The war in Afghanistan is justified

Alrighty, let's get Round 2 underway. -The Just War Theory- a. The Just War Theory, are you define it, discusses the reasons and motivations for going to war; however, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; merely because someone means well does not excuse the actions taken and the consequences of those actions; so, truly, the Just War Theory is essentially used by politicians and military leaders to make a war seem legitimate to the public at large; so, really, the JWT is more of a political tool than anything. b. Two wrongs hardly make a right; while force might be a necessity, it is far from justified; after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Americans were guided by rage towards terrorists, paranoia of another attack, and a desire for revenge; if we look back to definitions, proving something is justified proves that it is guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness; anger, fear, and the want of revenge are hardly any of these things; as we can see, we were spurred into war by desperation as opposed to objective reason and fairness; and desperation is simply not justification. Now that we've put the theory under scrutiny, I would like to move on to individual arguments. 1. You discuss how the only reason the United States was going to become militarily entangled with Pakistan was because they would not remove troops from the Indian border. In the interests of fairness, assuming that this is entirely the truth, then it obviously proves injustice on the hands of the United States; we would have been declaring war on a country simply because they refused to follow our 'suggestions'. [http://www.usatoday.com...] As we can see here, the Pakistanis are essentially 'abdicating' to the Taliban, according to Sec. of State Clinton. Because the reason for expansion of the conflict was Pakistan's 'failure to comply' with the wishes of officials in Washington, the fact that Pakistan is essentially using a policy of appeasement with the Taliban will make the expansion of the war even more likely, and would thus claim the lives of even more American and foreign soldiers; as we can see, the recent resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan increases the likelihood of war; in fact, the hopes of expanding the war into Pakistan are shared by many: [http://www.asiasociety.org...]. Obviously, putting so many domestic and foreign lives on the line, especially through yet another invasion, is simply not justified. 2. Essentially, the only reason that European powers became involved in military efforts with the United States is because they are our allies, and it seemed that we weren't the ones provoking the war; however, the War in Afghanistan led to not only the War in Iraq, but all of our current efforts in the War on Terror; so, again, because of the United States involvement in Afghanistan, we were also catapulted into several other conflicts, which put our allies at unnecessary risk, thus there is a lack of both justification and foresight on the part of Washington. Furthermore, I fail to see how the financial campaigning of extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban proves a lack of funds, or how it proves the War in Afghanistan to be justified; if what you say is true, and these terrorist organizations are indeed running low on funds, then it's a clear indication that they plan to carry out further terrorist attacks, ergo our war effort has been unsuccessful, and as I've given clear evidence to show, has been quite counterproductive [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://www.antiwar.com...]. 3. First off, you've already discussed the fund raising, and it has already been refuted. Also, understand again that, if these groups are, as you claim, raising funds, that shows clear intentions for future terrorist attacks, and so the argument that America is at risk for future terrorist attack is not only in line with the evidence that I have presented in Round 1, but is also in line with the scenario you have presented. I presented that evidence from our own government, who released the statement declaring that it is more, not less, likely for another terrorist attack to occur on American soil; the Taliban have certainly showed trends for resurgence in the past, and have come back strong every time; these kinds of trends, the recurring violence, suicide bombings, etc. are clear on pages 5 and 6 of this Committee on Foreign Affairs report: [http://foreignaffairs.house.gov...]; and, as this article from about 3 years back shows us, [http://archive.newsmax.com...], the Taliban continue to come back with larger numbers each time; they began operating in squad-sized units, then company-sized units (100 men), then battalion-sized units (400 men); thus, our fight against the Taliban is very bittersweet; the fact is, we're losing many American lives in this war, and the Taliban simply seem to keep coming; their resolve hasn't diminished, and the risk of terrorist activity against America has increased, which puts not only the American military at risk, but endangers the lives of American citizens; this certainly is not only a counterproductive war, but an unjust war, as well. As Round 3 approaches, I will stand down for now, and allow my opponent to deal with my rebuttal. Good luck, Pro.