4 ms·

> We went in with a pretty good justification (Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism) That would _not_ be a good

by hh3k0 5y ago

> We went in with a pretty good justification (Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism) That would _not_ be a good justification to wage a war, but I think the actual casus belli was Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction – later found to be non-existent. 215 Republicans and 82 Democrats voted for this. They paved the way for a war of aggression… and I seem to remember that Americans have previously hanged foreign politicians for precisely that. Edit: Misread above comment and thought he was talking about Iraq. Point still stands, though.

dragontamer 5y ago
> but I think the actual casus belli was Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction Afghanistan War was 2001. Iraq War was 2003. Your history is off by about 1.5 years.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pan69 5y ago
  > After 9/11, the Bush administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq. On the day of the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked his aides for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at the same time. Not only Osama bin Laden."[90] President Bush spoke with Rumsfeld on 21 November and instructed him to conduct a confidential review of OPLAN 1003, the war plan for invading Iraq.[91] Rumsfeld met with General Tommy Franks, the commander of US Central Command, on 27 November to go over the plans. A record of the meeting includes the question "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a US–Iraq War.[92][93] The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been refuted, as there was no cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[94] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
  - bserge 5y ago
    The atrocious English makes me question this Wiki entry.
    - tomjakubowski 5y ago
      Rumsfeld wrote weird.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by hh3k0 5y ago

dragontamer 5y ago

> but I think the actual casus belli was Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction Afghanistan War was 2001. Iraq War was 2003. Your history is off by about 1.5 years.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pan69 5y ago
> After 9/11, the Bush administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq. On the day of the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked his aides for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at the same time. Not only Osama bin Laden."[90] President Bush spoke with Rumsfeld on 21 November and instructed him to conduct a confidential review of OPLAN 1003, the war plan for invading Iraq.[91] Rumsfeld met with General Tommy Franks, the commander of US Central Command, on 27 November to go over the plans. A record of the meeting includes the question "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a US–Iraq War.[92][93] The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been refuted, as there was no cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[94] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
- bserge 5y ago
  The atrocious English makes me question this Wiki entry.
  - tomjakubowski 5y ago
    Rumsfeld wrote weird.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]