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.
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,