4 ms·
The GP's point is that 9/11 was turned into an excuse to invade Iraq, even though there was no actual connection.
by thematrixturtle 4y ago
The GP's point is that 9/11 was turned into an excuse to invade Iraq, even though there was no actual connection.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoMy feeling (I'm not an American) is that America got attacked and partly lost its mind and partly just had to lash out at somebody in retaliation to keep up its deterrence as a superpower. That climate made the Iraq invasion look like a good idea at the time. As far as I understood it, 9/11 was never stated as an excuse to invade Iraq (as opposed to Afghanistan). At best as a reason to take the region more seriously. The government was convinced Saddam Hussein had connections to terrorism, but that wasn't really the reason to knock him out, they thought he had weapons of mass destruction. And yes, the Bush administration really was convinced of that, they just lied about the degree of evidence they had.
- AtlasBarfed 4y agoAnyone with a modicum of awareness of politics at the time knew the Bush administration: 1) wanted to be in a war, since it historically makes the administration more significant 2) wanted to invade Iraq to "finish Dad's business" (and show him up) 3) oil 4) military industrial complex loves war Sadly, #3 is the most sane reason we got in that war. Oh yeah, and Halliburton made a mint on Iraq war support. The corruption was that blatant.
- ncmncm 4y agoCheney did, in fact, frequently express such a connection, even long after it was shown to be false.