3 ms·
It’s a matter of the level of provocation. The first Iraq war was unambiguously a response to blatant Iraqi aggression. The second war is more arguable, dependi
by simonh 5y ago
It’s a matter of the level of provocation. The first Iraq war was unambiguously a response to blatant Iraqi aggression. The second war is more arguable, depending on whether you see it as a continuation of the first. The invasion of Afghanistan was a response to its complicity in the 9/11 attacks. So in those cases there were clear direct assaults on the US or it’s allies it was responding to. There are examples, sure, but the US is rarely the side that starts the shooting.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago> The invasion of Afghanistan was a response to its complicity in the 9/11 attacks. This kinda borders on the radio station justification - a rogue terrorist attack does not justify an invasion, and most of the attackers were Saudi, so its not even consistent.
- simonh 5y agoYou seem to be under the misapprehension that because they were Saudi, that the operated from Saudi Arabia. If you look into it, you will find that their organisation, which planned and coordinated the attacks, was actually based in Afghanistan. It was supported, trained and sponsored by the Taliban in Afghanistan and their associates, and was a multi national group. It was this hosting, support and sponsorship in Afghanistan that lead to the invasion.
- yucky 5y agoAre you conflating the Taliban with al-Qaeda?
- simonh 5y agoNo the organisation they belonged to, Al Qaeda, was supported trained and sponsored by the Taliban. In reality personnel, resources and information flowed freely between the two groups.
- yucky 5y agoI am aware that the Taliban provided safe harbor for al-Qaeda in the late 90's early 00's, but they are very different groups with different ideologies. For instance, the Taliban did not finance, nor carry out 9/11.