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.

 

Iraq Invasion: Where would the U.S. be if it never happened?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Everyone is worried about how oil prices are climbing, the American economy is stagnating, and the possibility of future expansion of conflict in the Middle East with Iran. But, what if we just ignored Saddam Hussein and never went into Iraq? Where would the U.S. be now?

My opinion is that many people have forgotten what Iran did in previous decades under Carter/Reagan. Am I the only one who remembers Ronald Reagan blowing up Iranian Warships because they were attempting to blockade the Persian Gulf? Don't you people remember that BEFORE Iraq's second pummelling, Saddam Hussein was trying to "make nice" with Iran? If the United States had waited to invade Iraq, we'd be taking on TWO major Mid-East powers with ambitions for expansion. Terrorism would be coming to America's doorstep more frequently........IMO!

People these days need to go back 20-30 years and take a look at the world situation. Take a look at where things seemed to be going in the Middle East.

I think the U.S. is being overly "demonized". As an American, I'm glad it was the U.S. leading a coalition of nations in the decision to invade Iraq rather than.......hell, I can't think of any other nation that would have had the courage or firepower to take such a task on.

And now, we are helping Iraq with a fledgling Democracy, and I'm sure the forces we have over there currently are somewhat deterring Iran's maniac from being more vociferous in his rhetoric. Afghanistan would be a stronghold for Al Qaeda, and I'm sure they'd be strapping bombs to maniacs here in America rather than in their own turf.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Where do you think we'd be?

[edit on 10-1-2008 by CreeWolf]




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
How on earth, do you equate Iran and Iraq meaning MORE terrorism coming to the US?
Being , to date America has never been attacked by an Iraqi or an Iranian?

Iran's relations to the west were warming, before 2001, and that 'stupid' axis speach.
Iraq WASNT building weapons, he was growing old and his ruthless rule was diminishing.

These two countries getting together does not have to mean more terrorism.
You sir, are another helpless propoganda victim.

if we had of left Saddam, I think he'd still be in power today.
You'd never hear from him.
People would live, and Iraq would prosper like it did.
'' it had one of the best medical + educational aspects of the ME you know ''
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's would be enjoying there families company right this second.. instead of being DEAD!

As for Iran?

Well, maybe such a firebrand rhetorical leader wouldnt be able to so easily drum up so much anti-western mentality...

Imagine if we had of invested WITH THE GOVERNMENTS in their oilfields, assited their societies and showed them the fruits of capitalism?.......

... imagine if we had of talked... instead of dropped bombs...
... your immediate answer is MORE terrorism?.... society is definately in trouble.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
So, why did Iran attempt to blockade the Persian Gulf? I think less people have died with U.S. intervention than they would have without. Both nations (Iraq, Iran) wanted/want to take over the Middle East. Iraq was the first to make some progress with Saddam's ambitions by actually invading Kuwait and poising his troops along the Saudi border before "U.S. intervention". Was he just doing that in case the Saudi's invaded? How many Iraqi citizens had died as a result of the Iraq/Iran War? And why does Iran need nuclear power since it sits on so much oil? Do they want to go "green"?

We DID invest with these nations. Thats what gave Saddam so much power. And where did Iran get its F-14s? I guess you got me on that one. I believe it was Carter who gave them those and helped depose the Shah.....Carter was an idiot. He should have known better that a theocracy would be more dangerous eventually.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Well, Iraq was given the nod for Kuwaitt for starters
AS far as im concerned, the only nation who WANTS to take over the Middle east is the US.
Ie, Iraq - Iraq war ( siding with Iraq )
And now invading Iraq, Afghanistan and ey'ing of Iran.. it seems we are the ones who want to, and are activley taking over.
There's no evidence of troops massing on the saudi border, in facts its been rumoured to have been a lie.
Iraq and Iran both lost TREMENDOUS amounts of people.... why single out Iran?
You do know the US pushed very hard behind the Iraqis yeah?

Iraq would of sorted itself out, it was becoming westernised, and Saddam did an excellent job in thel ast 2 decades in limiting the 'sunni/#te' divide, which we have just gone and torn back open.

Iran too was warming to the west...

any number of things could of happened from 2001 to today which could make it a drastically worse sitation.

but as far as I see.....

'' someone ( and we're yet to see definitive evidence ) attacked the US.. and the US in turn invaded a soveriegn nation based on lies ''

to me, that says... we're the problem in the area, and that we've made the situation as bad as it could possibly be.

I think we did it on purpose to enflame terrorism, so that when family members who've lost kids, wives and relatives attacks us in the name of revenge, we can chant '' SEE TERRORISM ''

and continue the take over.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
To begin with the idea of an alliance between Iran and Iraq is just not plausible. Iran is a Shia theocracy whilst Ba'athist Iraq was a Sunni dominated secular dictatorship. Completely incompatible. Further more, you point to the death toll in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's, unsurprisingly the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people has resulted a deep seated hatred between the two countries. If America had not invaded Iraq there is no conceivable way in which Iraq and Iran could have combined forces to dominate the rest of Middle East.

Before the axis of evil speech Iran was slowly beginning to open up, despite the invasion of Afghanistan. before the invasion, probably due to the imminent threat of regime termination, Iraq was being the most open to weapons inspections it had been in years. even with the effects of sanctions it is unlikely that as many people would have died in the last 5 years as have due to the invasion, the latest figure is 151,000 news.bbc.co.uk... .

Who are the 'they' that would be strapping bombs to themselves and killing americans in the continental US? The vast majority of Muslims with America are well educated moderates, a significant number are political refugees. There simply are not the deprivated conservative muslim communities that can sometimes foster extremists in America, as opposed to Europe.

As for Uranium enrichment, Iranian facilities can only raise it to 4% u235 - needed for power. Weapons grade is 90%+, there just is not that kind of technology or expertise available to Iran. By minimising domestic use of fossil fuels Iran can maximise its export capability - fossil fuels being one of the very few commodities Iran can export. Further more, going green is not just a matter of resource security, its also about countering global climate change.

Finally, the idea that even if Iran and Iraq did attack. Their combined military forces would be devastated by a counter attack, which would be UN sanctioned. The full might of American air superiority would annihilate any kind of ground attack. Further more, there would not be the problems of a domestic, urban insurgency. As for F-14s, due to the arms embargoes against Iran they have to cannibalise existing planes for spare parts.

So where would America be without an invasion? It would have the financial resources for the most formidable boarder security in the world. Which would be far more effective at stopping another 9/11 than inciting the wrath of the muslim world. It would also be able to form better diplomatic and intelligence links. It would have the troop capacity to lock down Afghanistan, stop the Taliban resurgence, pay for a huge improvement of Afghan infrastructure and develop its economy. Who knows may be even find Osama bin Laden. The war in Iraq has been a testament to the inherent flaws of the liddism paradigm and really does demonstrate why we must move towards sustainable security.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by tarichar]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
IF the USA had foregone the Iraq Invasion...


the USA & coalition with or without NATO & the UN would still be
embroiled in Afghanistan & possibly Checnya, and other territories...

with the resurgance of Taliban & a reconstituted A-Q in western
Pakistan we'd most likely have twisted Musharref's arm to allow
cross border pursuits of both Taliban & AQ & whatever warlords'
who alltogether are amassing forces to confront the Pakistani armies...
and seize Pakistan for the militant Muslim future caliphate.


Iraq was/is a diasterious detour



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
If we hadn't diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan (you know, the one where we were actually attacked, not the Oil Crusade
) to go into Iraq, lets see.

Well, OBL and his crew would be dead or in US custody.

The US would not be seen as an aggressive imperialist power by most of the Muslim world, but as a nation defending itself.

Aghanistan would be a lot calmer, because we would have had the resources in theatre to finish off the Taleban, instead of using them to invade a country that had not attacked us...

Do I need to go on?

I believe the Iraq invasion will be regarded as the greatest foreign policy error in US history. The people that supported it should hang their heads in shame (or perhaps be hung as traitors, at least the ones that started it), because it was a betrayal of everything the US is supposed to stand for.

[edit on 1/12/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
iraq had free medical care , social welfare , social heath care ,
they had free schools free food in schools

they wiped polio from their country in 7 years , til this day no other nation has succseeded in this in same time span if at all,

comparing atrocities the us should have stayed quiet ,

who knows mabye the u.s would have had the pleasur of tasting some of thous fruits instead of blowing the budget.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
iraq had free medical care , social welfare , social heath care ,
they had free schools free food in schools

they wiped polio from their country in 7 years , til this day no other nation has succseeded in this in same time span if at all,

comparing atrocities the us should have stayed quiet ,

who knows mabye the u.s would have had the pleasur of tasting some of thous fruits instead of blowing the budget.


And Saddam lived in a palace of gold, his sons had the power to torture their own soccer team, people were tossed off buildings, fed to woodchippers, buried in mass graves by the thousands.

True, gas was about a dime a gallon. Too bad that a lawyer made about $10 a month.

And I don't we (the US) has had too many polio epidemics in the recent past.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
yeah saddam made quite a good ammount of cash from private oil fields

i dont see hows that diffrent from bush ,

look at what your own goverment does to its citicents before even aguing about the state iraq was in ,

i hear of things in the us as following :

detiriorated school system
unemployment
poverty
personal rights take away from you
facist like police state measures
fraudulent voteing systems
forced vaccination
prisotorial system not functioning
the list could go on about a corrupt goverment gone hey wire


[edit on 12-1-2008 by zerbot565]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Well, apparently, if you ask the right wingers, it's only by giving up our freedom here at home that we can shove it down other people's throats at gunpoint.

And besides, all those lazy sick children and starving people need to get some gumption and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

All those lazy sick uneducated children need to find jobs - there is plenty of money to be made by prostituting themselves to fat rich Republicans, for example


(Note: the above is sarcasm, in case you weren't sure
)



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
yeah saddam made quite a good ammount of cash from private oil fields

i dont see hows that diffrent from bush ,

look at what your own goverment does to its citicents before even aguing about the state iraq was in ,

i hear of things in the us as following :

detiriorated school system
unemployment
poverty
personal rights take away from you
facist like police state measures
fraudulent voteing systems
forced vaccination
prisotorial system not functioning
the list could go on about a corrupt goverment gone hey wire
[edit on 12-1-2008 by zerbot565]


Yep, the US really does suck so badly. (Borrowing xmotex's sarcasm). You know, you didn't address the woodchipper that Saddam was tossing people into. And I know I might be having memory problems, but we haven't gassed anyone lately, either. (Well, 'cept in prison!).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but regardless of what everyone says, Iraq wasn't the paradise that everyone wants you to believe. Yes, I understand things are still messed up, but in a different way now. We are trying to get things back on track, tho.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Your right it would be stupid to try and romanticise Iraq. However, you have to take into consideration the current levels of sectarian violence and the general collapse of state infrastructure in comparison. You have literally millions of IDPs and refugees, no drinking water, no electricity, huge unemployment and daily terrorist attacks. 151, 000* killed directly by the invasion and occupation, thousands more due to mitigating factors. Whats more 4,000 American service men and women would be alive, thousands others would not be severely disabled.

So if America had invaded would Iraq still be ruled by a murderous dictator? yes, undeniable. has the invasion improved the situation? not for the last 5 years, or the short term future. has the regime termination been worth it in terms of human cost, both Iraqi and American. Personally, I would say no.

To take the discussion in a different direction, Iraq has been the best recruiting propaganda Al Qaida could have hoped for. Baghdad is the historical home of the Abassid caliphate, despite the secular nature of Saddam's iraq the American invasion was seen as part of a "crusader" attack on Islam and played right into the hands of extremists.

Iraq has now become a training ground for terrorists who then take their experiences to implement new tactics in other areas of the world. As we all know there is no way America can be defeated in open war fare but it is the meat grinder of urban conflict that renders air supremacy and much American technology useless that will turn domestic opinion against US intervention, as in Vietnam. Road side bombs were a phenomenon that started in Iraq and have subsequently spread, also look to the Taliban and Al Qaida's move from targeting the US & Coalition troops in Afghanistan in the open to more urban attacks.


*latest study, admittedly more conservative than others



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
couldent find anything better so hasty but in regard of your woodchipper remark

again us atrocities alone should have you barking at other trees

www.unitedstatesgovernment.net...



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I would have thought the US would be at least $500 billion USD better off...Imagine what could be done with that money in the areas of education, healthcare, and not to mention a meaningful tax cut to those in the mid to lower tax brackets...

No brainer as far as I'm concerned...

Peace



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
And Saddam lived in a palace of gold, his sons had the power to torture their own soccer team, people were tossed off buildings, fed to woodchippers, buried in mass graves by the thousands.

How much of this is really true?

I know from friends, over in Iraq, that the mass graves bit is real. (I have a friend who worked on that detail, investigating Saddam's mass graves. He has no reason to lie.) Also, the use of poison gas is undoubtedly true.

But what about the sociopathic stuff that Saddam and his followers were accused of: feeding people to wood chippers and plastic shredders. Torturing soccer players. Could this be bad intelligence? Perhaps it is 100% fabricated.

To me, some of this seems like propaganda and disinformation, in the same vein as WMD. Bush has already demonstrated his willingness to distort facts on this.

#

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if, after we were sure that Iraq was not involved in the Sept 11th attacks, we had turned to Saddam and said: "We're dropping the sanctions. You are now our very best friend in this region."

If that had happened, we could have kept Saddam on a short leash, influenced his domestic policy, and insisted on rhetorical moderation. Perhaps we could have had joint military exercises, established a friendly military base in Iraq to help stabilize the region, and support the more legitimate war in Afghanistan.

And before you think this improbable, consider that Saddam Hussein was once a close ally to the USA, a friend of Bob Dole, and well respected in the USA as an intelligent and stable leader. In 1983, he was made an “honorary citizen of Detroit” for his support of Michigan charities. See here and various other places on the web.

Amazing how perceptions change over time, isn't it?

#

Alas, given the bad blood between Bush senior and Saddam -- that was impossible. It all goes back to the election of 2000. This thread might be renamed: "What if Gore had been elected USA President instead of Bush?"



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
You have to be a liar or an idiot to say Iraq is better now than it was pre war!And as for this we broke it we should fix it rubbish,get out now you didnt have the right to break it in the 1st place!
Woodchipper story was bogus as was some of the more sensational ones that certain Kurds said to their paid american masters before being given big pay cheques and goverment jobs in the new Iraq

Sure chemical alli did as his name sugests and killed many inocent civilians,he should have used White phosphorus and then High Explosives to shake and bake them as gods army did in Falluja.

Yes there are also mass graves,a result of a long and brutal war with Iran where the Shia from Basara where given weapons from their Persian brothers.

I expect their are plenty of new mass graves with the Iraqi army desicimated with Daisy Cutter bombs early on in the campaign.Plenty more must be gathering dust under the rubbles of buldings flattened and others withering away in fields with the agony of death written across their faces scorched under the searing sun.

I remeber seeing a video of Bagdad just before the war,and it looked like any other busy city in the world.People drinking on the pavement near bars and cafes,dancing,haveing fun.Then within a short time every thing changed.

Where would the U.S be if they never invaded Iraq?
For one thing they could have stayed in Afganistan and looked for Al-Qaeda.Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11,it has been a disaster and has backfired on us all.
By staying in Afganistan and actualy trying to find these people they would have a lot more support world wide.
The world has turned against America because of this corrupt war,and its a shame because anyone in America who didnt vote for Bush the 2nd time doenst deserve to be tarnshed with this reputation


[edit on 13-1-2008 by noangels]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Should I make a thread, "Iran Invasion: Where would the U.S. be if it never happened?" in future?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheoOne
 


Large areas of Iran may get turned into temporary parking, but I cant imagine any way America could muster the political will or troops to invade Iran. Even if they did, how the hell would they occupy it?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tarichar
 


My guess would be that they wouldn't need to occupy it, but probably nuke out the whole country.

(How come they haven't nuked Iraq yet, anyway?)




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join