"It depends on how that base is there."

I profoundly disagree.

"If not by force but by agreement,"

And who exactly agrees on this?

"then its basically a trade agreement"

Of course it is.

"You say "occupies" as if we are Germany occupying France"

Ya thats pretty accurate, i mean the methods have changed, what you do isn't as in your face as that but its essentially the same.

"We are in Afghanistan working with the Afghan national army and indigenous population to quell terrorism."

Really is that what you think is happening in Afghanistan, your in there helping those people out and its a just a few bad eggs ruining for everyone, pffftttt!!!!!!!!!

Go inform yourself, you talk about ending terrorism, YOU ARE THE GREATEST TERRORISTS OF THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES, you are responsible for 1.2 million Iraqis lives, who the fuck are you trying to kid, you think im going to swallow your nationalistic bullshit propaganda, here go watch this your in bad need of a wake up call:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKcJfrDnQKs&NR;=1

Who created the Afghan National Army?

Was this Army in military combat with the Taliban prior to 2001?

Did this army through diplomatic channels request US military assistance?

What is terrorism?

Is it a person suddenly blowing themselves up in a market with an explosive device?

Is it disregarding national sovereignty of a nation and blowing up citizens by remote aircraft in their private residence?

Could you sleep at night if you new your internet profile, photo, name and comments could have you killed by a remote drone with out the rule of law or due process of law? Would that not terrify you?

I would argue that we have occupied Afghanistan for imperialist interest in the mineral and natural resource rights of the country and opening them up to western markets and corporations.

I would argue that we are not the first or last western country to do so and the region has been occupied by many empires as early as the British.

If we use terrorism both as a term and method of warfare then we are not quelling terrorism but promoting it.

Secondly, we have done these actions against the US Constitution which American military soldiers are sworn to protect and defend while carrying out military actions without a full vote of war by the US Congress. US Soldiers without a declaration of war voted and approved by Congress should refuse a Commander in Chief who abuses the Constitution and Rule of Law.

The President is not a King who can act unilaterally in matters of war.

We are illegally operating in Afghanistan against the US Constitution.

Utilizing remote predator drones to track, target and kill human beings without an open and transparent legal process or due process of law judged by their peers is criminal act in violation of human rights carried out on a foreign soil without a declared act of war.

Our methods of war and violence are terrifying, merciless and do not give the enemy combatant an equal field upon which to defend themselves and therefore promote terror and might as right over principles and honor.

Our actions do not quell terrorism but continue to promote it by our tactics, actions and violation of sovereign nations territories and individual human rights.

Are these arguments wrong?