Afghanistan is already dealt with, i's past time the US started to pack up and focus on other issues in the region. I'm talking about: >The spread of Al-Qaeda into Sunni-Muslim regions such as northern Africa, Europe (through Turkey) and more urgently, Syria (with 10% of its Free Syrian Army AQ affiliated) and both the US presence and lack thereof in the area is only escalating anti-US sentiment only making AQ's job easier. >Iran and Israel conflict (as well as Israel's violent push into the West Bank). >The rise of new governments after the Arab Spring; especially Syria with a Sunni/Shiite ratio of about 60-40% (those groups hate each other) along with the fact that the same conflict happened in Iraq after the government was destabilized and civil war will follow with more civil war.

[quote]They are actively engaged in ongoing operations which help to ensure the global security environment is stable and sturdy enough to continue to allow our nation to prosper.[/quote] You're saying that we need to kill everyone who disagrees with our lifestyle, pretty much. [quote]Doubtful, but there would be very negative results to the global economy and our national security.[/quote] So there is money to be made from war huh? The US military is just a bunch of men making hits so that we continue living off of blood money?! HAH [quote]That's quite simply not true. The economic and social conditions of the average Afghani has improved since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. To imply that it's anything other than that is to deny basic facts of life. [/quote] You talk like the only thing that matters is their money and economic standing. How about all the fathers, mothers and children that have died in the crossfire? You can't replace human life. [quote]The fight to allow religious freedom, economic prosperity, and the right to speak your mind without having a machete brought down on your nose is a worthless fight?[/quote] If that was our goal we would've invade North Korea by now.

[quote]You're saying that we need to kill everyone who disagrees with our lifestyle, pretty much.[/quote] No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that our service men and women are engaged in a multitude of security operations around the world, all of which help ensure the peaceful continuance of the global commons. Task Force 151, for example, is doing that with anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. USMC Special Purpose MAGTFs are fulfilling that role in Africa through bilateral training exercises, preparing African soldiers for counter terrorism operations in places such as Mali. [quote]So there is money to be made from war huh? The US military is just a bunch of men making hits so that we continue living off of blood money?! HAH[/quote] Again, no. You have once agains completely missed the point of my argument. America is something I.R. scholars refer to as a hegemon. A hegemon is a powerful nation with a variety of states that it has influence over due to its military power. Meaning, we can convince someone to do or not do something through the threat of using force. For a long time, since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. has managed to keep a fairly steady peace by maintaining this near global hegemony. The Soviet Union, for example, was stunted from growing over into Europe because of American threats of swift and powerful retaliation in response. In more contemporary times, the continuance of states like Taiwan and Israel are maintained by U.S. hegemony. Tense relations in the Pacific over territorial disputes are kept from going hot due to the presence of military forces in the area. Lack of the U.S. on the global commons fulfilling that police role would see the world scene devolve into an even more anarchtic level. Regional wars would be more widespread and often, sending economic shockwaves throughout the war. Thats what I meant when I said bad for our economy, silly. [quote]You talk like the only thing that matters is their money and economic standing. How about all the fathers, mothers and children that have died in the crossfire? You can't replace human life.[/quote] Freedom isnt free, as the old adage goes. And youre implying that people werent dying under the hands of Taliban, bro. Men, women, and children were slaughtered by Taliban goon squads that would roam the streets, chopping off the limbs (or worse) of those who they viewed as morally corrupt. All reading was restricted to the Quran, with any attempts to expand knowledge by reading, say, a physics book punished with the sharp end of the machete. Furthermore, economic standing [i]does[/i] matter, because it creates an ability for those in Afghanistan to improve their standard of living, something that directly relates to longevity. [quote]If that was our goal we would've invade North Korea by now.[/quote] First off, we cannot afford to invade every oppressed nation. There exists several economic, security, domestic, and geopolitical blocks in the way of pursuing that rather hefty route. Second, failure to in invade one oppressive nation doesnt make our goal of promoting a free and non-oppressive government in Afghanistan any less of a truth.

[quote]No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that our service men and women are engaged in a multitude of security operations around the world, all of which help ensure the peaceful continuance of the global commons. Task Force 151, for example, is doing that with anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. USMC Special Purpose MAGTFs are fulfilling that role in Africa through bilateral training exercises, preparing African soldiers for counter terrorism operations in places such as Mali. [/quote] The part that the military glorifies aren't THESE missions though. They glorify the fighting, the invasion force. They always show the fighter jets zooming over the marching soldiers, charging into BATTLE. They make it seem like that's all the military does, or atleast that's the part YOU should be doing (when recruited). I have no problem with helping other countries, WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY HELPING. The fight in Iraq and Afghan isn't helping anyone, IMO, anymore. [quote]Freedom isnt free, as the old adage goes. And youre implying that people werent dying under the hands of Taliban, bro[/quote] I don't deny this, the Taliban needs to get eradicated. But right now it seems like it isn't something the USA can do alone. But that doesn't seem to be the agenda, it seems like they're just setting up bases [i]just incase[/i] Iran goes jihad on Isreal, so we can quickly come to the aid of the Isrealites. I just hate the hidden agendas hidden by "freedom" and "glory". [quote]First off, we cannot afford to invade every oppressed nation. There exists several economic, security, domestic, and geopolitical blocks in the way of pursuing that rather hefty route. Second, failure to in invade one oppressive nation doesnt make our goal of promoting a free and non-oppressive government in Afghanistan any less of a truth.[/quote] But why Afghan and Iraq STILL. Why are we STILL there god damn it, that's why we're in this black hole debt! I thought it was mission accomplished once we took out Sadaam and Osama. IMO the atrocities in N.Korea FAR outnumber the ones in Iraq and Afghan combined. But sadly we ran out of all our god damn money lol.

[quote]The part that the military glorifies aren't THESE missions though. They glorify the fighting, the invasion force. They always show the fighter jets zooming over the marching soldiers, charging into BATTLE. They make it seem like that's all the military does, or atleast that's the part YOU should be doing (when recruited).[/quote] Fair enough. [quote]I have no problem with helping other countries, WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY HELPING. The fight in Iraq and Afghan isn't helping anyone, IMO, anymore.[/quote] It's quite funny, you keep saying that, but have failed to actually counter my points about how we're helping. That amuses me greatly, to be honest. [quote]But right now it seems like it isn't something the USA can do alone.[/quote] Exactly, hence why we are funding and supporting an indeginious military and police force to deal with it in the long run. [quote]But that doesn't seem to be the agenda, it seems like they're just setting up bases [i]just incase[/i] Iran goes jihad on Isreal, so we can quickly come to the aid of the Isrealites.[/quote] No offense to you, but that's -blam!-ing stupid as hell. First off, disregarding the fact that we have no long term plans to keep a sizable force in Afghanistan, and instead looking at our force here and now, the set up of our bases is in no way designed to fight the Iranians. Sure, some assets could be used for that, but all of them are currently engaged full heartily in fighting the insurgency that has embroiled us for the past decade. If these bases were just designed for fighting Iran, we would have a bunch of airbases, base security, aircraft, and that's it. However, quite obviously, that's not the present reality on the ground. [quote]But why Afghan and Iraq STILL.[/quote] We're out of Iraq, and we're leaving Afghanistan in 2014.

I completely, utterly and respectfully disagree with every single one of your points.

Why?

[quote]They are actively engaged in ongoing operations which help to ensure the global security environment is stable and sturdy enough to continue to allow our nation to prosper.[/quote] You honestly beileived if America or any country didn't have a military presence in Afghanistan, or example, or most other countries, the world would go to hell? I agree that it helps the your country prosper because they're getting all the oil and installing their own leaders in those countries, but other then that they make a difference that is so small it is essentially un-representable [quote]Doubtful, but there would be very negative results to the global economy and our national security.[/quote] Please explain to me how anyone could create negative results in a single day. [quote]They fight for our security and the freedoms of other nations.[/quote] In your above point you said its doubtful America would get invaded, how else could they infringe the national security? Please give me the name of one person who wants to actually attack the US, and explain how a military prescense in the region is preventing him. Also, i just think the second part is bullshit, nations should defend themselves unless there are special circumstances (eg. WWII France, Germany, etc). [quote]Under Obama's current pull out plan, maybe.[/quote] Sorry, I don't really understand your point. [quote]That's quite simply not true. The economic and social conditions of the average Afghani has improved since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. To imply that it's anything other than that is to deny basic facts of life.[/quote] Those are arguable facts. The life expectancy in Afghanistan still remains at 44 years, extremely low. What medical improvements that have been made are not as a result of the US military, but of NGOs such as International Medical Corps, Red Cross, etc. Even though many children have more access to school now, just as many schools have been destroyed by the fighting, so they nullify each other. The UN documented 1,462 civilian deaths in the first six months of 2011 alone, and nearly 450,000 internally displaced people.

[quote]You honestly beileived if America or any country didn't have a military presence in Afghanistan, or example, or most other countries, the world would go to hell?[/quote] America is something I.R. scholars refer to as a hegemon. A hegemon is a powerful nation with a variety of states that it has influence over due to its military power. Meaning, we can convince someone to do or not do something through the threat of using force. For a long time, since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. has managed to keep a fairly steady peace by maintaining this near global hegemony. The Soviet Union, for example, was stunted from growing over into Europe because of American threats of swift and powerful retaliation in response. In more contemporary times, the continuance of states like Taiwan and Israel are dependent on U.S. hegemony. Tense relations in the Pacific over territorial disputes are kept from going hot due to the presence of military forces in the area. Lack of the U.S. on the global commons fulfilling that police role would see the world scene devolve into an even more anarchtic level. Regional wars would be more widespread and often, sending economic shockwaves throughout the war. [quote]In your above point you said its doubtful America would get invaded, how else could they infringe the national security?[/quote] National Security: The protection of a nation's critical assets; assets can be defined in multiple ways. From economic to physical security of infrastructure. You make the rather oblivious assumption that our security is only at risk from invasion, when that's quite obviously not true. Our citizens are put in danger by multiple things, from terrorism (i.e. 9/11) to cyber threats (Chinese hackers stealing intellectual property) [quote]Sorry, I don't really understand your point.[/quote] It's okay. I was referring to the possibility of Obama's pull out strategy in Afghanistan leading to the rather likely possibility of Afghanistan collapsing once we pull out, given that they are completely dependent on us right now for security. Lack of that U.S. security presence, the forces will be even more distraught. [quote]What medical improvements that have been made are not as a result of the US military, but of NGOs such as International Medical Corps, Red Cross, etc.[/quote] Source? [quote]Even though many children have more access to school now, just as many schools have been destroyed by the fighting, so they nullify each other[/quote] No, when children now actually have access to educational reforms (whereas they were not prior to the U.S. invasion, as the taliban actually banned reading all books with the exception of religious texts), that is a huge advancement. To imply that the destruction of a few schools nullifies this is insane. [quote]The UN documented 1,462 civilian deaths in the first six months of 2011 alone,[/quote] Yes, and over 80% of these deaths were the result of the taliban, with the majority of the other deaths caused by other militant groups. NATO forces most likely cause less than 5% of the total civilian casualties in Afghanistan. We're a very knife like force, actually. Precision is our tactical policy, brah. [quote]and nearly 450,000 internally displaced people.[/quote] Source?