Again more trolling.

Tell me again how the stone age warlords in Afghanistan were a real threat to the USA! I love that fairy tale.

Tell me again how Afghanistan will remain virtuous and free after we leave! I want to hear your wise predictions, followed by silence on the issue when we leave and it reverts to how it was!

Also, I usually refer to foreign aggression, not explicitly wars. We prop up lots of African dictators to this day. Their people know that the tear gas used on them is made in PA. Their people know we're paying for the batons used to beat them for traffic violations.

It's not just wrong, it's a waste of our money.

You wouldn't know what "school of thought" I subscribe to any more than you'd dare actually engage me in dialogue. You keep trolling and responding to straw-man arguments, refusing to engage the ideas I post.

So you're alleging that Afhanistan was going to obtain nuclear weapons, and that's why it was a threat. I admit, that's a strong argument in favor of invading them. And most other nations on earth.

They attacked us on 9/11 with visas and civilian pilot training. Afghanistan was instrumental to absolutely none of it.

And Kemp... nothing personal... not trolling. I am using you to help educate othersnto avoid Libertarianism. Your biases will definitely aim those wavering to become Conservative Republicans. Every chance I can show your ideology is tainted beyond reform I win.

That aint updated to include the new mines China and others purchased in Afghanistan

If $500 was enough to cause $1,000,000,000 in losses...

You would give them a safe haven for training, for planning, for logistics...

You have no clue. That would be a disaster for the United States. Every soldiers death is saving 100 civilians, but yoir theories say we will be safe.

Ignore the smuggling getting tens of thousands of poumds of drugs into the US (which has at times included a lot of bombs, and offers of worse http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-05-24/news/9605240246_1_nuclear-weapons-us-china-relationship-chinese-manufactured )

I want them dying there than civilians dying here.

How much has the USA and Europe spent on security upgrades due to the USS Cole, 9-11, shoe bomber, the printer bombs, and the public transportation attacks in Europe.

I am a security expett, you are not. The costs have been extreme.

Those attacks cost less than a million dollars when combined. The damages far exceed that.

Barring self-obsessed dictators and the development of extremes of in-group / out-group bias in national philosophy, organised war is just a highly planned and cooperative form of theft. Armies serve the interests of those that control them. They serve national interest. End of.

trojan war. it's very rare to find an attractive greek bitch so you better go to war if someone takes her from you

Einstein,

You are not a security expert. Stop embarrassing yourself. And trolling us. Do you know how many security experts settle for less pay in a far more demanding job driving a truck? 0. You're one of those 0, ie. not a security expert. Please stop the childishness.

The Cole could have been prevented with better rules of engagement. $0 cost. And airport security costs aren't all necessary, we just choose to use ineffective methods and unionized labor.

My point that those attacks can and are waged from other nations than those we invaded--and thus, our invasions accomplished nothing--is obviously lost on you. Every single post you change the topic and ignore the real points.

Afghanistan clearly couldn't attack the USA? You changed the subject and MADE UP your own facts!

Invading Afghanistan won't stop anyone from attacking the USA in the ways that have been most effective in the recent past? You changed the subject again and claimed to be something you're clearly not (I can give other examples of why this is clear if you want to further your embarrassment).

This trolling  is pointless. You keep changing the subject every time I make a point or laugh at how ridiculous your claims are; you never attempt to defend them, which is understandable considering how insane most of them are. You have absolutely no interest in my positions, only responding to straw-man positions that you pretend I hold. And, even attacking straw-men positions you ascribe to me which I've never advocated, you're still resorting to ridiculous arguments and obviously made-up facts!

Pixies,

I can respect a nation's need for self-defense. It's just that the argument that Iraq or Afghanistan were threats to the USA is laughably ridiculous. Just like Libya was when Obama bombed it or Clinton did. In Clinton's defense, he had to blow up that pill factory to take attention off of the fact that he had an intern suck on his junk. Pretty good reason to spend millions taking lives.

Let's not forget that Obama had to blow up a wedding of 200+ in order to kill a terrorist. This was done in order to facilitate a big joke in which he appeared to cry for the loss of 20 children and 6 adults a few years later. He has the power to kill hundreds, then pretend to care about dozens, and nobody cares. That's power over sheeple.

Spock,

I am saying the intervention the US had in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya had more to do with oil than anything else. Funnily enough, literally a couple months before we decided to take out Gaddafi, he agreed to send Libya's oil to China instead of Western Europe and the US. Now, with him gone, the oil is coming to us and not China. National interst. Gaddafi was a tyrant for decades, civilians were asking for help for decades, we only stepped in when when it could benefit us.

xx

>>So you're alleging that Afhanistan was going to obtain nuclear weapons, and that's why it was a threat. I admit, that's a strong argument in favor of invading them. And most other nations on earth.<<

They were going to buy surplus tear gas from African dictators, and wage aggression on us.

>>They attacked us on 9/11 with visas and civilian pilot training. Afghanistan was instrumental to absolutely none of it.<<

Yeah, and the REAL enemy was the Jap navy, not the Army! We coulda let them have the British Empire, cause the Army had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor