204
Who was worse, George W. Bush or Donald Trump?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
204 points (85.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43855 readers
1191 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Iraq was a war that Bush had to sell, but Americans were out for blood after 9/11 and the Taliban was hosting the group that planned the attack at that time. The international community agreed that 9/11 was effectively an act of war and didn't really complain about the invasion of Afghanistan.
The Bush administration fucked up the war and occupation of Afghanistan, but the only way to stop that way would be to stop 9/11.
I mean the Taliban literally offered up Bin Laden but Bush rejected the offer and instead chose to invade. 20 years later and hundreds of thousands there’s nothing to show for it. It’s not like there weren’t people critical of the invasion at the time.
The Taliban didn't. They offered to give bin Laden to another Islamic nation to give to the USA. Even if you were to look at 9/11 as a crime instead of an act of war, the Taliban weren't interacting with established norms of handing over suspects of a crime across international borders.
And some people were critical of the invasion at the time, but no decision is going to be unanimous across an entire nation. Also, a lot of the criticism wasn't really based on the Taliban being in the right, but more in regards of dealing with the country after deposing the only political group capable of some type of national organization.
They offered him up to be tried in a third country and were open to negotiating. That’s still offering him up. The invasion just ensured that the Taliban and even Al Queda had plenty of new recruits. Bin Laden also remained at large for almost another decade. I’d consider it an abject failure if it wasn’t clear that the Bush administration didn’t really give a damn about their stated objectives.
Instead they just wanted to extend the US’s military influence into Central Asia and make a quick buck of military contracts in the process.
The Taliban were negotiating on behalf of some who launched such a large attack that it could have been considered to be an act of war, and even then were proposing methods that would allow bin Laden to escape and were outside international norms for handling criminals.
And the attempted capture of bin Laden was a failure, but we are looking back on what happened. The actual successful capture of bin Laden involved the breaching of sovereignty of a nuclear power to attack him in a night operation. Pakistan wasn't even given the option to negotiate.
This is too fatalistic for my tastes
If 9/11 happened to any other major country at the time, including Russia and China, I doubt the outcome would have been something less than a war. Maybe the war might not have a stated goal of toppling the Taliban outright, but there would have been military action in Afghanistan to address al-Qaeda.