FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq?





Da Rossa
I don't know whether if we had this specific discussion until now. The USA were stroke by a very severe terrorist attack in the 9/11 and, immediately in the subsequent days, people urged for security. Bush found this solution: war.
Years after it appears that people don't support war as strongly as the day after. But I'm not sure about the statístical numbers.

What do you think have happened if Bush didn't go for the Middle East?
liljp617
Is the question about war in the Middle East or war specifically in Iraq?
Da Rossa
Err, sorry, the war in Iraq, started in 2003. Smile
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
I don't know whether if we had this specific discussion until now. The USA were stroke by a very severe terrorist attack in the 9/11 and, immediately in the subsequent days, people urged for security. Bush found this solution: war.
Years after it appears that people don't support war as strongly as the day after. But I'm not sure about the statístical numbers.

What do you think have happened if Bush didn't go for the Middle East?
The US would probably still have been stuck in Afghanistan, and would not have had Iraq as an excuse for the "situation" in Afghanistan. Problem is that if there had not been an Iraq, there would just not have been an Iraq, and it is not as though all the resources that had been put into Iraq, would now have been swivelled round and given to Afghanistan. Congress would only have voted enough for Afghanistan to get by as was. Nothing more or nothing less than that.
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
I don't know whether if we had this specific discussion until now. The USA were stroke by a very severe terrorist attack in the 9/11 and, immediately in the subsequent days, people urged for security. Bush found this solution: war.
Years after it appears that people don't support war as strongly as the day after. But I'm not sure about the statístical numbers.

What do you think have happened if Bush didn't go for the Middle East?
Well, since the majority of the terrorists came from one country - Saudi-Arabia - and since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 then you could make a case of war against Saudi but you cannot make a case for the Iraq war on these grounds.
Da Rossa
Quote:
Well, since the majority of the terrorists came from one country - Saudi-Arabia - and since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 then you could make a case of war against Saudi but you cannot make a case for the Iraq war on these grounds.
But the premise for going for Iraq was not only because it had chemical weapons, but also for sheltering Al Qaeda members.
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
Well, since the majority of the terrorists came from one country - Saudi-Arabia - and since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 then you could make a case of war against Saudi but you cannot make a case for the Iraq war on these grounds.
But the premise for going for Iraq was not only because it had chemical weapons, but also for sheltering Al Qaeda members.

But Iraq didn't do any such thing
Da Rossa
Bikerman wrote:

But Iraq didn't do any such thing


Well, that may be true, but you must agree this can't be so black and white. In reality, there could be no Al Qaeda members in Iraq. But there could be many of them too. In those circumstances, I think it's easier to believe, and even more rationally, that there were terrorists in there.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

But Iraq didn't do any such thing


Well, that may be true, but you must agree this can't be so black and white. In reality, there could be no Al Qaeda members in Iraq. But there could be many of them too. In those circumstances, I think it's easier to believe, and even more rationally, that there were terrorists in there.

Da Rossa could have a point. I Googled it and there were a number of links that came up to support his statement, including Wikipedia and this one:
Quote:
Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations
silverdown
I think the goverment planned 9/11 and blammed iraq so they cna invade it. at least that is MY opinion about it... Kinda sad to if it's true.
Asap170
In the world we have free will. There are plenty of "What if...." There code be many different situations. We, the United States, could of got attacked. Or maybe nothing at all would of happened. In our society we relate people's religion or a specific group that attacked us that they are all bad people. They are not. The reason why former President George Bush sent troops in Iraq is to help create an alliance. There are adults and children there who are being terrorized by other Iraq people. We've gone there to help take out the people terrorizing the people of Iraq who just want to live their life.

So my final thought is: Why even ask these questions? They already have happened. There is no turning back to fix something.
deanhills
Asap170 wrote:
So my final thought is: Why even ask these questions? They already have happened. There is no turning back to fix something.
Isn't that in the nature of politics however to always look back. For example the moment Obama took office, everything that was not right was blamed on Bush. Bush seems to still be alive as a blame guy. And I guess when the next guy takes office and he is not a Democrat, he may also do that when he takes office. Blame Obama for the mess that he inherited. Sort of goes with the territory? Smile
liljp617
Asap170 wrote:
So my final thought is: Why even ask these questions? They already have happened. There is no turning back to fix something.


May I assume you've never asked a question about the past? To give any context to an event? To understand why this or that happened the way it did? To acquire knowledge to perhaps prevent a future similar event? To hold someone accountable for actions that are wrong?

Never, in any situation you've experienced, has it been necessary to gain an understanding of the past for any of the reasons above (or many others)?


At the root of it, of course, is human nature leads us to desire knowledge and understanding of events we experience...in order to use this knowledge to our advantage.
ocalhoun
silverdown wrote:
I think the goverment planned 9/11 and blammed iraq so they cna invade it. at least that is MY opinion about it... Kinda sad to if it's true.

Ah, good to have such posts to give me a laugh now and then...

If they blamed Iraq, why did they wait so long to do so? ... They blamed Afghanistan within days, if you remember.
If the whole thing was an excuse to invade Iraq, then why was Afghanistan implicated and invaded at all?
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

But Iraq didn't do any such thing


Well, that may be true, but you must agree this can't be so black and white. In reality, there could be no Al Qaeda members in Iraq. But there could be many of them too. In those circumstances, I think it's easier to believe, and even more rationally, that there were terrorists in there.

It is a nonsense argument. There are Al-Queda members in the UK - quite a few. Do you propose that the US should invade the UK?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

But Iraq didn't do any such thing


Well, that may be true, but you must agree this can't be so black and white. In reality, there could be no Al Qaeda members in Iraq. But there could be many of them too. In those circumstances, I think it's easier to believe, and even more rationally, that there were terrorists in there.

Da Rossa could have a point. I Googled it and there were a number of links that came up to support his statement, including Wikipedia and this one:
Quote:
Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

He doesn't have a point at all. Hussein had nothing to do with Al Queda for the simple reason that he didn't want Islamic fundamentalism in his country stirring up the sort of violence we have seen beweeen the different factions. Of course he supported 'terrorist' groups in his own region. The US does exactly the same in its own sphere of influence. Do you want a list of the 'terrorist' organisations supported by the US in South America?
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Do you want a list of the 'terrorist' organisations supported by the US in South America?

Instead, let's go with a historical list... of the ones in the middle east perhaps.
That should have some interesting notes on supporting Muslim extremists.

So, let's continue with the logic: The US must now invade itself. ^.^
Asap170
deanhills wrote:
Asap170 wrote:
So my final thought is: Why even ask these questions? They already have happened. There is no turning back to fix something.
Isn't that in the nature of politics however to always look back. For example the moment Obama took office, everything that was not right was blamed on Bush. Bush seems to still be alive as a blame guy. And I guess when the next guy takes office and he is not a Democrat, he may also do that when he takes office. Blame Obama for the mess that he inherited. Sort of goes with the territory? Smile


Well...I guess we don't want to repeat history. Or at least not repeat what was a bad thing in history. And yea when you become President you get those situations pushed on you and your blamed, but people can take that a little to far. For example: When there was the massive BP oil spill people where blaming President Obama for not doing anything. It wasn't his problem and there wasn't anything he could do to fix it any faster. They had tons of people trying to stop it. The President can't do everything in the world.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
silverdown wrote:
I think the goverment planned 9/11 and blammed iraq so they cna invade it. at least that is MY opinion about it... Kinda sad to if it's true.

Ah, good to have such posts to give me a laugh now and then...

If they blamed Iraq, why did they wait so long to do so? ... They blamed Afghanistan within days, if you remember.
If the whole thing was an excuse to invade Iraq, then why was Afghanistan implicated and invaded at all?


The planning 9/11 aspect is ridiculous, it's not worth addressing.

The administration did use 9/11 to motivate support amongst the general public for invading Iraq (Rumsfeld and Rice come to mind), and they did openly implicate Al-Qaeda with Iraq (Cheney comes to mind) also to gain support for the invasion. Can we agree on that?
Bikerman
That is irrefutable.
deanhills
Asap170 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Asap170 wrote:
So my final thought is: Why even ask these questions? They already have happened. There is no turning back to fix something.
Isn't that in the nature of politics however to always look back. For example the moment Obama took office, everything that was not right was blamed on Bush. Bush seems to still be alive as a blame guy. And I guess when the next guy takes office and he is not a Democrat, he may also do that when he takes office. Blame Obama for the mess that he inherited. Sort of goes with the territory? Smile


Well...I guess we don't want to repeat history. Or at least not repeat what was a bad thing in history. And yea when you become President you get those situations pushed on you and your blamed, but people can take that a little to far. For example: When there was the massive BP oil spill people where blaming President Obama for not doing anything. It wasn't his problem and there wasn't anything he could do to fix it any faster. They had tons of people trying to stop it. The President can't do everything in the world.
Wasn't the blame more that he had been so slow in reacting? Rather than that he was doing nothing at all?
Dennise
It has taken along time for me to take the following position below - mainly because I am a 4-year American veteran and have emotional tires to our boys 'n gals defending American ways and interests.

I think we should simply get completely out of the middle east. I don't buy what we're being told about the total collapse that would occur there (especially in the Persian gulf) and the 'horrible' impact on oil prices as a result of little or no access to middle eastern oil. The 'domino's didn't fall' when we pulled out of Viet Nam and the middle east wont collapse if we pull our troops out of there. What likely would happen?

The stone age 'middle east' tribes would soon 'duke it out' with each other when the reduced oil revenues would have the effects of e.g. reduced monies for palaces together with hungry middle and lower classes. I say - let 'em fight out their differences amongst themselves! Some kind of tribal agreements would emerge and the oil would once again flow. Now what might happen here in the US?

Of course there'd be a spike in oil prices - but for how long and how much? I think such a spike could be tolerated and would further stimulate America to:

1. Develop and exploit existing domestic energy sources in the short term
2. Speed up development of alternate energy sources in the long term
3. Strengthen our borders and improve our national security here at home


Now the $$$$$ money the US would save by a pull out could be used to:

1. fund the above developments and improvements in domestic security
2. Offset the temporary spike in oil prices
3. Generate more badly needed jobs here

We'll never be able to hunt down all those terrorists hiding in caves all over the place. Let's let 'em fight it out themselves, and get the hell out of there - it's just not working and we need to think smarter.
ocalhoun
Dennise wrote:

We'll never be able to hunt down all those terrorists hiding in caves all over the place. Let's let 'em fight it out themselves, and get the hell out of there - it's just not working and we need to think smarter.


Or, set up a stable, reasonably just government, and then hand the job of hunting cave-dwelling terrorists to them.
(Which would work out much better for the individual people living there... And it just might make the area stable. Stable areas attract economic investment - and investment leads to wealth - and wealth actually tends to lead to more stability. If we could get them started on the right path, they could actually become a functioning member of the global society, making us all better off.)
( -- While abandoning the area is only likely to isolate it more, which would be a loss for the world, and especially for the locals.)

Though it took a lot of time, and had a few setbacks, it seems to be working decently so far in Iraq. (Though we'll only know for sure after the withdrawal is complete and a few years have passed.)
deanhills
@Dennise. If the US was completely debt free and independent of the rest of the world, then it can get out everywhere else and return to the US. But unfortunately, because of its very complicated debt situation, it can't afford to withdraw from anywhere without a really detrimental affect on how it does business with the rest of the world as well as with its own people. Even its involvement in Afghanistan has tentacles everywhere. It is involved with the people from Afghanistan, is providing work to soldiers and civilians of the United States, is providing contracts to large and small businesses in the United States and other countries, etc. And that is but one example. Not easy to just get out and go like that. Once it tries to isolate itself, the debt collectors will be banging much louder at the door and the Federal Government will also loose complete support of the large corporations who are trying to make money and employ people. Not to mention the US dollar that is presently devalued itself a lot, also thanks to the enormous debt load, and may just go into a free fall if the world loses complete confidence in it. The latter being a real possibility if the US should decide to withdraw from the Middle East.
inuyasha
I don't think the war broke only because of terrorists' attack. I'm never in favor of war. In the eyes of many people in other countries, America was trying to plunder the oil resources of Iraq and some other countries nearby.
Dennise
inuyasha wrote:
I don't think the war broke only because of terrorists' attack. I'm never in favor of war. In the eyes of many people in other countries, America was trying to plunder the oil resources of Iraq and some other countries nearby.


Plunder ............. plunder?

We PAY for the middle east and other oil sources. The prices we pay may be arguable, but it is NOT plundering.

As evidence, are you aware of the enormous mid eastern wealth hoarded by the sheiks, emirs and other so called leaders? Have you seen the opulent palaces and resorts built there with our oil money? Do you see all the expensive cars owned by their leaders - built in western factories running on mid eastern oil? All this extravagance is hidden from the lower classes who think the US has 'plundered' their oil and kept them poor.

Wake up!
spring567
Neverthelese,the war has finished. I think it is good for the people of Eriq. Eriq will have a new public power gorvment.
ocalhoun
spring567 wrote:
Neverthelese,the war has finished. I think it is good for the people of Eriq. Eriq will have a new public power gorvment.

Confused I don't even know where to start...

-The war is not finished. 'Combat operations' have ceased... because we're calling them something else now, even though the same activities are still occurring.
-Where is Eriq? Iraq I am familiar with, but I have never heard of Eriq. (Or are we just having fun on vawil raplecimant dey?)
-If by 'public power gorvment' you mean a representative government, they already do have one... not a perfect one by a long shot, but it does already exist.
silverdown
hmm.. i beleive we wouldnt be almost bankrupt as a country, we would have a bigger population, husain ( if i spelled it right) would be still out there, and the trade center still be down.....either way.
achowles
I think that the war may have proven necessary eventually if the US wanted to protect its interests in the Middle East. Hussein was very keen to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He just wasn't any good at it. The sanctions against Iraq were working but nobody believes they would have held out indefinitely.

Da Rossa wrote:
Well, that may be true, but you must agree this can't be so black and white. In reality, there could be no Al Qaeda members in Iraq. But there could be many of them too. In those circumstances, I think it's easier to believe, and even more rationally, that there were terrorists in there.


There could be many in the US too. But I don't see that being used as a justification for the US to bomb the hell out of itself.
Da Rossa
There could.
But what could be the best solution? To invade or not to invade?
Related topics
Just an article that got my attention...
Beginning of the End of the World?
A soldier's rant
The Trial of Saddam
In No Uncertain Terms
Justification for War in Iraq
"A little word from Iraq"
Muslims Should be Thanking US for Iraq Invasion
Panel Says - Bush Policies against Iraq has failed
Iraq War Today
[Opinion] Iraq War
Bush could be next on the war crimes tribunal list
Wikileaks documents Bush's war disasters
Israel Supreme Court: Occupation? What occupation?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.