United States should keep a military presence I'm the Middle East.

First off I would like to apologize for my lateness in posting my round 2 argument. I'm in school and even though it is only high school it does take time. I will do my best to respond sooner. Also this debate has so far been very stimulating, I think that the topics we are hitting on in our debate would be good topics of future debates and you are presenting a well formulated argument. Unjust war Pro, everything you said in your unjust war paragraph I believe to be true. I believe that if we look into the issue deeper we will find some surprising facts that may change your mind. September 11th was a atrocity that needed to be responded to swiftly and ferociously. A full scale invasion although it meets said requirements of swiftness and ferocity it does not meet the principles of war and is not an appropriate way to deal with 9/11. The U.S declared war on terrorism, an idea. I have not found any evidence to suggest that any idea has ever been forcefully extinguished least of all by a massive armed force. Especially when said armed force is going around bludgeoning everything it can find in relation to terrorism. I believe that instead of a massive invasion the UN especially the U.S should have used more discreet tactics. I think that using covert C.I.A and black ops operatives to discretely kill terrorists and other personnel would have been a much better plan. The goal would be to get the operations so secretive that the targets would simply disappear one day. Afghanistan is such a violent place that the cause of the disappearances could be pinned on different religious groups such as the Sunnis or Shi'ite among other extremely aggressive groups religious and not. This way the targets would not become marters or raise the anger and dissent against the U.S. To put it into a metaphor, there used to be a mole problem on our property. They dug holes in the ground that one of our horses could step into and break its leg so we had to get rid of them. Our first attempt at getting rid of the moles was using a pickax to annihilate their holes and the surrounding area in hopes of killing or scaring them away. After a week all we had was a lawn that had been chopped to pieces and nothing to show for it. This is like the U.S invading Afghanistan except with slightly better results. Next we tried using bait and traps to get them. We only got one out of the many. This is like the U.S trying to goad terrorists into attacking certain targets then catching them when they tried. As we found out online the best way to kill them was getting a snake and putting it on your property. The snake chases the moles into their holes and tunnels and swallows them hole leaving no trace. The snake leaves none alive and typically the snake will not be able to survive in the new environment and will die or if you really care about the snake you can bait and trap it and sell it back or something. This is like my C.I.A, black ops, assassins idea. The operatives can openly follow the targets into their villages and discreetly take them out. Minimal collateral damage and far more cost effective. It is also more ethical because instead of having a squad or more of soldiers come into your town and publicly hunt down the target the target merely disappears. With this idea being a possible solution yet continuing with the mass invasion plan means that the U.S willingly put more resources, more manpower and hurt many more people than necessary making the invasion of Afghanistan and concurrently the presence of a mass of troops immoral, unjust and unethical. I think the Iraq Iran topic would be a great one for a future debate. In short I believe my operative idea would also work in this situation and similarly to Afghanistan makes the U.S presence unjust, immoral and wasteful. Doubly so considering that the U.S supplied Suddam and Iraq thus making that whole situation kind of if not mostly our fault. Goals and effects As in your first paragraph I agree with everything you say. However I disagree with the way the U.S is going about it. I agree that oil is an extremely valuable resource and that if given the chance another country would attempt to take over. I agree that it is a good military strategy to put in place the dictators. I believe that we should try to capture the peoples hearts and minds and convince them that we are on their side and it is in their best interests to trade with us and follow our customs and suggestions. I think this is the goal and effect with installing a sympathetic dictator. This does not require an army to occupy their country and put a metaphorical gun to their head and force them to trade with and like us. Last resort I think the U.S did just drop bombs on all the enemies which is partly why I think it was a bad idea. From a purely economic point of view dropping a $25, 000 bomb on some huts that cost a fraction of that amount not even including the money it takes to get that bomb over to the region and then put a platform in place to deliver said bomb is just not legalistically sound. I think what the U.S needs to do is try and fix or at least slow the problem. I agree that the U.S has been attacked numerous times and that when that happens scenarios such as Benghazi and worse happen. However I think that it is a better idea to instead of even though I fully support shooting everyone that tries to harm America or its citizens to instead convince them whether it be through force or more peaceful measures, to not attempt to harm us. As to peaceful ways of convincing them to not try to kill us, I think that although I love America, we have given the middle east more than enough reasons to hate us. Everything from splitting and stealing their territory without thinking about religious and geographical barriers to installing puppet leaders and taking their natural resources. I think that there is a lot of progress that the U.S, U.N and other regions could make in those terms. As to the U.S seizing control of the oil fields, as blissful as a world under the continued control of the U.S how is it on any level morally ok? Which is a majority of why I think the continued mass presence of the U.S military should be discontinued. After reading your round two presentation I think that your main reasoning for the U.S being in the middle east is to seize another countries assets , which although I want the U.S to continue to be the foremost superpower, is completely unethical and immoral. Impossible demands I semi-agree with what you say in this paragraph. I think that although on paper it seems Pakistan could have done more however I think it is the same mistake that the west made after ww1 when they divided the Ottoman empire into the middle east. The middle east is an extremely complex area that involves a large amount of variables that are difficult to understand from a western point of view. The fact that Pakistan wasn't out rightly attacking the and inhibiting the U.S was just about as much as we could expect from them. Although at times it seemed like they were. The population of Pakistan on the majority dislikes to hates the U.S. We have given them plenty of reasons to and they aren't letting our past insults slide which in their position I wouldn't either. Thank you for accepting my friendship request. Again I'm sorry for the late reply and my intentions on this debate are civil although it may not seem like it at times. Have a good day I look forward to seeing your response.