Then we obviously misunderstand each other.
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.
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.
You have to say it in a way that makes sense. Are you saying that because 15/19 hijackers were Saudi, we should only "pursue" the nation of Saudi Arabia? (In which case I'd say you're being silly.) Or just that we should pursue Al Qaeda wherever they are (but then why keep bringing up the hijackers' nationalities?). In which case, we have already done and are doing that - in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq.
[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.]
Indeed, created by Uncle Sam (since we're the ones who toppled the dictator). So, you think that since the United States is who created the power vacuum, that makes it less important for us to prevent Al Qaeda from filling it? It's ok to let Al Qaeda fill the power vacuum because we created it? Bizarre.
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)?
What you don't understand is that we didn't merely "pursue a rogue gang of thugs" in Afghanistan. We actually did topple that foreign government, remember!?! And nowadays, there's not all that much "pursuing" we're doing in Afghanistan. We're mostly there safeguarding the new government we've put in the previous government's place. Just as we're doing in Iraq. You seem to see this huge difference between what we're currently doing in Iraq vs. in Afghanistan but there isn't one.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before formulating these conclusions. Am I really having a discussion with someone who doesn't know that we toppled the Taliban government of Afghanistan?