I had heard arguments from the affirmative, and arguments from opposition, and simply this debate determines whether we should withdraw our military bases from the Middle East. Now senators on the NEGATION had argue that ----- >>>
But it’s because of the probability behind the negation factor, it’s in my best interest that I must stand on the far most stringent proponency to the proposed piece of legislation today, to withdraw the US military from the Middle East from the bases of my two arguments.
Misconception uses of seized property
Senators on negation/when I ask [NEG] senator
(Yes senator, do you believe with the current liability issues happening in the middle east would allow us to have improper use of seized property with today’s military bases) Answers 
According to the CATO institute, the military bases in the Middle East all have one thing in common, they violate seized properties that President Bush had assign on March 19, 2003
We can look at the military base in Diego Garcia as living example in which every citizen was evacuated off the island just for a two mile long runway for US Navy aircraft was to be implemented

- Furthermore we can look at a report from Dr. Zuman, a faculty member of the congressional research service in which he had the empirical evidence of proper used of Middle Eastern property

- Rather than having the US military bases in the middle east, we should leave it to 8 British military bases according to Ministry of Defense who had been there ever since 2001 [Example Cypress, Sounder, and Anglo]

- What we can see from this senator is the proper use of Middle Eastern property in which at the same time we’re letting British military experts handling these type of problems, rather than a war declaration President Bush declared in 2003

US Military Bases Does More Harm than Good
Many senators on the negation may believe that the proposed military bases settled in the middle east were meant to promote democracy and to reduce terrorism acts but what they fail to