The War in Afghanistan is futile and a waste.

To clarify what I said was “The cost in lives of the war exceeds the number of people killed on 9/11”. See I said people. The use of “people” is generic and includes all lives both civilian, military, firemen, and police. When I later said, “To justify that high number of fatalities, we must conclude that without the war we would have seen more 9/11s and possibly a higher civilian death toll in the U. S. ” I didn’t say U. S. civilians I just said “civilians”. A civilian as you know is a regular person not in the military or police force. I was using the word civilian in its generic form. To be clear, we also didn’t lose only “American” civilians on 9/11 either. But again, we are arguing semantics. We have as I pointed out, got more soldiers killed in this war than on 9/11 and add on top of that the extreme financial strain. “Because you did not include the 10s of thousands of lives that have been lost due to terror attacks through out the world as I pointed out in round 2” “there have been around 50 known terrorist plots in the US alone not including the thousands that have happened around the world nor the likely dozens that we will never even know about. ” I would ask that you don’t include other lives lost in foreign countries due to terrorism. We dind’t go to war for them we went to prevent future attacks on us and get revenge right? I also shouldn’t have to point out that other countries don’t have the same internal security programs we have. So yes, they will be more susceptible to attacks and thus shouldn’t be included in your argument. It also goes to prove my point yet again that security measure HERE are what stop the attacks. Not a war 10,000 miles away. The cost in lives and money is beyond the “acceptable loss” threshold for Americans. This concept that I introduced last round you failed to address. So to you, is there no “acceptable loss” cut off point in this war? How many more have to die and how many more billions of dollars do we need to spend? From what it sounds like, there is no cost too great. No matter how many lives are lost or how much more in debt it takes us. Something like this is not sustainable nor is it justified when we consider who our enemies are and their geographic location. You keep using the idea that if we aren’t over there killing them then they will come here and kill more of us. When this isn’t really a convincing argument. Why? Well say we weren’t over there like before 9/11. How would these jihadis get here? Exactly how they did before. It’s not like our countries are sharing borders so they could just mount a 100,000 man army and march here. They don’t have a navy or airforce. We are protected by our oceans and two countries on our northern and southern border. I know, Canada wouldn’t let Jihadis immigrate in any sizeable numbers and coordinate an assault on us. The same goes for Mexico. They have to somehow get OVER HERE. Well the simple solution is DON’T LET THEM. It’s easy to partner with our allies to the north and south and work together to screen immigrants thoroughly and to halt immigration from Islamic nations. I also take it you have no issue with my border fence and post every 1/8 mile? This is much cheaper and won’t cost thousands of lives. Hell, if you want to kill them all then fine. Drop a nuke and be done with it. I’ll support that. I however cannot support an indefinite war and neither would our Founding Fathers. Well that’s it from me. I will now turn the floor over to James Madison (The Father of Our Constitution) and let him take it from here but with a few interjections from me. “War . .. should only be declared by the authority of the people, whose toils and treasures are to support its burdens, instead of the government which is to reap its fruits. ” James Madison That is the people decide. Not the government or military itself. The people have spoken. .. They’ve deemed it futile and a waste. “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. .. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. ” James Madison “In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ” James Madison “An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics . .. without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe. ” James Madison He was against large standing armies too. That’s a “two-for-one” in this debate. It’s hard to argue with James Madison. .. Vote pro for the Father of Our Constitution. I just want to say, best of luck to you on your deployment. I fully support our troops just not the way in which we are using them. I just wished people listended to our Founders more.