Iraq War, should it continue?

The Iraq war has no true meaning. Why then did we enter it in the first place? Because the Bush administration scared us like a herd of sheep. Iraq has been increadibly destabalized, and we're losing lives of Patriots in this war. American blood has been spilled, this can't be changed, but we must stop the meaningless loss of life. As an American it would serve our country best to end the war as soon as possible.

Seeing how my opponent has not posted an argument, it stands to reason that I shall win. Unless he decides to post something that is.

I posted this argument in the comments section because the system cut off my time early and stated that i forfeited, but here is my argument again, for convenience sake.

I'm not going to be a jerk by saying my opponent failed to extend his arguments and therfore failed to meet his burden of proof, but i hope others would return the favor by accepting this argument that was posted "late" though it technically wasn't. Thank you.

As an LD debater, I shall begin by attempting to transform this topic into the format of a resolution, and hope that my opponent will accept it:
"It is just for the United States of America to continue its role in the Iraq War."

In affirmation of this proposed resolution, I provide the following definitions from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary in order to clarify the debate:

Just: having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason
Continue: to remain in existence

Iraq War: a.k.a. Operation Iraqi Freedom; an ongoing conflict which began on March 20, 2003 with the United States-led invasion of Iraq by a multinational coalition composed of U.S. and UKGB troops supported by smaller contingents from Australia, Denmark, Poland, and other nations.

Observation1: Conforming to reason is the definition I use for "just" due to the fact that my opponent argues that the Iraq war is meaningless and therefore I interpret this argument as "The Iraq War is unreasonable."

Observation 2: The definition is not obtained from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, but from Wikipedia, and is used in order to prevent confusion. For instance, the War in Iraq ought not to be confused with the War on Terror. If my opponent would like to provide a clarification from a more viable source, I would, of course, reconsider.

Observation 3: Continue is defined as "to remain in existence", and therefore I would like to point out that the role of the USA may strengthen, lessen, or stay the same, as long as it is present.

Contention 1: Ending the war in Iraq would likely result in the removal of US troops within Iraq. Removing U.S. troops from Iraq would potentially result in more American blood being shed because the conflict may cease or lessen in Iraq, but may increase within the US due to those in Iraq who hate America having the ability to perform acts of terrorism and crime within America, simply by going on the offense "here" instead of being busy defending "over there".

Contention 2: The loss of the lives of American soldiers is not meaningless.
The US soldiers stationed in Iraq are people who are fighting because it is their job. They signed up for it knowing completely well that they had a chance of dying, just as if it were any other occupation. Their deaths are not meaningless because they are fighting for a cause; they are fighting because, as Americans, they value human rights such as freedom; they are fighting for the establishment of these rights among the Iraqi people.

Contention 3: My opponent states that Iraq has been destabilized. This is in fact a reason for why America should remain in Iraq. If stabilization includes a small amount of conflict within a society, consider this: Saddam Hussein was a dictator who kept order within the jurisdiction of his country, but the actions with which he kept the citizens under control was horrendous. Those who refused his rule were removed from their homes, tortured, and killed. Often, their family members would accompany them to their deaths. With his removal, conflict arose between the various cultural groups that he once controlled by instilling fear and death. America removed Saddam, America created the destabilization, and America ought to remain until the problem it has created has been fixed.

Contention 4: The Bush Administration, as the executive branch of our government, did what it had to do as proposed by the Social Contract of Philosopher John Locke. It recognized the fact that the rights of people, specifically in Iraq, and the people themselves, were being threatened, and because it is its duty to protect the rights of the people, it allowed for the invasion to take place.

Contention 5: It would serve more than just our country best to continue the war. Serving only our country seems to be a bit on the selfish side, and by continuing to promote a greater influence of American values upon the Iraqi society, one day, they may perform greater attempts to set aside differences in culture, and work together for the betterment of society, as, just as an instance, many Americans and Europeans have.

To all those that read this: please read the comments section occasionally, for there is often something of value posted within it.

You say that if we leave they will attack us "here instead of there". Though our presence in Iraq is doing nothing but fuel hatred towards America in the Middle East thus putting America in more danger over here. You say that the loss of American soldiers lives in Iraq aren't pointless because they signed up for it! Their so called cause is to bring human rights to the people of Iraq. Though by invading Iraq we have replaced their bad government with an even worse anarchy.
The very small progress we've made is so fragile that if something happens that is just a bit surprising, all of our work will be for nothing. In invading Iraq we have indangered the most precious liberty, that to life. You say that we should stay in Iraq because we caused the problem. To quote McCain, "I don't care if we have to stay in there a hundred years..." Even though this will do nothing but hurt america and make slow aganzing progess in Iraq that will force them to rely on us the entire time.
You quote John Locke saying that it was our job to protect the human rights on the Iraq citizens. Though the way we did so severly threatened their other freedoms and saftey. You state that you it would serve America best to stay. Though the facts point out that we have spent $517 billion on the war and counting. Not to mention the fact that we are generating anti-american feelings in all of the Middle East.

I eagerly await you response.

My opponent had no objections to the use of the proposed resolution or my definitions, so I shall assume that their use is accepted and allowed.

My opponent claims that our presence in Iraq is ONLY fueling hatred. However, I refute by quoting the Washington Post, "The Program on International Policy Attitudes poll, which was conducted over the first three days of September for WorldPublicOpinion.org, found that support among Sunni Muslims for a withdrawal of all U.S.-led forces within six months dropped to 57 percent in September from 83 percent in January."

My opponent simply claims that the loss of American lives is pointless; however he fails to refute my argument whatsoever, and merely states what I said in a previous round.

As a clarification, anarchy is not what has been set up in Iraq by the U.S. The United States has replaced the completely corrupt, yet stable, dictatorship with a democracy that is slightly unstable because of different religious beliefs of the people. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more likely the country's citizens would be to accept the fact that they can work together without killing or harming each other, much like how Americans have done.
Anarchy, as defined by Thomas Paine is "the absence of a governmental authority", yet one can clearly see that political leaders exist in Iraq, and therefore, it cannot be an anarchy.

My opponent accepts the fact that progress has been made, but provides no reasoning as to why the progress can easily be undone. The progress we have made is not fragile, and is in fact resulting in success. By removing the dictatorship that once existed, we have not threatened the freedoms and safety of the Iraqis, but instead given them rights that many of them have never had before. Under the rule of Saddam, the civilians had no freedom of speech, they had no freedom of assembly, and they virtually had no right to "Life, Liberty, or Property(aka Pursuit of Happiness)". By removing him, we have given them these rights, and although we have endangered the lives of a few, we have saved and elevated the quality of life of many.

My opponent argues that it would not serve America best to stay because it is economically degrading; however, I believe that the rights of humans and the quality of peoples lives ought to be a more paramount value than money.

My opponent fails to provide his claims with substantial evidence(empirical or pragmatic) on the majority of the arguments, while I have given logical reasoning and statistics to prove my points. For the reasons stated above, I urge an affirmative vote. Thank you.