• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What if? -- Iraq, a speculative game for the educated internationalist

S

SkyDog

WhatIf1.jpg

Watching the situation in Syria unfold got me to thinking. It appears that the conflict may be evaded. That got me to thinking further. In the style of the old "What if" comics, what if the US had not invaded Iraq in 2003? No more thinking for me. I have exceeded my quota for the week. Your turn.

Had the US not invaded Iraq, how would these things differ...

Political situation in the middle east -

US economy -

International perception of the US -

Balance of world power -
 
View attachment 67153395

Watching the situation in Syria unfold got me to thinking. It appears that the conflict may be evaded. That got me to thinking further. In the style of the old "What if" comics, what if the US had not invaded Iraq in 2003? No more thinking for me. I have exceeded my quota for the week. Your turn.

Had the US not invaded Iraq, how would these things differ...

Political situation in the middle east -

US economy -

International perception of the US -

Balance of world power -

What if the US never invaded Iraq?
1.Both the democrats and republicans would still be saying Saddam has WMDs and we must do something about Saddam, just like they did before Bush invaded Iraq and when Clinton was in office.
2.Saddam would still be in Power.
3.Saddam acting in his usually brutal dictator self probably would have squashed any Arab spring that tried to happen in Iraq using extremely brutal methods and instead of talking about Syria we would still be talking about Iraq and how we got to do something for those poor people.So we would have eventually invaded Iraq.
4.Without Americans angry over Iraq Obama may have not been president and there would be some other clown in office.
 
View attachment 67153395

Watching the situation in Syria unfold got me to thinking. It appears that the conflict may be evaded. That got me to thinking further. In the style of the old "What if" comics, what if the US had not invaded Iraq in 2003? No more thinking for me. I have exceeded my quota for the week. Your turn.

Had the US not invaded Iraq, how would these things differ...

Political situation in the middle east -

US economy -

International perception of the US -

Balance of world power -
1) Headline: Arab spring spreads to Iraq. Saddam ousted, Iranian puppet gov't Muslim Brotherhood takes over.

2) Headline: Democrats and Republicans bitterly divided over $12 trillion dollar debt and rising

3) Nothing's changed from our reality

4) Nothing's changed from our reality

3 and 4 largely set by individual administrations.
 
1) Headline: Arab spring spreads to Iraq. Saddam ousted, Iranian puppet gov't Muslim Brotherhood takes over.

2) Headline: Democrats and Republicans bitterly divided over $12 trillion dollar debt and rising

3) Nothing's changed from our reality

4) Nothing's changed from our reality

3 and 4 largely set by individual administrations.

Iranian puppet government Muslim Brotherhood ? that's an oxymoron... MB - Sunni; Iran - Shia; Morsy&Hamas support FSA, Hez&Iran support Assad.
 
What if the US never invaded Iraq?
1.Both the democrats and republicans would still be saying Saddam has WMDs and we must do something about Saddam, just like they did before Bush invaded Iraq and when Clinton was in office.
2.Saddam would still be in Power.
3.Saddam acting in his usually brutal dictator self probably would have squashed any Arab spring that tried to happen in Iraq using extremely brutal methods and instead of talking about Syria we would still be talking about Iraq and how we got to do something for those poor people.So we would have eventually invaded Iraq.
4.Without Americans angry over Iraq Obama may have not been president and there would be some other clown in office.

l cant believe that any intelligent american can believe in these lies
 
l cant believe that any intelligent american can believe in these lies

What lies are you talking about?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
 
What lies are you talking about?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


they can justify these imperialist wars ,l cant
 
Iranian puppet government Muslim Brotherhood ? that's an oxymoron... MB - Sunni; Iran - Shia; Morsy&Hamas support FSA, Hez&Iran support Assad.

Oops, left out the "or" between. Thanks for the correction
 
Saddam would have starved ~50k children per year, continued the institutionalized rape, invaded a neighbor, committed genocide, violated Ch7 UNSCRs, fired on no-fly zones instituted to prevent genocide and given inspectors the run around... just as he'd done for 20 years.

As far as the US, who cares? Some things must be done. The US lives well, I'm not worried about it. The standard of living could drop drastically and this place would still be fine. I think it's pathetically disconnected to believe Saddam should have been left alone for our financial benefit - those are the stereotypical Americans that the world hates, the ones who care only about money.
 
invaded a neighbor
He probably learned his lesson in Kuwait. Invading another country - excluding Iran, of course, as we'd likely just let that happen - would require alliances with friendlier regimes, such as the Taliban's Afghanistan, Jordan, Gaddafi's Libya, Bashir's Sudan, possibly Syria, etc.
As far as the US, who cares? Some things must be done. The US lives well, I'm not worried about it. The standard of living could drop drastically and this place would still be fine.

I'd venture to disagree here. Inner cities and Puerto Rico could use some financial aid to remove them from their perpetual poverty. Mainstream society, however, takes way too much for granted in regards to its own wealth.
 
He probably learned his lesson in Kuwait. Invading another country - excluding Iran, of course, as we'd likely just let that happen - would require alliances with friendlier regimes, such as the Taliban's Afghanistan, Jordan, Gaddafi's Libya, Bashir's Sudan, possibly Syria, etc.

I agree, invading would not be easy. More likely an internal purging of 'terrorists', like Assad.

I'd venture to disagree here. Inner cities and Puerto Rico could use some financial aid to remove them from their perpetual poverty. Mainstream society, however, takes way too much for granted in regards to its own wealth.

I don't mean to say that we spend nothing at home. A considerable reduction in standard of living would be tolerable, with basic safety nets remaining.
 
I agree, invading would not be easy. More likely an internal purging of 'terrorists', like Assad.
I think if he did try for an invasion, he would go for Iran if he was powerful enough to do so. Us having planes in Iraq would put us in a precarious position as far as intervention goes, because intervening on either side would require a major shift in foreign policy.


I don't mean to say that we spend nothing at home. A considerable reduction in standard of living would be tolerable, with basic safety nets remaining.

There are issues at home that I think we should take care of: fighting poverty in the inner city, ending our spying program, giving gays rights, granting our territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) statehood or independence, etc. I don't think, as some do, that solving issues at home and fighting our enemies abroad are two mutually exclusive ventures.
 
Back
Top Bottom