> With regard to the fact that they were active in supporting the Taliban as a buffer against Communism some time ago? I mean, is that correct?

I avoided answering that, because I'm not entirely clear about the history there. I believe we armed Afghanistan so they could defend themselves against the Russians, or something like that, but this would be before the Taliban got all tyrannical.

> Because the implication the way it filters through here...

You seem to develop a lot of anti-American biases based on these kinds of implications. No matter what impressions anybody has, we don't go around obliterating countries and governments that look like they might possibly one day maybe oppose the United States. In going after the Taliban, or al Qaeda, or Iraq, we're going after organizations that *have* attacked us, or are known to be planning to do so, or are known to be actively aiding such groups.

> > While the oppression of the Taliban was a great concern prior to September 11th, darned right it became more of one after. So it should.
>
> Yeah... I guess so. There's a wierd thought process of mine that keeps telling me that if something wasn't deemed important before, then it isn't after.

The oppression of the Taliban against its own people did not become more or less important after 9/11. But the attacks against the U.S. brought to light a wholly new issue, also connected with the same organization. And with respect to the responsibilities of the United States government, this new issue was rightfully the more important. We didn't attack the Taliban to save the Afghani people, although I wouldn't have faulted the attacks if they had taken place for that reason. We attacked the Taliban to neutralize their threat to the United States, which was something that was not necessary prior to 9/11.