It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Would Happen IF...?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
First off, let me start off by saying I am not some peacenik zealot, I am not some dyed in the wool liberal democrat. I am an ardent supporter of the military. I hunt, I fish and I shoot, among many other things. I am not a Bush hater zealot (I didn't like Bush 2, but I don't believe he's the cause of all evil on Earth). I'm not anti-war. And lastly, and likely most importantly, I'm not some immature dumb kid; I'm a college educated 50'ish guy who has a good day job and raises cattle to boot. However, given all that, I have a serious question...

What would have happened if we never went to Iraq? What would have happened if we never went to Afghanistan? Would the World be different? What would have happened? NOTHING; nothing would have happened! There would still be terrorism, oil would still be $40+/- per barrel. The World would still be the same as it is today.

What would have happened if we never went to the Balkans? Nothing; it changed absolutely nothing.

What would have happened if we never went to Viet Nam? Never fired even a single shot? NOTHING; the end result would be the same exact result we have today.

What would happen, right now, if we just parked the tanks, laid down the arms and walked away from the DMZ in South Korea? South Korea is more than capable of defending itself, and NK can't even feed it's own people let alone invade another nation. In fact, I would argue the first thing which would happen would be the NK people would kill their despot leader and integrate with the south. By just being there guarding the border we're actually preventing that from happening. The answer? NOTHING, nothing would happen.

What would happen, right now, if we just loaded up our gear in Iraq and Afghanistan and said "SEE-YA!! Wouldn't want to be ya! So long!"? NOTHING, absolutely not one cotton-pickin ' thing would happen! There would still be terrorism (albeit likely less of it by virtue of their own inability to cohabitate with each other peacefully). Fine, so be it. There still wouldn't be freedom; their culture will never let them be truly free anyway. So WHAT?

What would happen if Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were still walking the planet? Nothing. Not a damn thing! As it stands now they've already been replaced by 10x as many bad guys who are 10x worse than they ever were...because of our own actions.

What would happen?

NOTHING!

So here's my simple question...

WHY???


edit on 3/4/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
War = money.

America would be poorer. Or should I say those who run businesses which benefit from war would be poorer. Less rich.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
which iraq war are you talking about?
saddam would still control kuwait if not for the first war.
oil prices tumbled after the second, iraq was under embargo, only russia was getting their oil.
with saddam still alive, its unlikely daesh would have any ground however.

the balkans would still be at war, the ethnic cleansing would probably have finished but, at the cost of how many lives?

if america did not enter vietnam, their civil war would have escalated to cambodian levels of genocide.

if south korea laid down arms at the DMZ, north korea would more than likely attack, again.
america and the UN have nobody posted their, currently.
the idea that north koreans would attempt to overthrow their leader is laughable.

afghanistan, nobody knows, pretty much all land taken by the UN has fallen back to the taliban, while a weak government tries to rule.

with bin laden still alive, likelihood would be more terror attacks on the west.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Does it really matter? They would have found other ways to be involved in whatever diabolical schemes they could. Every single war that plays out on this planet involves the same warmongers looking to make profit, from any side of the conflict, so they really do not care and it would not make one iota difference. For the record, Bush Sr. has had a hand in every conflict since he graduated from Yale and before that his father Prescott.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You are right, nothing would happen, as it is supposed be.

We force the hand of destiny while bending our knee to fate.

We are in a rushed poker game we bought into.
We could save our chips for the next hand, or not, but we play....and play and play.

Then when we inevitably fail it is a surprise. We will stall, regroup, pick a new hand and play again after we buy in yet again.


edit on 3 4 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

which iraq war are you talking about?


Which one? Pick one, doesn't matter.


saddam would still control kuwait if not for the first war.


So what? What would it matter?


oil prices tumbled after the second, iraq was under embargo, only russia was getting their oil.


But not as a direct result of the war.


with saddam still alive, its unlikely daesh would have any ground however.


Further to my earlier point, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh (and 50 others like them have come on the scene since).


the balkans would still be at war, the ethnic cleansing would probably have finished but, at the cost of how many lives?


Okay, so the largely political (and just as deadly) conflict just moved a little to the east into the Ukrainian region. The name of the game is still the same; fractures along political/cultural lines...the wars continue.


if america did not enter vietnam, their civil war would have escalated to cambodian levels of genocide.


First of all, you don't know this for fact. Second, our involvement had virtually zero impact on the ultimate outcome of genocide in Cambodia. At most, all it did was delay it a few years.



if south korea laid down arms at the DMZ, north korea would more than likely attack, again.
america and the UN have nobody posted their, currently.
the idea that north koreans would attempt to overthrow their leader is laughable.


Wait, what??? There are nearly 30,000 US troops stationed in SK. Their sole reason for being there is to (in theory) defend the DMZ.

Secondly, hogwash; the only thing keeping North Koreans INSIDE North Korea is the DMZ to the south and the Chinese to the north. With no containment on the south the North Korean government would have absolutely no way to control where their people went. They would be left no choice but to turn their troops on their own people, or move the DMZ. Their military machine is completely incapable of invading the south. Their military would be decimated and demoralized beyond the government's ability to control them within weeks (if not days).

This isn't 1953 anymore. The population of SK is 40x that of NK. If NK armed every man, woman and child, which not only could they not afford to do, not to mention how suicidal it would be, they would still be outnumbered by an order of magnitude.



afghanistan, nobody knows, pretty much all land taken by the UN has fallen back to the taliban, while a weak government tries to rule.


Again, further to my initial point.


with bin laden still alive, likelihood would be more terror attacks on the west.


Bin laden had been marginalized long ago. He might as well have been dead (if he debatably wasn't already anyway). All but his closest followers had become disillusioned by his absence and with his methods. These people wanted violence pure and simple; he wasn't bringing enough of it and what he did wasn't fast enough.
edit on 3/4/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
War = money.

America would be poorer. Or should I say those who run businesses which benefit from war would be poorer. Less rich.


Okay, but now the entire country is 'poorer' owing to the crushing federal debt these wars have created. So the businesses benefitted as the government wildly spent money it didn't have...heaping all that monumental debt onto the backs of the American taxpayer.

As it stands right now the national debt represents a $1.1 MILLION dollar liability for every single tax paying American...every single one (and don't even get me started on the free loaders!)

ETA...Make no mistake, I agree with your post, but it lays bare the true framework of what is going on here. Many of these corporations lobby for government dollars to buy their products, they pay off the politicians and military brass to stir the pot in the international arena, they feed the media hysteria for public consumption...and BOOM, war! Then that same government turns around and recruits its own citizens to take up arms with the very tools these corporations have lobbied to create.
edit on 3/4/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I don't know what would happen. I don't think "nothing" would happen, because the vacuum is filling with "something". Whether that something would be adverse to the U.S., I don't know and can't guess.

What I do absolutely agree with (as I perceive from your post) is that the U.S. should move toward a more isolationist policy, except where trade and trade agreements are concerned. I think most countries might benefit from an internal policy of taking care of their own FIRST, and foreign policies second. There may be some, however I am not aware of any country that doesn't have poor, needy, starving citizens that can not help themselves. There may be some, however I am not aware of any country that doesn't need to rebuild its infrastructure in lieu of sending billions of [insert currency] abroad.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


What I do absolutely agree with (as I perceive from your post) is that the U.S. should move toward a more isolationist policy, except where trade and trade agreements are concerned. I think most countries might benefit from an internal policy of taking care of their own FIRST, and foreign policies second. There may be some, however I am not aware of any country that doesn't have poor, needy, starving citizens that can not help themselves. There may be some, however I am not aware of any country that doesn't need to rebuild its infrastructure in lieu of sending billions of [insert currency] abroad.


Yes, this is one of my points. That, and the staggering financial angle associated with it.

The net result of all of these conflicts, more than anything else, is additional burden on Americans themselves.

If we would have taken all those Trillions upon trillions of dollars and turned them towards making cars, or widgets (whatever) for export, or even infrastructure here, we would be far less dependent on foreign imports and have a much more robust manufacturing base as well.



posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I couldn't agree with you more. There are those that see such discussions as being hard-hearted toward the rest of the world. The U.S. began as a melting pot, and so remains. However, I have a problem with the idea of the U.S. being the defacto world police. If I were King, I would have to say, "I'm sorry. I'm sure you have people to tend to. We do also. I hope we can continue to meet and forge a mutually-beneficial world policy that we can live with without warfare."




top topics



 
5

log in

join