Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post

But that was not the reason why we went to Afghanistan. Stop changing the goalposts. We went there to capture terrorists that we thought were being harboured in Afghanistan. If the pretext was to change Afghanistan politically then there should have been an open discussion and a case built up. As things stand we were trigger happy and invaded within weeks of 9-11. It was a mess and we were wrong.

You have to respect international law or else you just become a terrorist state yourself. America is a terrorist state.
LOL, who is changing goalposts? The lack of clarity in your thinking is pretty funny. We ABSOLUTELY went to Afghanistan to change it politically. Here is the clincher statement by President Bush before Congress.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

Pretty clear that the Taliban either acts or is stripped of power aka changing Afghanistan politically.

LOL at "Respect International Law or you are a terrorist state." Fishing inside a twelve mile limit doesn't make one a terrorist. Terrorism can be defined in a pretty straightforward manner. Intentionally targeting non-combatants with violence in forwarding a political goal.

Osama was a combatant, we sent in troops instead of simply bombing the place (clearly safer towards non-combatants). So it fails to meet a reasonable definition.

I assume you're a Brit. If you are, it is ESPECIALLY funny judgemental stuff coming from a citizen of a nation responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, The Loughall Ambush, the "shoot to kill" policy towards the IRA, the Bombing of Dresden and on and on and on.
So when the Taliban asked for evidence proving that Bin Laden was behind the 9-11 attack what was the US response? You decided to go after a collective group of terrorists by invading a sovereign country with little planning and no real anticipation of the consequences. This is why the Afghanistan conquest has gone on far longer than WW2. It was a mess. There was no case made against the Taliban, they did not cause 9-11. Afghanistan was invaded within days of 9-11. Just as Obama is a terrorist, Bush and Blair are war criminals. All of them are monsters. It's just that two of them are viewed as legit and immune and the other is/was an outcast.

You are trying to twist the argument in anticipation of me somehow becoming patriotic about acts of terrorism commited by my own country. It doesn't work because I denounce my country in equal measure. I loath excessive concentrations of power that use that power in malicious and immoral ways and in many regards the UK and America are much the same in that regard.