[TGB!]

[quote:d2b24]You know you're extremly frustrating to talk to?[/quote:d2b24]

As a kid I used to think the same things about the "know-nothing" adults. . .

[quote:d2b24]The US was not attacked by the Taliban or Afghanistan.[/quote:d2b24]

Who said they were?

[quote:d2b24]In addition, there were plans to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks.[/quote:d2b24]

We have plans for invading several countries. The point of this is. . .

[quote:d2b24]All 9/11 did was provide justification for this action. Was it just a coincidence?[/quote:d2b24]

Nope - but it did give Washington a legitimate reason to move against a body (that again was not recognized by any world body accept Saudi Arabia and the UAE) that had been known to harbor and support terrorists for years.

Again - nothing here invalidates the US reasons for moving against Afghanistan.

[quote:d2b24]You think it's alright to invade countries to dispose of terrorist leaders and install puppet governments whether or not that country did anything to you. I do not. It's a fundamental question. If we don't agree on that part, then we won't agree on anything, and this is the result.[/quote:d2b24]

Hilarious - this is the first time I've EVER seen anyone question our right to move against Afghanistan. You'd think such a bombastic, overly simplified view of the situation would be accompanied by something other than blustering "rhetoric" about a "fundemental question" (other than sound nice and flowery, what exactly is this "fundemental question" ninty).

The leadership in Afghanistan didnt have to strike us directly. That (again for years now - this wasnt some Bush Admin construct despite what Whatreallyhappened.com says) the Taliban/Afghani leadership was harboring, aiding, and providing support for OBL/AlQ was more than enough to remove them from power. Your suggestion is what - keep holding diplomatic "talks" with the Taliban in hopes theyll finally let us in to nab OBL. Right -