NationStates Jolt Archive

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq?
Would there have been another terrorist attack? Would they have revealed WMD's? Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now? Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all? Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
What are your thoughts?

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq?

People would still be calling Bush a Nazi

Would there have been another terrorist attack?

Probably not, I think most people forget that it's not our presence in Iraq that's keeping the terrorist at bay, it's the Intelligence agency of the USA, Britain, and several other countries.

Would they have revealed WMD's?

No.

Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now?

I would like to think so, Hell we almost had him in Tora Bora before we took the turn to Iraq.

Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all?

If we just stayed in Afghanistan, then I doubt they would've.

Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now? What are your thoughts?

I think they would've gone to Pakistan.

Yar, here be dragons.

Not invading Iraq goes against Bush's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot)genetic code, he was born to attack other countries, like a little rottweiler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rottweiler) he'l keep attacking everyone.

I have no idea.

It's hard to say what would have happened, but for one, the London and Madrid bombings wouldn't have happened. Sure, the various terrorist groups were plenty pissed off about having their camps shut down in Afghanistan, but overall, there was no blow to the world order, since ousting the Taliban was supported by Afghanistan's recognized government. Likewise, the bombers in those cities professed that it was the "illegitimate war in Iraq" that tipped them over the edge. The Iraq war created a lot more support in favor of terrorism than otherwise. Overall, the world might well have been a safer place.

I remember what things where like before the war. People where complaining that there wasn't enough security, and that our government should do something to prevent future terrorist attacks. Once everyone saw exactly what the government could do to prevent attacks they got angry. If there had been no war people would still be complaining about security.

If ‘we’ (more accurately, the US, UK and a few other states’ military forces; I’ve never been anywhere near Baghdad.) hadn’t invaded Iraq, then 'we' wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, and the world would be different.

Thus ends our trip down Hypothetical Lane.

If there had been no war people would still be complaining about security.

You mean, utterly unlike now, where everyone is universally agreed that the world is much, much safer? [/Dripping Sarcasm]

Saddam Hussein would be way funnier in Hot Shots Part Deux...

You mean, utterly unlike now, where everyone is universally agreed that the world is much, much safer? [/Dripping Sarcasm]No I mean nobody really cares about stopping al-Qaeda any more and they just want the privacy of their phone lines back.

If we never invaded Iraq, Bush might actually be one of the many "Forgotten" presidents remembered only as the 43rd president, who was some guy from Texas. But, instead he will be remembered either as an idiot (By most) a Nazi(By far, far left) or our Lord and Savior (That idiot leaning off the edge of insanity, and it's not LG). No matter how he's remembered, the war in Iraq was still a bad idea.

Lord and Savior (That idiot leaning off the edge of insanity, and it's not LG).To note LG is the god of NSG and any saying otherwise will result in a rabid Tasmanian Devil being placed in your trousers.

No I mean nobody really cares about stopping al-Qaeda any more and they just want the privacy of their phone lines back.

I think most people still want to stop al-Qaeda; we've just lost all faith in our respective governments to be able to do anything productive towards that particular end. Slight, but important, difference.

What if we never invaded Iraq? Then I suppose the allied forces would still be patrolling the northern and southern zones and enforcing the no fly zones perpetually - taking pot shots at each other every couple of weeks, I suppose the European UN leaders would still be accepting Saddam's bribes under the table to abuse the oil for food program, I suppose the Hussein boys and the baathist lackeys would still be terrorizing the Shiites and the Kurds indefinitely, and the Shiites and Kurds would be wondering why the West in general and the US in particular never fulfilled their promises to help them achieve independence or overthrowing Saddam (the promises first made by Bush Sr., during the first gulf war and then again under the Clinton administrations directive that the US would establish a goal of regime change in Iraq), but they would be wondering why those were empty promises still, that is, IF we had never invaded Iraq yet.

P.s., I forgot something else worth noting, I suppose if the US never invaded Iraq then Saddam would STILL be paying $US25,000 ($47,000) to the families of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people. (but everyone knows that Saddam had no connection to terrorists :rolleyes: )

To note LG is the god of NSG and any saying otherwise will result in a rabid Tasmanian Devil being placed in your trousers
He's more of a God-Emporer, and remember... He's on the OTHER edge of insanity.:D

He's more of a God-Emporer...
Sitting on his Golden Throne, presumably. Pwning Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle and Slaanesh from afar using only the strength of his Piechyc powers.
(@ all the other warhammer geeks out there)

Sitting on his Golden Throne, presumably.
It actually a throne made of stale pies:p

To note LG is the god of NSG and any saying otherwise will result in a rabid Tasmanian Devil being placed in your trousers.

He’s more of a God-Emporer, and remember... He’s on the OTHER edge of insanity.:D
Pfft, merely re-iterating one’s love for mud and tacos is hardly insane in my books.

This personality cult has got to stop! ;)

*burns effigy of LG*

Pfft, merely re-iterating one’s love for mud and tacos is hardly insane in my books.

This personality cult has got to stop! ;)

*burns effigy of LG*

Maybe they're LG's puppets, coming to take over NSG.
awwww, he only want's to make people laugh.

You know what would be a better question?

What if we just blew Saddam and his family up when they were out for a family pic-a-nic, and nobody claimed it?

How would Iraq have been then?

Pfft, merely re-iterating one’s love for mud and tacos is hardly insane in my books.

This personality cult has got to stop!

*burns effigy of LG*
HERETIC! Burn Chumbly! She dares defy our great Clown-Emporer!

*brings out stacks of pie-bolters*

*brings out stacks of pie-bolters*

*opens up the logic cannon*
So kid, you feelin lucky?
"prepare the fallacy bombers!"

*opens up the logic cannon*
So kid, you feelin lucky?
"prepare the fallacy bombers!"

"Calibrate the OMG teh Izlamicz iz gonna blow us all up!!!111!!!2!! lasers!"

This is one hell of a thread jack.

the ChumblyWumbly Heresy? Falling to the call of the...well LG is chaos...so the Order Gods?
Indeed. Falling to the call of Order is increasingly commen these days.:p

*brings out stacks of pie-bolters*

the ChumblyWumbly Heresy? Falling to the call of the...well LG is chaos...so the Order Gods?

"Calibrate the OMG teh Izlamicz iz gonna blow us all up!!!111!!!2!! lasers!"

This is one hell of a thread jack.

"Send in the paulbots! They will know fear!".
-Laser defences online-
"For the chumbywumbly seperatists!"
-M.A.D.B.S. online-
(mutually assured destruction by spellchecker)
LG will join the dark side>.>

Launch the "You Fail. Epic style." torpedoes!"

Launch the "You Fail. Epic style." torpedoes!"

-epic win bomb activated-
"duck and cover! fire in the hole!"

"Sir, the thread win is coming into range. Orders?"

"Fire when ready."

Wow. This thread has taken a strange turn.

"Sir, the thread win is coming into range. Orders?"

"Fire when ready."

*backwash from the thread win bomb, all but destroys the laser defences*
"Get an engineer down here!"
"Commander, our defences are down, our cannon is jammed, what are our orders?"
"Send in the Orange Army."

"But commander that's murder, they'l never survive the Chaos Gods wrath!"

"I gave an order, that means you follow it! Forward men and women of the Orange brigade! Give them a taste of citrous acid."

*backwash from the thread win bomb, all but destroys the laser defences*
"Get an engineer down here!"
"Commander, our defences are down, our cannon is jammed, what are our orders?"
"Send in the Orange Army."

"But commander that's murder, they'l never survive the Chaos Gods wrath!"

"I gave an order, that means you follow it! Forward men and women of the Orange brigade! Give them a taste of citrous acid."

Think I missed that in joke...

Think I missed that in joke...

What in joke?
All my mad citations can be worked out at face value.
If you mean the Orange army (referring to Red army), then a play on words with "a taste of citrous acid" and orange army.
I'm quite proud of that.

Would there have been another terrorist attack?

There have been several other terrorist attacks. There probably would have been fewer.

Would they have revealed WMD's?

No.

Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now?

Probably not.

Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all?

Probably. We did not do a very good job in Afghanistan.

Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?

No.

*enters thread munching taco*

*looks around*

*munches*


Carry on.

*leaves, munching taco*

What in joke?
All my mad citations can be worked out at face value.
If you mean the Orange army (referring to Red army), then a play on words with "a taste of citrous acid" and orange army.
I'm quite proud of that.

sorry, was a step too far for me.

*enters thread munching taco*

*looks around*

*munches*


Carry on.

*leaves, munching taco*

Notices defences crumbling about him, and lack of enemies.
"oh...........*shuffles feet in embaressed manner*.... uh hi Lunatic Goofballs, can i have a taco?"

Sitting on his Golden Throne, presumably. Pwning Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle and Slaanesh from afar using only the strength of his Piechyc powers.
(@ all the other warhammer geeks out there)
You forgot the only true gods... Gork and Mork!

As for the topic at hand - I believe that without the Iraq war the situation in Afghanistan would have drastically improved years ago.
But looking at the current "strategy" that NATO is using, I sincerely doubt that things are going to improve any time soon.

Instead of simply bombing everything that moves - maybe it is time to actually start rebuilding the country, establishing a working police force, furthering plans of road construction and thus giving the populace jobs that can support a family besides planting poppy.

Right now, what I would really like to see is a big deal of improving the Afghans situation in a winter that has hit the country, the harshest winter it has seen in the last 30 years.

Help the people not to freeze to death like almost 1,000 people already have instead of applying a policy that clearly doesn't work.

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq?
Would there have been another terrorist attack? Would they have revealed WMD's? Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now? Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all? Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
What are your thoughts?

IF we hadn't deposed a genocidal manic, then he may very well still continuing with his genocide agenda of killing the Kurds in Iraq

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq?
Would there have been another terrorist attack? Would they have revealed WMD's? Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now? Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all? Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are there is still a lot of pain in this subject, and it will be an uncommon task to maintain civility throughout.
:(

IF we hadn't deposed a genocidal manic, then he may very well still continuing with his genocide agenda of killing the Kurds in Iraq

Darfur is next then, of course.

IF we hadn't deposed a genocidal manic, then he may very well still continuing with his genocide agenda of killing the Kurds in Iraq
And how many innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by your "act of liberation" full of shock and awe, by the security firms à la Blackwater, by the unrest following the further destabilization of the whole region, the civil war, and the invitation to Al Quaida to "bring it on"?

10,000? 100,000? 150,000? More? I don't see how that was worth it. And I doubt those killed by their liberators would agree with you.

And that doesn't even include those 4,000+ U.S. and coalition troops.

Besides, the reason you guys went to war was not to secure the Kurds, as much as I like to see them and honestly anyone else safe.

Darfur is next then, of course.
For certain! :rolleyes:

For certain! :rolleyes:Word.

Only if Sudan had oil and their leader tried to kill Dubya's daddy.

Well, if REASONS are important, sure.

Darfur is next then, of course.

Only if Sudan had oil and their leader tried to kill Dubya's daddy.

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq?
Would there have been another terrorist attack? Would they have revealed WMD's? Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now? Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all? Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
What are your thoughts?

The Republicans would have won the mid term elections. President George W Bush's popularity would have been high.

The Republicans would have won the mid term elections. President George W Bush's popularity would have been high.Yes, because there's no litany of failure and national sabotage on his and his party's part to have influenced anyone's opinions ... their own merits ... or anything.

Indeed. Falling to the call of Order is increasingly commen these days.:p

Soap actually. Johnson&Johnson, Dettol, Lux and Aloe Vera. They are LG-bane.

Only if Sudan had oil and their leader tried to kill Dubya's daddy.

High-frikin-five.
Anyway. A lot of people seem to be posting "yes" and "no" to my questions, but very few elaborations are given, and hardly anyone's coming up with questions of their own.
The best posts so far involve worship of Lunatic Goofballs. I've decided I'm against LG's reign, simply because so many people seem to be for it.
Oh, and we can only hope the US (and possibly her allies...?) find some way to help Darfur, though, seeing as how long it took the President to even say the word genocide in relation to Darfur, we may be too late by then.

Yes, because there's no litany of failure and national sabotage on his and his party's part to have influenced anyone's opinions ... their own merits ... or anything.

Well, you gotta wonder if maybe after Iraq, Bush just thought: "Screw it. I'm the most hated man alive anyway," (except in smaller words) and decided to throw some more weight around, do whatever seemed best, not caring whether people would despise him or not.

Well, you gotta wonder if maybe after Iraq, Bush just thought: "Screw it. I'm the most hated man alive anyway," (except in smaller words) and decided to throw some more weight around, do whatever seemed best, not caring whether people would despise him or not.

Yup. Even some rightwing media sources i've seen are content to use the term "lame duck" with him on occasion, and having such support ....

Yes, because there's no litany of failure and national sabotage on his and his party's part to have influenced anyone's opinions ... their own merits ... or anything.

They're nowhere near as big. Iraq is, by far, the primary reason for Bush's low approval ratings. Were Iraq never invaded, it's highly likely that we would not have seen the kinds of reversals suffered by the Republicans back in 2006. That doesn't mean he would be a beloved or widely popular president, but I have no doubt his approval rating would be considerably higher than it is now and that the Republicans would not have lost anywhere near as much power as they have.

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq?
Would there have been another terrorist attack? Would they have revealed WMD's? Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now? Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all? Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
What are your thoughts?

Idea!

We could make that question into a book like the "If You Give A Mouse A Cookie" ones.

If Bush didn't invade Iraq...
then we would be in Iran.
If we were in Iran...
Then the same shit would be going on.

Note: I'm a religious conservative. Yes.

That's under the premise that the only huge mistake he was going to make is the most obvious one, which is certainly not the case. There's literally a fucking litany of things they did wrong that is clearly indicative of a dangerous and unconstitutional approach to this country that weren't involved with Iraq whatsoever, which is my point..

Yeah, but that one is the one people care about. I highly doubt most people know enough about anything else he's done to really care about it, whereas the Iraq war has been in the headlines for the past four, soon to be five, years with no real end in sight. They take a look at these headline issues and make their decisions accordingly; the other things, which have only recently surfaced, have made little comparative dent in his approval ratings.

They're nowhere near as big. Iraq is, by far, the primary reason for Bush's low approval ratings. Were Iraq never invaded, it's highly likely that we would not have seen the kinds of reversals suffered by the Republicans back in 2006. That doesn't mean he would be a beloved or widely popular president, but I have no doubt his approval rating would be considerably higher than it is now.
That's under the premise that the only huge mistake he was going to make is the most obvious one, which is certainly not the case. There's literally a fucking litany of things they did wrong that is clearly indicative of a dangerous and unconstitutional approach to this country that weren't involved with Iraq whatsoever, which is my point.
Those other problems would had better focus, simply, if it weren't for typical republican warmongering. It's an old efficient tactic to have a public enemy focus for them while they do the stabbing just behind it.

Yeah, but that one is the one people care about. I highly doubt most people know enough about anything else he's done to really care about it, whereas the Iraq war has been in the headlines for the past four, soon to be five, years with no real end in sight. They take a look at these headline issues and make their decisions accordingly; the other things, which have only recently surfaced, have made little comparative dent in his approval ratings.
There have been many other issues known about since pretty much when they started, for which a few posters here have known about (besides me).
It's not an issue of "surfacing", it's an issue of distraction and shifting peoples' attention.
That's why i'd said the above.
Why exactly would you say that the Iraq thing is the "one" that people care about? Sick of invading other countries for naught? Too much economic strain? Too much domestic strain? A nearly-completely fabricated approach to the invasion and occupation in the first place?
All the above?

IF we hadn't deposed a genocidal manic, then he may very well still continuing with his genocide agenda of killing the Kurds in Iraq

And that is our problem how?

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq?
Would there have been another terrorist attack? Would they have revealed WMD's? Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now? Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all? Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
What are your thoughts?

The question is what would we have done instead. Likely we would've invaded a different nation, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, and done pretty much the same there. As for the Taliban, I'm sure they would've resurfaced, and if we had entered nowhere else besides Afghanistan, with so much less of his assets going elsewhere, Osama would've either diverted more of them to fighting the American-Backed forces in Afghanistan (I'd say 65% chance) or diverted them against western countries (I'd say 35% chance, with a 60% internal chance of them being European countries). After all, he has sufficient personal interest in seeing the United States humiliated to promote his own ambitions that I'm sure he would've figured out another way to use his strength.

If We Hadn't Invaded Iraq

We might have been able to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia
I fucking wish.
This is how probable that is:
http://www.newshounds.us/image/ssBush_bandar.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_hand_holding.jpg
http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush_saudi.jpg

Actually, due captions, this one's better:
http://joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2005/04/gay_unions.jpg

What if we never invaded Iraq? Then I suppose the allied forces would still be patrolling the northern and southern zones and enforcing the no fly zones perpetually - taking pot shots at each other every couple of weeks, I suppose the European UN leaders would still be accepting Saddam's bribes under the table to abuse the oil for food program, I suppose the Hussein boys and the baathist lackeys would still be terrorizing the Shiites and the Kurds indefinitely, and the Shiites and Kurds would be wondering why the West in general and the US in particular never fulfilled their promises to help them achieve independence or overthrowing Saddam (the promises first made by Bush Sr., during the first gulf war and then again under the Clinton administrations directive that the US would establish a goal of regime change in Iraq), but they would be wondering why those were empty promises still, that is, IF we had never invaded Iraq yet.

P.s., I forgot something else worth noting, I suppose if the US never invaded Iraq then Saddam would STILL be paying $US25,000 ($47,000) to the families of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people. (but everyone knows that Saddam had no connection to terrorists :rolleyes: )

Not only did Saddam have no connections at all, in the least, with anyone who was at any time anything remotely like a terrorist, but what you forgot to mention is the Bush is possibly the most evil creature spawned in the history of the world, and Saddam was the good guy.

... oh wait, that doesn't sound right....

(p.s. Balderdash, my post is in support of yours)

Would there have been another terrorist attack?
Probably. Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc would all be potential targets. In fact, in the period between Afghanistan and Iraq there were a few attacks in Saudi Arabia, but their government managed to kill a lot of the planners and organisers. That's the bonus when these radical cells and your intelligence services are such good friends - it makes finding them much easier.

But if you're talking about attacks in Europe or the US, then I don't think it would be all that likely. Still possible of course, but the idea that invading Iraq somehow diverted AQ resources just doesn't grasp the decentralised nature of that network.

Would they have revealed WMD's?
No. In fact, maybe seeing Ghadafi benefitting from new openness might have prompted Saddam to try the same. Of course, one could also argue that it was the invasion which prompted Ghadafi to come clean in the first place.

It's been pretty much demonstrated that Iraq didn't have the spare resources to restart its WMD program to any significant degree and that with no-fly zones and foreign troops all over the place there was no real use for them anyways.

Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now?
Probably not. He's in Pakistan, and getting him would require a serious and targetted effort by western intelligence, the cooperation of the Pakistani ISI and the cooperation of local tribal chiefs. I don't see any of those impacted signficantly by Iraq.

Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all?
They would have tried, but NATO would have had considerably stronger forces to greet them. There could easily have been 10,000+ more US troops and 2,000 more British without stretching either country, and it would have been easier to call on more allied support because there wouldn't have been that huge rift between the US and Europe created by Iraq.

More troops would mean that there were smaller areas where the Taliban can take over, recruit tribesmen and farmers to their cause and more security against attacks on villages and government officials. All in all Afghanistan would be in a much better situation right now.

Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
Why would they? Saddam would have tried to hunt them down in the parts of Iraq that he still controlled.

Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia would have made better grounds for recruitment, training and securing finance.

Only if Sudan had oil and their leader tried to kill Dubya's daddy.

Right, because there were no valid reasons to invade Iraq, you are a very intuitive child.

Wait... there were legitimate (as in, no concerning either oil, or Bush Sr) reasons for a coalition (UN actually, but they're useless) invasion of Iraq, and you aren't a child....

Leaving you a seemingly unintuitive adult....

But hey, if the mantra "Bush is teh ebil" helps make you feel like a better, smarter person, then by all means, continue the delusion.

Right, because there were no valid reasons to invade Iraq...

True

Wait... there were legitimate (as in, no concerning either oil, or Bush Sr) reasons for a coalition (UN actually, but they're useless) invasion of Iraq, and you aren't a child....Refute the TWO Duelfer reports, the BND report, the Downing Street Memos and the Butler Report, and then discuss "legitimate" with the folks here, making point-by-point representation.

Leaving you a seemingly unintuitive adult....Don't go there. If you (and sadly we) are left with your "intuition", as you've represented so far, we would be sorely lacking in education of the situation. Which is pretty much what Bush-wankers want anyway.

Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia would have made better grounds for recruitment, training and securing finance.

of those, most likely it would be Pakistan, since Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia crack down pretty hard on islamists

of those, most likely it would be Pakistan, since Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia crack down pretty hard on islamists
The governments try (though for the latter it seems questionable at times), so you wouldn't do the training there. But recruitment and financing definitely.

There would probably be fewer people queuing up to join Islamic terrorist groups.

The governments try (though for the latter it seems questionable at times), so you wouldn't do the training there. But recruitment and financing definitely.

Saudi Arabia has a very delicate juggling act: its moslem enough for the Ulema, and friendly enough to sell oil to the US, sort of like a double marriage if you will, which they are experts at ;)

Refute the TWO Duelfer reports, the BND report, the Downing Street Memos and the Butler Report, and then discuss "legitimate" with the folks here, making point-by-point representation.
Don't go there. If you (and sadly we) are left with your "intuition", as you've represented so far, we would be sorely lacking in education of the situation. Which is pretty much what Bush-wankers want anyway.

The Duelfer Reports indicated Saddam was planning to make nukes. They also indicated that Saddam had a huge smuggling operation, which many high-powered members of foreign governments were in on.
Longer post later- I gotta go.

Would there have been another terrorist attack? Would they have revealed WMD's? Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now? Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all? Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
Maybe; no; yes; no; no.

Maybe; no; yes; no; no.

you have scored 100% on this quiz. good job!

Don't go there. If you (and sadly we) are left with your "intuition", as you've represented so far, we would be sorely lacking in education of the situation. Which is pretty much what Bush-wankers want anyway.

Let's avoid flaming. That goes for Der Teutoniker, too; posting a new thread after this one gets locked would involve a few more seconds of work than I care to do.

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq??

ohhh boy... the velvet gloves are coming off

Would there have been another terrorist attack?

Unlikely. None of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, they were almost exclusively Saudi Arabian. And Saudi Arabia continues to be a good, America-loving tyranny, so if there are going to be any more attacks, they are likely going to come from there.

Would they have revealed WMD's?

All of our gathered military intelligence AND information collected regarding Hussein's regime indicate that Hussein had ceased his WMD production in the early 90's.

Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now?

The hunt for Bin Laden has been a long, complex, frustrating game of cat and mouse, so its truly difficult to say. However, it is not entirely implausible to say that the ability to draw on military resources which are otherwise tied up in Iraq would make his capture considerably more likely.

Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all?

See my point above. We are trying to do with 66,000 troops what the Soviet Union couldn't do with 250,000 troops; pacify Afganistan. It's impossible to say for certain, but the added military resources certainly wouldn't have hurt.

Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?

Highly unlikely. Saddam Hussein was a secular despot whose ties to Sectarian Islamic terrorism were tenuous, at best. It is far more likely that they would have used Syria or Saudi Arabia as a new base of operations

What are your thoughts?

Lets be serious for a minute; if we really wanted to end human rights violations, we'd be in Africa. If we really wanted to stop rouge states from getting WMDs, we'd have invaded North Korea. If we really wanted to stop sectarian terrorism, we'd have attacked Iran, Syria, or Sauid Arabia. Iraq's links to any of these sins are much more tenuous compared to the places I have mentioned.

I don't think it was for oil; I think that is entirely too shallow a reason. I think that the Iraq war was a conscious attempt to flaunt the inevitable growth of the unopposed power of the executive branch; with the mindset being that they can do what they want, for whatever reason they want, with or without the consent of the people. The president is rapidly becoming less and less a stewart of the American people and more and more of an absolute ruler. And even more disturbing is the relative passiveness in which the democrats are supportive of these goals!

It's exactly the same parallels in the growth of the Roman Empire: once the Imperial authority was established, the goals of opposing political entities was not fixated on reducing Imperial authority, rather, on working within the system to make the Imperial Purple theirs. Old school Republicans in the Empire were a forgotten minority, dismissed as old-fashioned old geezers who failed to grasp that times have changed and that new power was needed.

And where do we go from here? Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not 100 years from now, but if these trends continue (and there's no reason to suspect that they won't) there will come a time when America is a Republic in name only, and that the office of president is every bit as absolute as the emperors of Rome. And the people, once freedom-loving, have become so used to the idea of living under the shadow of Authoritarianism, believe it to be the perfect system with no acceptable substitutes.

Remember, The Romans made no distinction between the Republic and the Empire; they believed themselves to be the same Republic of Rome till the day the empire disintegrated.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621800/posts

Here's the BND report.
The Downing Street Memos are the thoughts of a big dog at MI6 on Bush's motives- like me, he doesn't think Bush invaded Iraq just for the alleged WMDs, and he felt that we had already made up our minds to invade, and were just looking for justification. This is interesting, but not damning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm

There's a summary of the Butler Report.
My theory? Our government knew we needed oil and knew we needed to get it somehow. We weren't going to march into any random country, so we picked one that seemed slightly threatening and had an easy-to-hate ruler. Not much more threatening or hate-able than other, less oil-rich countries, but, in the eyes of our fearless leader, enough to justify an invasion.
If Rumsfeld hadn't failed so miserably as a strategist, this would not be such an unpopular war. Don't get me wrong, there would still be lots of protest. But Bush and his war wouldn't be half as despised as they are now.

Right, because there were no valid reasons to invade Iraq, you are a very intuitive child.

Wait... there were legitimate (as in, no concerning either oil, or Bush Sr) reasons for a coalition (UN actually, but they're useless) invasion of Iraq, and you aren't a child....

Leaving you a seemingly unintuitive adult....

But hey, if the mantra "Bush is teh ebil" helps make you feel like a better, smarter person, then by all means, continue the delusion.



You make me laugh.


Lets just establish a few things.
-Iraq had no WMDs. Everyone but apperantly America knew this.
-Saddam had no connection with Al Quada or 90% of the other terrorist organizations out there
-Iraq was one of the most stable countries in the Middle East (BECAUSE Saddam was such a monster)
-There are many, many other countries with far worse human rights violations and far more brutal dicators out there (many of them are allied with the US!!) according to The Red Cross

So, why did we invade Iraq? Because Saddam was a convienent, easy target, who was already the bad guy to the US, and who was in charge of an oil rich country. If our goal was really to remove a brutal dictator and free an oppressed people with the glorious gift of democracy at gunpoint, Iraq would not have been the prime target.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621800/posts

Here's the BND report.
The Downing Street Memos are the thoughts of a big dog at MI6 on Bush's motives- like me, he doesn't think Bush invaded Iraq just for the alleged WMDs, and he felt that we had already made up our minds to invade, and were just looking for justification. This is interesting, but not damning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm

There's a summary of the Butler Report.
My theory? Our government knew we needed oil and knew we needed to get it somehow. We weren't going to march into any random country, so we picked one that seemed slightly threatening and had an easy-to-hate ruler. Not much more threatening or hate-able than other, less oil-rich countries, but, in the eyes of our fearless leader, enough to justify an invasion.
If Rumsfeld hadn't failed so miserably as a strategist, this would not be such an unpopular war. Don't get me wrong, there would still be lots of protest. But Bush and his war wouldn't be half as despised as they are now.

the more diabolical theory is that hussein was going to get the oil producers to peg the price of oil to the euro instead of the dollar. he had to be removed before that could happen.

the sad thing is that bush has so destroyed the value of the dollar that it might happen anyway.

the more diabolical theory is that hussein was going to get the oil producers to peg the price of oil to the euro instead of the dollar. he had to be removed before that could happen.
It really wouldn't have been that big a deal. People like to talk about the end of the dollar and all, but Iraq's oil exports didn't make up anything like a significant portion of global currency trade.

There are a few countries which could seriously hurt the dollar, like China and Japan. Not because they're trading in dollars, but because they have so many locked up in safes, figuratively speaking. But places like Iraq or Venezuela are just insignificant.

It really wouldn't have been that big a deal. People like to talk about the end of the dollar and all, but Iraq's oil exports didn't make up anything like a significant portion of global currency trade.

There are a few countries which could seriously hurt the dollar, like China and Japan. Not because they're trading in dollars, but because they have so many locked up in safes, figuratively speaking. But places like Iraq or Venezuela are just insignificant.

he would have had to get all of opec to go along with him. with saudi arabia being kissy friends with the president it probably wasnt going to happen.

I personally think involvement is questionable, but if you apply it both ways (either had no involvement or quite a bit of involvement) and that everything has an element of truth, just the scale of which we (as those of little importance to governments) will never even guess.

My personal opinion is Saddam had his hand in it somewhere, stacked hs deck to make a name for himself in the history books (he's not a young man anymore) and failed. Ironically it would appear Bush had much the same ideals, but he has a "get out of jail free" card, and the invasion of Iraq's where the excuse is WMDs? Rubbish reason, but who needed much convincing to invade Iraq at the time?

Sudan will remain how it is, a broken pathetic country that no one cares to do anything about because of politics, North Korea are being smart by appearing to play by the rules, imo are still the genuine upstart threat.

On a global scale, the thing that scares me the most, Russia with it's newly acquired (or rather reattached) balls, and the pervasive silence coming out of China. China is using all the dirty tricks in the book to win the superpower wars, destroy the US economy with illegal blackmarkets they're finding it "impossible" to close down, which hasn't affected their own imports and exports funny enough. Now if you add that China and Russia are consistently the two countries that block or veto any western decision for action, yeah, China & Russia are sleeping together.

Now would be a smart time to find a new planet to live on.

Just what it sounds like. What if we had never invaded Iraq?
Would there have been another terrorist attack? Would they have revealed WMD's? Would we have caught Osama bin Laden by now? Would the Taliban have ever resurfaced at all? Would al-Qaeda be using Iraq as their new hideout now?
What are your thoughts?

Iraq was nothing. Nothing would have been different if we left it alone. Though things could very well be much better in Afghanistan if we were able to focus our strength there instead of being distracted in this stupid conflict in Iraq.

Do I get a prize?

you get a cookie!

you have scored 100% on this quiz. good job!
Do I get a prize?

Hang on a minute, but what proof is there that the 9/11 attacks were actually caused by the Iraqis in the first place? When the hell did the Taliban come into it? And what the hell does Osama Bin Laden actually have to do with anything???

Hang on a minute, but what proof is there that the 9/11 attacks were actually caused by the Iraqis in the first place? When the hell did the Taliban come into it? And what the hell does Osama Bin Laden actually have to do with anything???

you know the answers to those questions, eh?

A time-tripping cookie, even! Thank you so much :fluffle:

hey, you earned it. it was my pleasure to award you the prize.

you get a cookie!

A time-tripping cookie, even! Thank you so much :fluffle:

Hang on a minute, but what proof is there that the 9/11 attacks were actually caused by the Iraqis in the first place?

None whatsoever. Why do you ask?

When the hell did the Taliban come into it?

Come into what?

And what the hell does Osama Bin Laden actually have to do with anything???

Well, for one, forces that were once devoted to finding bin Laden are now in Iraq.
For two... actually, that's it. :D

the more diabolical theory is that hussein was going to get the oil producers to peg the price of oil to the euro instead of the dollar.

:O OH NO'S!!!!!

Hang on a minute, but what proof is there that the 9/11 attacks were actually caused by the Iraqis in the first place?None, give or take scant nothingness and a lot of republican and republican-esque bullshit.
Further:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/world/europe/19dossier.html?ref=world
Published: February 19, 2008

LONDON (AP) — An early version of a British dossier of prewar intelligence on Iraq did not include a claim about unconventional weapons that became crucial to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s case for war, the newly published document showed Monday.
...
Mr. Blair presented a final draft of the Joint Intelligence Committee dossier, “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction,” to Parliament on Sept. 24, 2002. It included the 45-minute claim.

On Monday, Edward Davey, an opposition Liberal Democrat lawmaker, said the Williams document was proof of the role government press officers had in drafting Iraq intelligence reports.

“A press official should never have been drafting a document that ended up being used as the justification for going to war,” he said. “There has to be a clear distinction between those that offer impartial intelligence advice and the government’s spin machine.”

A second document, on Iraq’s supposed concealment of unconventional weapons, which was published in February 2003 and became known as the “dodgy dossier,” was found to have repeated, sometimes verbatim, parts of articles from magazines and academic journals.

+
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL18589559
The much-disputed 45-minute threat was made in what came to be known as the "dodgy dossier", a document the BBC subsequently alleged was "sexed up" to make the case for war stronger.

A hunt for who might lie behind the BBC's reporting ensued, and a government weapons expert, David Kelly, later committed suicide, prompting a high-level inquiry into the affair.
...
As well as the claims about chemical and biological weapons -- which were false as no such weapons were found after the invasion of Iraq -- Williams' draft accused Iraq of having government-run "rape squads" to intimidate the population.

"Rape is a standard method of intimidation by the regime," his document says. "The government personnel card produced here (picture) identifies its holder, Aziz Saleh Ahmed, as a 'fighter in the popular army' whose activity is 'violation of women's honour: in other words, he is a professional rapist."

A parenthetical note adds: (any more on these people? This is the ghastly single image of oppression we must get into people's minds)." (Editing by Charles Dick)