countries to fight for us as it is doubtful they would have military training. Instead we will be paying countries with superfluous amounts of soldiers. Countries like China, Great Britain, France, Spain etc..... Thus we are just going to be making the countries that are already powerful even more powerful. On top of this we are losing our own power by giving away arguably trillions of dollars to other countries. b. Safety of the Iraqi people.... ? The Blackwater soldier's are culpable to the United States government for war crimes because they are mostly American's and Blackwater is based in America. This has not stopped Blackwater soldiers from simply slaughtering innocent Iraqis. So what makes my opponent think that foreign troops, not liable to the United States at all for war crimes, are going to be better? I think they'll be worse.