War in afganistan

Now to reply to some of his claims. .. "or should we just let the deaths of 9/11 go in vain" I don't believe fighting in a war that is sucking the nation's economy dry like a parasite on an animal is avenging the deaths of 9/11. I also don't believe participating in a blind hunt for a man that could already be dead (a. k. a. Osama Bin Laden) at the expense of the lives of our very own soldiers constitutes avenging their deaths either. Fighting a war with no apparent objective that has been drawn out WAY past its welcome doesn't sound like the best plan for vengeance to me either. "this is not a show of American imperialism bringing freedom to a new country to expand our influence" Yes. Yes it is. Partially, at least. America as a nation is an entity committed to the promotion of democracy, and one of the major issues we are facing right now is the setting up of a democracy in Afghanistan [1]. Our influence is the only thing going for said democracy at the moment, but no one ever said sapping our own country's resources while we have a myriad of problems here at home to set up another country's future was a good idea. Granted, to have done nothing in response to the devastating attacks that occurred 9/11 would not have been right, but this war certainly has not proven to have been the best solution as of late. "it is a show of a country being attacked by a group of racist war criminals it is no different then if the clan had caused 9/11 or anyone else we are defending our self's here" Granted, al-Qaeda is a group of what could be considered racist war criminals, and the War on Terror is extremely important. However, it is a tad bit different as if 'the clan' had caused 9/11. The fact that Bin Laden had expressed his . .. strong feelings . .. towards the U. S. prior to the reason my opponent says we went into the war in Afghanistan [2] and that the United States had numerous dealings with Bin Laden prior to 9/11 proves that there is a great difference in the matter. Also, 'war criminals' haven't exactly been exclusively on one side of the dispute [3] [4]. Is a war necessary if THAT is what is coming from it? "yes we have lost more than 1,000 troops in this war but that's not as many as it seems" That's not as many as it seems? Tell that to the 1,000 grieving families whose sons, daughters, brothers, fathers, and husbands would still be here if not for the continuation of this war. "it was a great victory if you only lost 1,000 troops in Thermopylae the Persians lost half of a army numbering in the hundred thousands to millions yet still marched on to burn down Athens" I don't understand the point Pro is trying to make via this quote. We're talking about a war that applies to the United States right NOW. Its two completely different situations. "we need to continue to fight fight like real Americans" What does this mean? What does it mean to "fight like real Americans"? If you aren't fighting like a "real American", does that mean you are worthless? I would really appreciate some clarification on this point by my opponent, since it is very vague. "1941 the Japanese imperial empire made a unprovoked attacked a US military base in the Hawaiian islands that base was pearl harbor the Japanese attacked both civilian and military targets the attack was successful in doing much damage yet even though the Japanese were seen as invisible the US wanted revenge and went on a long and bloody campaign costing hundreds of thousands of lives until victory was finally taken by the US" Victory was taken by the U. S. ? I'm sorry, but some fact checking may be in order. The reason the U. S. joined in the efforts of the Allies was for REVENGE? Not really. [5] "to compare the two events 9/11 and Pearl Harbor both attacks were unprovoked both attacked military and civilian targets both were successful at doing great damage and both started a war" Both started a war? Both were unprovoked? These contentions made by Pro are nothing more than fallacious gibberish that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of history. [6] "against the mighty Japanese imperial empire even with hundreds of thousands of casualties America surged forward" You might want to compare the number of casualties the United States sustained to the number of casualties the U. S. S. R. sustained in World War II [7]. To say America was the sole entity 'surging forward' when talking about such a War is completely fallacious. And by the way, the "mighty Japanese imperial empire" did not constitute for all of those causalities. Not by far. "n a war against a small group of warlords with less then two thousand casualties America wants to withdraw and surrender a win able war" Pro, please define what constitutes a "win" in this war. Please explain how a war against a "small group of warlords" has anything to do with the ability for the war to be won [8]. I don't understand how Pro can call the war necessary when he can't even express how the war can be won in his opinion. Burden of proof has yet to be presented by Pro. [1] . http://www.time.com... [2] . http://www.adl.org... [3] . http://www.rollingstone.com... [4] . http://www.rollingstone.com... [5] . http://www.worldwar-2.net... [6] . http://www.howstuffworks.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com...