Hacker News Reader

Bush successfully assembled a coalition to invade Afghanistan. He didn't even promise that there'd be WMDs there, he just said "They gots terrorists" and a large portion of the UN joined in the invasion.

Upon reflection, the justifications to invade Afghanistan were every bit as flimsy as the justification to invade Iraq.

View on HN

Afghanistan was more justifiable. The argument was that it was a failed government that housed a terrorist organization that just attacked US.

What Iraq had to with it, i honestly have no idea. Somehow we pivotted from Afghanistan to Iraq

Maybe (and this is a big maybe) at the beginning. However, it really went to show how ineffective such actions are and lead to the creation of ISIS. 20 years of occupation were wholly unjustified.

The right move by the US would have been to kill osama the way they ultimately did, through intelligence gathering and a targeted strike.

The head of the organization responsible for the deaths of almost 3000 civilians was known to be present in Afghanistan, and the government refused extradite him.

That seems like a solid casus belli.

Not to me. The US was justified in killing Osama the way they did, through intelligence gathering and a targeted strike. Occupying the nation for 20 years was completely unjustified.

It isn’t from a legal point of view.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com