The United States Needed to invade Afghanistan.

First, I kindly ask all voters to actually read my arguments, yes they're long, but if we all vote on opinions, then what's the point of this site? I. Refutation (of AFF) 1. Yes, on 9-11, American lives were lost, yet, the action you propose was unnecesary. A. Before 9-11, we American's possessed the mindset that we were untouchable, and 9-11 destroyed that. It made us more aware of the world around us. B. Simply the fact that we were more aware as a people that this could happen, I would say the chances of a another attack happening would be reduced by 90%. C. Add to this the increased air plane security, more border security (arguably not enough, but no terrorists in 9-11 or otherwise snuck across the border), and increased intelligence efforts in preventing attacks, we were essentially protected from any terrorist attacks. D. Invading Afghanistan has decreased our image in Afghanistan, and has lead to increases in worldwide terrorism (which you didn't refute in my first round). This, combined with the fact that we have less troops at home, makes a terrorist attack more and more likely everyday we stay in Afghanistan. 2. I did, I gave you the essential components of a revolution, from a book by an expert. You are yet to source anything in this debate. I clearly demonstrated in round 2 that all the essential components of a revolution were in Afghanistan, we simply needed to light the fire. Also, you bringing up Marx is simply an attempt to gain support by comparing me to communists, you criticize me for using "wishful thinking". Your hypocrisy is blatant here, you claim that invading Afghanistan will not make people hate us, that we'll be able to get terrorists (where's Laden?, that's far more wishful. 3. You claim terrorist attacks happen for the Taliban, do you have any sources? It's just as possible that they do it to "liberate" themselves from a foreign occupier (which you can't bullshit around, we are foreign to Afghanistan, and we are occupying). 4. Tell me, what did the French have during the French Revolution? They had knives, forks, and lots of bodies. They defeated a much powerful force than they, because the upper class needed their support to dominate them. As I showed, all the essential ingredients of a revolution were in Afghanistan, or could have easily and cheaply been provided. The warlords and Taliban need the people's submission to dominate, without it, they are powerless. Your bullshit on the warlords and Taliban doesn't apply. 5. You don't give evidence for your claims. The Taliban was not the single most dominant force in Afghanistan, power was spread between them and the warlords. Because of this, we could have played the different warlords and Talbian to weaken them all and bring change. 6. If we had brought education and new ideas to the people of Afghanistan, there would have been less support for the Taliban, and the people would have a tangible idea of how to make a better government. 7. You say cost isn't important? You realize it isn't a coincidence that the French Revolution occurred at a time when the cost of bread was high? The British taxing the colonists had nothing to do with the American War for Independence? Cost is always a huge factor, often the greatest. My alternative brings more tangible benefits at a cheaper cost, that's why it's so much better than invading Afghanistan. 8. My plan saves more American lives in the long and short run, so it's clearly better, I'll resummarize previous arguments later. 9. You admit that the war reduces the size of the military and its efficiency, thanks! Wars don't increase the amount of "brave" people fighting, those brave people are already in the military. 10. My plan "does do a lot", and unlike yours, it doesn't hurt us in the long run. 11. By 2003, there were over 3000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan (and there's a lot of under-reporting seeing as more would make us look even worse). It's been four more years, and the death count certainly hasn't gotten smaller. You say it's worth it, but what you're doing is putting a value on a human life, and saying that an American one is worth more than an Afghani's. You're dehumanizing Afghanis, and I implore voters to vote for me, at the very least to give a symbolic victory over the quest for vengeance that people like my opponent advocate. He willingly admits that the war has killed many Afghanis and increased worldwide terror, but he's ok since not too many Americans have died (though perhaps I should remind him about our serving soldiers). 12. Your article doesn't show that the enmity between the people of those countries and the US has decreased. None of those countries are democracies, none of them represent the voice of the people. The leaders recognize it is in their best interests to go along with the US, but that doesn't mean the people don't hate us more than they did before the invasion. You have brought nothing up to disprove this, while you openly admit terrorism has increased (showing increased hatred). 13. Educating Afghanistan could prevent ten 9-11s from happening in the next decade though, which is arguably very important. 14. America is not safer, as I have already proven, and will restate later. II. My Final Case 1. All the essential ingredients for a Revolution were in Afghanistan prior to the invasion (round 2, sourced), or could have easily been provided (round 1). Problems, such as the power of the Taliban or warlords could have easily been taken care of (round 1). A. We could have helped start a Revolution, bringing a more prosperous and stable Afghanistan. It could have been a constant ally in the region, and would have helped prevent terrorism (instead of being its breeding ground). Refer to round 1 for more on point A. 2. Not invading would keep us safer. A. We would have more troops at home, more troops in general, and all our soldiers would be less fatigued, helping prevent an attack. B. We would have much more money, my alternative is far cheaper than war. C. Our increased awareness and effort in intelligence could easily prevent another attack. D. The war has caused much enmity between the US and the East (especially Muslims). E. War and conflict is the breeding ground for terrorism, and Afghanistan is a breeding ground now especially. Terrorism begets terrorism. My opponent has never refuted this, in three rounds. Round 1 for more on E. F. There is more terrorism now than before Afghanistan, opponent has admitted this. G. Increased hate and terrorism begets more terrorism, makes us less safe. Round 1 for more on G. H. These are byproducts of the war, making us much less safe in the long run. 3. Failed Rev. better than status-quo A. A failed revolution would leave us with a people still yearning for freedom, and another rev. could be started. B. The world would not hate us as much, and there would be less worldwide terrorist attacks. These attacks cause instability, and make us less and less safe everyday. Terrorism is a vicious cycle. Round 1 for more. C. We would have more $ and troops at home for defense. D. Extra $ could be used for humanitarian & educational purposes, bettering our image, decreasing hate. See round 1 E. The invasion is a temporary solution to a long term problem. My plan, even if failed, will increase education and relations, and make us safer, as well as solve the problems caused by a system of violence in the Middle East. I finally ask that everyone read before they vote. I have defended an unpopular position, but I feel I did so well. Both my opponent and I have put some time into this debate, don't do either of us a dis-service by voting based on your personal opinions, and not the quality of the debate. Good debate Leonitus, and thanks to all the people that care to read this debate!