Originally posted by johnsky
Originally posted by Ahabstar
But to play devil's advocate suppose the history was completely different. That Bush decided to err on the side of caution and Saddam had indeed been
pushing to redevelop his WMD program. The spotty intel states that he would have had bio and chemical and maybe nuclear by now.
That's a pretty blind way of looking at it.
That's pretty illogical man. When it comes to peoples lives, you make DAMN sure you KNOW what is going on. The last thing you do is go in with guns
blazing and search for your evidence afterwards.
You should know better.
To err on the side of caution in what I asked would have meant to not have engaged Iraq despite the intel that was presented from multiple agencies
and nations on the grounds that they might
have been wrong.
The absolute why's of engaging Iraq go beyond possible WMD. No, we were not told the full reasons of why Iraq. And if people limit their suggestions
to money and Iraqi oil then they won't debate you hard on that. Nor will they openly admit the other stronger reason because the people would not
have gone for it.
I clearly see it because I studied what happened and can deduce what mostlikely would have happened had we not gone into Iraq. Most of what I can tell
you is all here on ATS. One thing I won't mention because I haven't seen it here and would fall under national security protocals in times of
Here goes. Had we limited the WOT to just Afganistan then Saddam would have made a grab for Saudi Arabia. The Saud family only remains in power so
long as they can hold Mecca and the other Islamic Holy Sites. If the Saud family losses that power which is backed by the US then we no longer have
any voice in OPEC pricing and production (not that we have much of a voice now).
Saddam's Iraq had the definate military might to take every country in the region with the exception of Iran. Iran does support Al Qaida by haboring
within borders. Iran also opposes Israel which the US must support. Thus no Iran-US cooperation to keep Iraq in check. Turkey did not want to be
involved with the US directly but made passive agreements.
Now with Saddam taking Suadi Arabia, Kuwait, (Syria, Palenstine and Jordan--could either join them or be taken) there would be absolutely no way in
the world that Israel could have been told, begged or bribed to stay out of it as was done in both the Gulf War and the current Iraq war. And to keep
Iran out of it Saddam would give or take Israel for Iran.
That is just the political aspect of it. Adding in the religious factor of the factions only complicates the matter as somewhat fair divisions between
the traditional family tribes and sects would have to happen to keep things from breaking down. But with Israel in the mix other countries outsid of
the Middle East would become involved, thus truely WWIII.
The causality and death tolls today would be laughable compared to what that would have been. Saddam only had to keep Iran appeased or convinced that
the US would come in and get Iran. Since Iran would not allow airspace to the US for the WOT it is doubtful that they would have allowed it to attack
Other option, engage Iran. The option was there for all to see in the Axis of Evil speeches. Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Our case for hitting Iran was
actually stronger than for Iraq. But the risks and time until relative control was less with Iraq. Remember the NIE reports states high confidence
that the Iranian nuclear weapon program halted in fall of 2003. Iraq war started March 2003. NIE doesn't state 100% positive.
Now for the first up to six months of Iraq, Iran kept their heads down and mouths mostly quiet while they still worked on warhead development
according to NIE. Now as a kid I would sometimes have to halt building a model car when I didn't have enough model glue to finish assembly.
The absolute what if is what if we did nothing and hoped that campaign in Afganistan was enough. That Al Qadia did not retreat into Iran and the
mountians of Pakistan where we didn't have permission to follow. No wait, they did do that. And Saddam started talking smack when Bush started poking
him with the rhetoric stick. And wasn't there that threat of Al Qadia to hit Mecca?
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things I'd love to give W a good old fashioned ass kicking about. Pounding the propaganda drum on what was
the best intel at the time isn't one of them. But ultimately making the descision to enter Iraq at the right time and removing Saddam was in the best
intrests of the world.
But if the Saud family had been overthrown/Mecca hit and you think we would be paying less that $5/gal for gas in the US now....well, you should know