And replaced them with warlord oppressors. Bush doesn't give a shit about things like human rights, he didn't attack Afghanistan because the Taliban were evil bastards. If he gave a shit about things like that he wouldn't have given them $43 million in March 2001 or support regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This is a pipeline war.
> it smashed up an open network of fanatics devoted
> to killing as many "infidels" as they could and sent them into Pakistan and
> into hiding (read Ahmed Rashid's "Taliban" and see how Afghanistan became
> the prime staging area for Islamic/Wahabbi terror).
The US is also ruled by a bunch of right-wing fanatics bent on dominating the world. Should America be bombed?
> Do you not think that this staved off more attacks and thus saved lives?
No. It killed far more innocent people then the 9-11 massacre did and probably more then any future attacks from Al-Qaeda. If your'e interested in saving lives then Al-Qaeda is a minor problem at most. More people starve to death every day then have been killed by Al-Qaeda in it's entire existance. If it's okay for America to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the atrocities of Al-Qaeda does that mean it's okay for the Middle East or Latin America or Asia to bomb America in retaliation for the numerous atrocities committed by the US?