I shall offer you a countering comment further on. Be patient ....
Don't be ridiculous.You argue like a lefty.
Lefties will use any debating trick they can to win out .. up to, and including, bias .. propaganda .. misdirection .. non-contextual offerings .. outright untruths .. emotive posturing .. and more besides.
Me, I'm grounded in reality. I argue realistically, backing up my arguments with supportive material when both possible and appropriate. Further, I'm grounded by my own sense of decency. How many Lefties is this TRULY applicable to ?
Now, how should I categorise this offering ?AQ is the enemy and thus the Taliban became the enemy per the Bush Doctrine but at heart the enemy is AQ.
Al Qaeda is an enemy .. absolutely. This goes without saying.
BUT .. what about terrorist ENABLERS ? Are you seriously telling me that terrorist enablers are NOT your enemy ??
The Taliban were playing host to, and enabling, Al Qaeda to the hilt ! Thanks to them, Al Qaeda had a base from which to operate, one where they could do whatever they liked.
On 11th September 2001, America saw what that led to.
Now, by your reckoning, does that make the Taliban your FRIENDS ?? Or, by enabling Al Qaeda as they did, could it JUST be .. wait for it, utterly staggering suggestion coming up .. yes ..... that this, too, made them ENEMIES ??
Bush gave the Taliban the chance to do the decent thing, and hand OBL over to them. Now, did the Taliban show its 'friendship' by REFUSING to comply ?
Since then, tell me also .. have the Taliban given you the slightest cause to think they might be your friends ? Is the planting of IED's a friendly act ? Is any of their sniping actually 'friendly' fire ? Maybe the soldier who's had a leg blown off by a Taliban-planted IED feels motivated to send his assailants Christmas cards for their trouble ??
OR .. is it far more reasonable to suppose that the Taliban have been your enemies, at LEAST since they first starting helping Al Qaeda out ??
Cue a counter-argument from you to suggest that the Taliban are much-misunderstood chums, easily deserving of some apologist rot ? H'm ?
I think Bush had the right idea, from the very start. He asserted that either regimes - nation States - should support the War on Terror, or, if they refused to be a part of the remedy against terrorism, they should instead be seen as part of the problem.So you think we should wage war against any regime that harbors terrorists?
So tell me, why should America be tolerant of regimes insisting upon being a part of that problem .. and most especially when this includes harbouring terrorists ???
Harbour a terrorist, and you help terrorism to thrive. This, ultimately, translates into otherwise preventable death and destruction. WHY tolerate the proliferation of any of this, when instead the instigators of it can and should be stopped ?
Though it wasn't the reason for the 2003 invasion ... Saddam's regime DID harbour Zarqawi, a major Al Qaeda terrorist. So, I say that Saddam's regime earned what it ultimately suffered, on those grounds alone.
But still .. what DOES constitute 'war' .. anyway ?
It may be possible, depending upon the regime in question, to engage in warfare of a non-military nature. Cyber-warfare, perhaps. Or, economic sanctions which cripple said regime's viability.
But if not, AND the terrorists involved are at all likely to pose a threat, I consider that whatever action which can be effective against them, should be taken. My answer is that you do what it takes, whatever that is, to deal with those terrorists ... AND THEIR ENABLERS.
This is where I remind you of the comment you made previously, namely ..You might try arguing the actual points rather than fighting the boogeyman.
From all of the quotations of my words which you offered, where did you include ANY contextual material ???... do you purposely ignore what's not convenient to your point?
'Leftie mentality', 'Lefties' and the like .. when I use those terms, I do so according to the intended context of the time. YOU, however, 'purposely ignored' what was not 'convenient to your point', by taking my words TOTALLY out of context !!
My suggestion is that you stop accusing ME of what is true for YOU.