Replies

"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!

Odd, you appear to think you're disputing/refuting the point I was making. You're not.

The fact remains (and your above narrative shows) that the particular nationalities of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers (your comment I originally responded to) is not relevant to anything, and you've stopped even trying to defend the notion that it is, so you've effectively conceded the point. Nothing further to say on that note.

Based on several things: wasting lives for one, wasting money and resources for two and three.

Apparently you think it's a waste of lives/resources to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in a wealthy Middle Eastern country which has a power vacuum. Fair enough. I disagree, and think that ceding territory to Al Qaeda is the far bigger, and more shortsighted, waste.

We should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries

Again, we "meddled in the affairs of" Afghanistan, and continue to, and you seem ok with that (correct me if I'm wrong?), if only because you've defended the logic of the Afghanistan invasion. So you are not true to this principle; you do not actually apply it with any consistency. I see no reason why I should take this principle seriously as a point of discussion when neither of us actually believes in it consistently.

You and I both believe there are times when we should "meddle in the affairs of" other countries, the only real question is when and where. I think it's perfectly legitimate for us to maintain a presence in Iraq if only to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a major foothold there; you don't, because, presumably, you do not actually care about combating/resisting Al Qaeda at this point. (Do kindly let me know if there's some other rational explanation.) Best,

Odd, you appear to think you're disputing/refuting the point I was making. You're not.

Then we obviously misunderstand each other.

As this paragraph obviously shows. How many times do I have to say that the main folks behind the 9/11 fiasco were Saudi and that THATs who we should pursue. Keep denying its relevance if it makes you feel better.

Apparently you think it's a waste of lives/resources to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in a wealthy Middle Eastern country which has a power vacuum.

Created by Uncle Sam.

You and I both believe there are times when we should "meddle in the affairs of" other countries, the only real question is when and where.

No we do not. Are you willfully misreading my statements or do you not understand the subtle difference between pursuing a rogue gang of thugs in a foreign country (Ali-Quieda) and toppling a foreign government (Hussein)? If this is beyond your ken we should drop this discussion as its fruitless. FWIW, if you are going to make the point that our present foreign policy is okey-dokey, don't waste your time with me, but do prepare fore an American public who will soon start growing tired of having our troops occupy foreign countries and dying off for an American interest that appears hazy at best.