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.

 

If Iraq had never been invaded, there may have been a revolution there now overthrowing Saddam.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Wasn't sure where to post this. The title was shamelessly ripped from a Reddit thread that I thought was an interesting take on things. There is no supporting story, just some food for thought. We can't change what happened but imagine for a minute if the current chaos in the middle east had extended to the Iraq we knew. Could lives have been spared on both sides for a war that never had reasonable grounds to exist in the first place. We all know the WMD fantasy was never proven. I realize it is dangerous to play what if, but hypothetically this poses a very interesting question I think.

Mods, please kill this if you feel it is inappropriate given no link to source.

brill




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Possibly there may have been an uprising in Iraq. Who knows, but what I do know is that is the way it should have been done.

The people would have risen against SH in their own time, but now the US is just as hated as he was.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
It's also possible that had we not invaded Iraq and forced democracy upon them, then all these new uprisings wouldn't be happening now. Perhaps it was our invasion that was the catalyst of sorts.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The root of all the rebellion and problems in the middle east at this time are a result of a weak dollar. The dollar is weak in part due to the wars. If we had not invaded Iraq, there is a chance the dollar would not be in the trouble it is in now. So, in turn there would not be instability in the middle east.

On the other hand, if we had not invaded Iraq, I am sure the US would have invaded some other country, so the effect would have been the same, and you may be right. But if Saddam was still in power and he had to deal with protest like they had in Egypt, he would have just gassed the whole lot of them and smiled.
edit on 22-2-2011 by EssenceOfSilence because: Changed a we to a US



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Speculating rarely brings us anywhere good. The US never should have been in Iraq, there was never any reason to be there. I wonder how many innocent lives have been lost because of the US invasion in comparison to Saddam's reign, I'm pretty sure the numbers are close enough.

And for a country that promotes freedom, they seem to be quite good at dictating how other countries should be run and having them bend to their will using true terrorism to bring them to their knees. They've done this time and time again either through Military threats, Political Allegiances, with economical and trade sanctions or embargoes.

The US is a Cancer.
edit on 22-2-2011 by Cocasinpry because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EssenceOfSilence
The root of all the rebellion and problems in the middle east at this time are a result of a weak dollar. The dollar is weak in part due to the wars. If we had not invaded Iraq, there is a chance the dollar would not be in the trouble it is in now. So, in turn there would not be instability in the middle east.

On the other hand, if we had not invaded Iraq, I am sure the US would have invaded some other country, so the effect would have been the same, and you may be right. But if Saddam was still in power and he had to deal with protest like they had in Egypt, he would have just gassed the whole lot of them and smiled.
edit on 22-2-2011 by EssenceOfSilence because: Changed a we to a US


On the contrary we invaded Iraq to try and save the dollar. Iraq was going to trade oil in euro's and if that occured then the dollar as the world reserve currency could have been in trouble. As it turns out it appears to have just put it off for a while as Obama is signed up for the new world currency club and trading oil in SDR's it appears.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans

Originally posted by EssenceOfSilence
The root of all the rebellion and problems in the middle east at this time are a result of a weak dollar. The dollar is weak in part due to the wars. If we had not invaded Iraq, there is a chance the dollar would not be in the trouble it is in now. So, in turn there would not be instability in the middle east.

On the other hand, if we had not invaded Iraq, I am sure the US would have invaded some other country, so the effect would have been the same, and you may be right. But if Saddam was still in power and he had to deal with protest like they had in Egypt, he would have just gassed the whole lot of them and smiled.
edit on 22-2-2011 by EssenceOfSilence because: Changed a we to a US


On the contrary we invaded Iraq to try and save the dollar. Iraq was going to trade oil in euro's and if that occured then the dollar as the world reserve currency could have been in trouble. As it turns out it appears to have just put it off for a while as Obama is signed up for the new world currency club and trading oil in SDR's it appears.


I don't think the plan has ever been to save the dollar, but to ruin it. The war helped get the dollar to the point it is now. A weak or collapsing dollar is what is needed to get everyone to accept the SDRs.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
It is what it is.

No reason to dwell on the coulda, shoulda, woulda.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Aren't most people in those countries angry with America? Isn't that one of the reasons they want to overthrow the governments who don't have feuds with America and Israel?

I would say the Iraq war was a catalyst.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join