By "they" I assume you mean Al Qaeda, not "the people who flew the planes" (who all died on 9/11 and thus never had a chance to go hole up in Afghanistan afterwards). Anyway, what we've established I think is that the actual nationality of the hijackers isn't relevant to the price of tea in China. None of those hijackers were Afghans but you were (it appears) ok with the invasion of Afghanistan because Al Qaeda was there, end of story.
Well, hate to be the first (?) to break this to you but Al Qaeda (you know, the organization whose existence in Afghanistan apparently made you ok with military action in Afghanistan?) is now in Iraq. Like I said earlier in this thread, the affiliate there even been considerate enough to just go ahead and call themselves "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (just in case some of us are so dense that we don't quite get it, perhaps?). And yet you're griping about us being in Iraq. Based on what?
Seemingly, based on the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers - which, as you've just essentially acknowledged, is irrelevant to anything. So, the irrationality of your original complaint is plain to see.
P.S. Oddly, you also speak as if you think that "Al Qaeda", or at least the majority of them, is still confined to Afghanistan and as if OBL is in Afghanistan as far as we know. You have no basis for believing or saying these things. Neither you nor I know where OBL is or even if he's still alive, and as far as you or I know (it's hard to get hard data), Iraq may actually be the primary locus of Al Qaeda at present. But hey even if so, don't let that stop you from griping about us having our military in Iraq. Funny how people are gung ho about fighting Al Qaeda if/when they can convince themselves that Al Qaeda only exists in Afghanistan, but then if Al Qaeda is in Iraq, suddenly it's a horrible idea for us to be in Iraq. "I wanna fight Al Qaeda but only inside the borders of Afghanistan" is a pretty bizarre rallying cry - not to mention a stupid one. Al Qaeda may not wish to cooperate, you know.
Yes.
Anyway, what we've established I think is that the actual nationality of the hijackers isn't relevant to the price of tea in China. None of those hijackers were Afghans but you were (it appears) ok with the invasion of Afghanistan because Al Qaeda was there, end of story.
Nice try. "We've" established nothing of the kind. Saudis were by and large responsible for 9/11. An association was drawn between THOSE Saudis and Osama Bin Laden et al who are ALSO Saudi. Osama and Company were enjoying the hospitality of the Taliban in Afghanistan according to this source. So there is a rationale for going after those guys WHEREVER they are, even Iraq! What that has to do with Hussein, non-existent WMD's OR the price of tea in China is beyond me.
And yet you're griping about us being in Iraq. Based on what?
Based on several things: wasting lives for one, wasting money and resources for two and three. We should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries but I guess that's one of those nasty habits we have that's gotten hard to break. I will completely admit I'm wrong IF democracy takes root over there in any recognizable form but more than likely we will get a theocratic democracy in a best case scenario and they will not get over our military occupation of their homeland anytime soon.
Seemingly, based on the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers - which, as you've just essentially acknowledged, is irrelevant to anything. So, the irrationality of your original complaint is plain to see.
The only thing that is becoming plain to see is your disingenuousness and your amazing ability to jump to wrong conclusions.