obama's opposition to the surge has just as much if not more merit than mccain's position

there was an addition in 20000 troops to iraq, to make it 1.8 or so instead of 1.6 hundred thousand troops.

the iraqi government was already, before the surge, coalescing its own troops.

20,000 troops is negligible given the overall number already there, and the force the iraqis were forming and had.

that the generals in iraq wants more troops, only shows they want to win, and hte sure way to win is to have more troops.

there can only be so many troops in either iraq, or afganistan.

even if there were more troops to add to the total in both countries, which there's not many more, whatever is in iraq, is by definition not in afghanistan.

afghanistan is in bad shape.

so, the surge and even some iraqi brigades should have been put to afghanistan, probably, as it would have had more effect there.

(this is only a fact finding mission mostly, this debate, to see if there's a way to know what would have happened, and if there's more than just the rhetoric i'm putting out, and that i expect will be given back. my judgment says the above is right, but i think more info is needed, which i seek, mroe facts. if you think the above position isin't even possibly right, but irrefutably wrong, i'd like you to focus more on that. more than just rhetoric, if possible, please)

I would like to begin by pointing out that my opponant fails to mention mccain or obama in her speech. She is claiming that the troops should have been but in afganhistan, but that was not obama's reason for opposing the surge, which means that she cannot claim this as a reason Obama's opposition should be preferred. And she claims in her own speech "that the generals in iraq wants more troops, only shows they want to win, and hte sure way to win is to have more troops. " She is claiming that they need troops in Iraq to win. So, if the choices are Obama's idea, no surge or troops anywhere, or McCain's idea, troops in Iraq, it would seem McCains idea si to be preferred because troops are "necessary to win" as she says.

I will now attack her points directly:

1. She claims that the surge was 20,000, however it was 28,000 according to BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk...

2. Regardless of whether the iraqi army was gathering troops, they could still use more. And their troop levels were obviously not enough because before the surge the nation was even less stable than it is today.

3. First, she claims that 20,000 (actually 28,000) troops are negligible compared to the Iraqi troops. According to the Pentagon, the Iraqi army has only 180,000 members. 28,000 more troops is a lot more and is not negligible. Then she claims that it has no effect, but according to CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com...), the surge has been measureably successful.

4. Her 4th argument is about how there is a limit to numebr of troops in Iraq and Afganhistan. She may be misinformed about where the surge troops came from. These troops were not previously in Afganhistan. They were new troops, so Afganhistan did not lose troops, and in fact the total number in I and A increased.

5. She then claims that whatever is in Iraq is not in Afganhistan. So is she claiming every single soldier from every single country should go to Afganhistan. Just becasue we send soldiers to other places doesn't mean we are neglecting Afganhistan. And again, these were new soldiers

6. She gives no evidence as to why afganhistan is in bad shape, and yet again i must remind her that Obama's policy was not to send the troops instead to A, so he wouldn't have solved this problem anyway.

7. Her final argument is giving a counterplan to the surge. However, this was not Obama's plan, which is what she is supposed to be defending. She cannot make this claim. She must restrain herself to arguing what was in her resolution

It is a real shame she did not do her speech. Extend all my arguments over. I hope this time she will actually do her speech.