The United States Needed to invade Afghanistan.

I have length crisis. I wrote a 12 thousand characters response but I am only allowed 8 thousand characters. So I need to focus on certain things. I am bringing this debate back to the qeustion. Did the US need to invade Afghanistan. And the answer to that is yes. For what was best for the United States of America after the attacks that occurred on September 11th 2001, Afghanistan was a necessary invasion. Bill Clinton had a CIA team who had Osama Bin laden in their crosshairs, and that team called the white house and requested permission to fire, and Bin Clinton denied their permission. A months later the man who planned the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, Osama was proven to be the force behind the attacks that killed more than three thousand people in the largest structure of the world. We were not going to let a lapse of action kill more American citizens. And because we invaded Afghanistan we have had NONE ZERO ZILCH successful terrorist attacks ON American soil. Terrorist attacks happen in Afghanistan daily, but on American soil they Do Not, and that is the bottom line in regards to how effective we have been fighting terrorism. We are waging an offensive wars against the self proclaimed enemies of this great nation, to force them to defend themselves, to defend themselves in every single rotten hole they have in that country so that no terrorist over there will have the chance to take a breath, and go on the offensive against us over here. We are having our bravest men who volunteered to protect their families go over there and die in some god forsaken land so that American citizens don't have to do in this great blessed one. Your plan is week and will not be effective in meeting the security challenges that face's us today in the modern world. Your ideology is perfect if we lived in a Utopian world, but this is not a Utopia. And in fact if it were a Utopia there wouldn't be oppression in the first place, therefore your ideology doesn't fit anywhere. In this world force meets force, and if you fail to meet force with force you will end up in the ground, and that has been fire tested in every single war in the world. And you have not refuted what I argue is the unwillingness of the people to revolt. You ideology follows the line of Karl Marx in his communist Manifesto it is just way too much wishful thinking. Terrorist attacks that happen in Afghanistan are done by people who staunchly support the Taliban. People everything, EVERYTHING, their very existence to advance even by some minute degree the cause of Islamic fundamentalism. The cause that in 1994 people rallied behind, and are still rallying behind. Terrorism attacks are on the rise for the same reason as people were not going to oppose the Taliban. There are those loyal to the Islamic cause we all know that religion is the greatest motivator for warfare. The people in Afghanistan had no means to revolt, the ones who did were already fighting for the warlords. And if the people who fought for the warlords were the ones who could revolt, there would be no revolt against the Taliban because their direct allegiance was to the warlords. Therefore it was up to the people who commanded the people who fought for the warlords, a.k.a. the warlords themselves to revolt against the Taliban. And as long as the Taliban were the dominant force in Afghanistan the warlords WERE NOT going to revolt. The United States to save American lives that would have died had we pursed your wishful thinking tactics, had to dethrone the Taliban in order to allow the Warlords to begin to revolt because they were the people who could revolt. And history shows, they did. The problem is that for people to revolt for something better they have to have a tangible idea of what that something better is whether they experience it or not, they have to know what it is. The people of Afghanistan have suffered a horrible war against the Russians from the 70's to the 80's. Following that they went through a period of weak federal government, that was enormously corrupt. Following that they went through a civil war. Then the Taliban came and ended all of that and substitute it for strict enforcement of the already dominant culture. That is why I say and it a fact that support fore the Taliban has always been a split issue many supporting it many not, but that has only gotten to the surface now that we kicked the Taliban out of power, and it was good that we kicked them because the United States was looking out for the United States. And you say that the cost of my plan is greater than yours. Fine for something as stupid as the economic cost your right the cost is greater. But I measure success on something that is much more important, the cost of AMERICAN LIVES, and in that my friend the cost of my plan, which is a plan of action , of action in the hands of the American people, my plan is far more less costly. You say that my plan takes soldiers away from home and reduces recruitment because people don't want to fight wars. Your right that it reduces the amount of people in the armed forces who think the military is there to give them a free ride in life and fun travels around the world. However it increased the percentage of people who join the military because they have a committement to protect me, they have the balls to go wherever they need to go, to hell and back to make sure that I can go to school tomorrow and not have to worry that I am going to be blown by some suicide bomber. And in that case I cannot lament the fact that the army is composed of more soldiers who are ready to give there lives for me than before, that's definitely a plus. Your plans could do a lot. Your plans is all about possibly doing a lot. My plan is about getting the job of securing America done, that is what I care about that is what this debate about. You think that my plan won't solve the enmity between countries in the east and the US. Frankly the security of the United States comes first and that again is the purpose of this debate. And when you say that good relations means a safer America I agree. And to be fair only 3 countries in the world every recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Pakistan, The United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. And when they saw that the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda which just blew up more than three thousand Americans lives all three withdrew support. Those countries had respect for us maybe not as much now because of Iraq, but at that point they understood. http://www.cbc.ca... Whether Afghanistan would be a better ally now or before is not the case of this debate. The case was if we needed to invade. The answer is yes, that is something that even Pakistan , Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates understood. The bottom line is that Afghanistan couldn't have been an ally at all if we didn't invade. Al-Qaeda and groups similar declared a holy war on the US. The Taliban supported the Al-Qaeda. Its not that educating Afghanistan can't solve some issues. The point is that in 2001 supporting Education couldn't stop another 9-11 from happening within the coming months. Things are better in Afghanistan. Democracy is beginning to do its work. Many of the ex warlords are now turning to the democracy to fix the problems and that has been working. Afghanistan has served as a unifying center for countries around the world. One of the few instances were the UN voted to enact offensive combat operations, the other notable one being Korea. NATO has sent troops, Countries that aren't in NATO have sent troops. We have German commanders, Italian commanders, French Commanders, Canadian commanders. We've had troops from all around the world come to Afghanistan to work together to get the job done. And at the end of the day strong allies is what will win World War Three. America Is more secure.