Using Drones instead of foot Soldiers

Argument 1 a) My opponent is happy to kill thousands of innocents overseas to save a handful of American civilians, and yet claims an American life is no more important than any other. More lives are saved by not deploying drones, so again by this logic drones should not be deployed. b) Drones cannot discover concealment. Underground lairs would never again be discovered and thus perfectly safe. If foot soldiers discover a underground lair, unsurprisingly, Al Qaeda leaves it for another underground lair. c) When Al Qaeda suicide bombs the cities they bomb civilians who accept Crusader rule and pay taxes that support the Crusader cause (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...). The Afghani and Iraqi people know about this and are much more sympathetic to something that has a religious ideal behind it than cowardice and mindless revenge for the deaths of 3000 people in the world trade center disaster. d) About New Zealand's people my opponent is mistaken. We are not more important than you, but we are at peace with you and don't want to have drones flying in our skies. Please leave us alone. The argument is essentially the same as the one for Pakistan, but I'm more thinking of non-combatants in situations where the enemy has drones too, under argument three (where the quote you cite comes from). Argument 2 a) My opponent accepts Jihad is the ultimate bravery in their country. It's more than that. It's ultimate bravery in Islam. All Muslims worldwide detest drones and would much rather join Jihad. In terms of covering the bombs up, Al Qaeda has dealt with this at length, the point is you can justify it using Islamic doctrine. Non-Muslims might not see Jihad as bravery, but that's not the point. The point is that if we rely on drones, the suicide bombers will be much more able to suicide-bomb, strike much more fear in the population and scare non-Muslims into fighting alongside Muslims in Jihad. b) NATO trains the Afghani and Iraqi army and police (http://www.jfcnaples.nato.int... , http://www.isaf.nato.int...), so actually they are partners. c) If we conquer Al Qaeda land, Al Qaeda operates from India or Senegal or England or some other country. The world network of Al Qaeda in no way relies on Afghanistan. d) Hiding is no dishonorable for Osama because in doing so, he mocks the army that is so desperate to find him. Besides, all the evidence is that he's dead anyway Argument 3 a) Permission by the Saudis was granted by a government that was being invaded by the United States. The troops were allowed in as the pillaging of people and holy sites would have been much worse. But that's not the primary motivation why Bin Laden is fighting - after all, the US troops moved out of Saudi Arabia in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Instead he has been more annoyed by the plight of Muslims in places such as Palestine, and the vulgar evils that permeate Western society. Osama has issued Fatwas against each of these as well. b) The world trade center bombing was not a declaration of war any more than any of Osama's previous bombings on US embassies and Arab towns. The US had fought him before in Somalia, Sudan and had long declared him a public enemy. So it was more of a reaffirmation of a war that was already happening. Technically I think it was Britain that "attacked" Osama first, after the think-tank he established there was disestablished and Osama put up for arrest, but that topic is at best entirely moot. c) But no such case can be made for Iraq. The United States declared war on Iraq without any attack from Saddam Hussain's government. Argument 4 a) Drones may aim to take out the enemy but they're really bad at it, as I have shown. You cannot compare suicide bombers with drones (that's like apples and oranges) - but drones are far less discriminating in their murder than foot soldiers. Both have the same aims, but one is much better at it. b) I think Vietnam was a mistake, and inhumane. It was not a United States victory as they did not achieve any of their initial ideals. Besides which, patriotism for the sake of patriotism is not a good thing. Therefore I think that imprisoning their generals would be the honorable thing to do. c) None of this actually engages the point that they're illegal. Assorted Assertions a) Everyone wants to live. Most people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan cooperate fully with the United States. They want to live, and don't like it when a drone drops a bomb on their village. b) You say that the governments put in place by the United States are righteous and just. How do you know this? Who are you to say one form of government is better than any other? c) "more people died in Vietnam in one day than the whole Iraq war" - only in terms of US soldier deaths. 5 million Iraqi children died during the siege of Baghdad. Were you counting them? d) "it is impossible for drones to recruit terrorists as they aren't people" - actually yes, they do recruit, because they send out the propaganda message that America is evil, as I justified in round 2. It's like saying a billboard can't recruit soldiers. e) "The United States aren't cowards" - your opinion does not matter. What matters is the opinion of the people of Iraq, Pakistan and anywhere else the US chooses to invade. In summary, drones are counter-productive (argument 1), terrorist-recruiting (argument 2), war-inducing (argument 3), Geneva-contravening (argument 4) pieces of rubbish, compared to brave foot soldiers who do a much better job and ought to be commended for it. When a poor Afghani farmer sees some troops march past and give him a little cheery wave, he smiles and knows they are there to look after him, protecting him from the Taliban. When a drone flies overhead and bombs the village next to his, killing all 200 civilians living there, he shakes his head in sadness and curses the US under his breath. In the only major campaign to use drones to target a leader, the costs in terms of human life and money were much higher than foot soldiers would have been, and there was no major effect on the Taliban leadership. My vision is of an end to the war on terror, with minimal costs and loss of life. My vision is one of cooperation and efficiency. My vision is one of hope, one that is sustainable in terms of precedent and legality. My vision is as powerful as it is simple. My vision is the death of the drone. At the end of this debate, I ask you, oh voters - do you share that vision?