Modified Policy Debate

I take full responsibility, and do not intend on taking the vote, but I do intend on affirming the resolution. I will begin with my opponent's responses, and end with a final summation. RC1 - My opponent stated that there is no way to prevent their attacks while we are attacking them. I invite the judges to recall the events of September 11, 2001. We were attacking neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban, yet we were attacked on our own soil. We will not stop them from attacking us by simply taking a reactive and quite frankly a passive approach by not attacking them. Further, if the majority of their numbers truly resided in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, our Intelligence agencies would be aware of this information and redirect our assets to those locations. . http://uk.news.yahoo.com... . http://middleeast.about.com... . http://www.google.com... While my opponent makes a valiant argument here, I have provided reliable information that is available to any and everyone who is interested. If the readers will recall, all but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, and the country even recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate political power. The reason we have not involved them in this war is oil, plain and simple. The U. S. embassy in Yemen is under constant attack, and there was even a recent 60 Minutes segment on the rise of Al Qaida in Yemen. Also, we have occupied middle eastern nations for 20 years now, and they are about as happy about that, as we would be. RC2 - Our troops are among the bravest of our citizens, yet the military is comprised of members who voluntarily accepted employment knowing in advance the risks associated with such a career choice. I speak from experience having served 20 plus years in the U. S. Army, including Operations Desert Shield & Desert Storm. As I stated, Afghanistan is unable to defend itself, and requested assistance from Karzai. Why did we not refuse the request and leave? Friends help friends in time of need. This argument is an appeal to emotion. It is irresponsible and illegal for the U. S. government to occupy a foreign, sovereign nation, especially when it costs the lives of thousands of soldiers and marines. I also served 6 years in the U. S. military and I did my job. That does not mean my superiors were correct, or following protocol. Also, our friendship with Afghanistan is one sided, to say the least. RC3 - The substance of this premise was missed. We want to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Left unchecked, this would open a door of catastrophic mischief for terrorists groups. This is a straw man. If you want to keep Pakistan's weapons out of terrorist hands, you must go into Pakistan, where these terrorists already are. The resolution is set in Afghanistan. This was my original premise, and it still stands. . http://www.google.com... . http://news.bbc.co.uk... RC4 - While there is always unfortunate collateral damage in any conflict, if we were not there at the behest of the Afghan government, perhaps we would withdraw. We are not in Afghanistan to make it an American colony, we are there to eliminate terrorists, and make it safer for both Afghan citizens, and ultimately American citizens. We did not go into Afghanistan at the behest of the Afghan government, originally. We basically pulled a Mafioso tactic by simply going in and demanding access, in exchange for monetary and military support, and without the consent of the UN. I hope the readers understand that we were not attacked by a country or nation, but an extremist group that spreads throughout the middle east. We have no right to occupy any nation but our own, regardless of our intentions. RC5 - American pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer produce sufficient quantities of lab tested and FDA approved opiate based medicines. Unfortunately, self serving elements within Afghanistan attempt to send illegal drugs to the U. S. with an ulterior motiff of harming our citizens. Similar international crime occurs from Russia, Mexico, and South American countries just to name a few. Our government is attempting to protect our citizens by taking necessary actions to thwart the import of these poisons to our citizens. Another straw man. In fact, he may have strengthened my argument when he listed all the other countries that send illegal drugs into this country. If our government wants to control the personal lives and decisions of its citizens(which I served for the opposite reason) then it needs confine these unconstitutional acts to its own borders. We are not the worldwide law enforcement angency, and again, we don't have the finances to complete such a mission. We are not discussing the war on drugs here, which is a total failure by any standard. "We are paying for this war with tax revenues. Every nation has debt, yet no nation owns the U. S. We are, and we remain a sovereign nation. The war also generates revenues which go back into the GDP. Military and private companies make and spend money. This creates the need for goods and services. " I'm sorry, but this argument lacks a solid foundation in any economic theory, whatsoever. I'm not sure if my opponent is taking into consideration the kind of money this operation costs, but it has already led our nation into several TRILLION dollars worth of debt. Does every country have debt? NO. Many nations have more coming in than going out, and we have even been included in those nations in the past. We cannot sustain this war, or any other right now, and our country is suffering because of it. Every aspect of our nation, from economic to educational, is suffering for our fiscal and social irresponsibility. We need to put our country sized ego away, and pull out immediately. We would gain a huge amount of respect from the world leaders, and have a massive budget cut to get us started on the rebuilding process necessary for our country to thrive again. Enough scare tactics and ridiculous spending. The final source I am going to post is the U. S. Constitution. It is very clear regarding the rights of the government, and it is clear that the government has overstepped its boundaries by leaps and bounds in recent years. I believe I have properly rebutted my opponent, at least enough to affirm the resolution.