What If The U.s. Had Stayed Out Of Iraq?

[Awesome!]

If the U.S. never invaded Iraq, what would be the consequence in your opinion? Would we be safer as a nation, or less safe?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The number of threads in this forum would be cut in half...at least.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Well, we're not in any real danger now. But we'd be in a stronger position at the negotiating table-- both with our allies and with Iran-- if we'd not gotten involved.

Bad timing.

 

[Cephus]

We wouldn't have put ourselves into decades worth of debt, we wouldn't be out 3000+ American soldier's lives and we might actually have gone after someone important. You know, like Osama bin Laden.

 

[VTA]

There would have had to have been another way to get to Iran.

 

[oldreliable67]

Anyone who doesn't believe that left unfettered, Saddam would have renewed his pursuit of the first Arab nuclear weapons, is being completely fatuous. The presence of inspectors had proven to be no impediment prior to Desert Storm and was proving to be no impediment afterwards. Folllowing the Gulf War, Dr. David Kay observed:

The failed efforts of both IAEA safeguards inspectors and national intelligence authorities to detect - prior to the Gulf War - a nuclear weapons program of the magnitude and advanced character of Iraq's, should stand as a monument to the fallibility on on-site inspections and national intelligence when faced by a determined opponent.

Source: Dr David Kay, "Denial and Deception Practices of WMD Proliferators,The Washington Quarterly, Winter 1995.

As Al J. Venter documents in Allah's Bomb: The Islamic Quest for Nuclear Weapons, the biggest shock of postwar Gulf War IAEA inspections was the discovery that Iraq had a very substantial electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) program for the envisaged production of an A-bomb. Vinter says:

It was vast. Numerous buildings were constructed at Al- Tuwaitha, about twenty miles south of Baghdad. These housed the research and development phases of both the EMIS and gaseous diffusion enrichment programs.

After the Gulf War, the first IAEA inspectors termed their finds as "a remarkable clandestine nuclear materials production and weapons design program of unexpected size and sophistication."

In 1997, Dr. Kay concluded that while the Iraqis claimed to have had little success with the centrifuge enrichment program, there was a mismatch between the sophistication of the materials that they admitted to having imported and those that were actually turned over to UN inspection. This gap raised real concerns that a hidden centrifuge facility still remained to be found.

Scott Ritter, before he turned pro-Iraqi, detailed 20 tons of high-strength steel and stocks of carbon fiber for more than 1,000 gas centrifuges, all of which were linked to material believed to be still hidden.

While all major nuclear work appears to have been halted by the Gulf War, the abrupt ending of both UNSCOM and IAEA monitoring of Iraq's nuclear programs provided an atmosphere in which Saddam, based on his past behavior, was highly likely to re-start his efforts to be the first Arab on the block with nukes. Kay's and Ritter's findings strongly suggest that Saddam had never abandoned his desires for nuclear weapons.

Eventually, absent US pressure, economic sanctions would have been weakened or lifted, and Saddam would have been completely unfettered and free to indulge his favorite fantasy.

 

[DivineComedy]

If the U.S. never invaded Iraq, what would be the consequence in your opinion? Would we be safer as a nation, or less safe?

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990), where Gorby said, “that is far enough,“ we would be safer, and this perfect unequivocal example of the world community of lying pond scum would not exist:

“H32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990), we would be looking at Darfur for an example of the relevance of the world community. And since the Secretary-General of the United Nations (of tyrants too) said way back in 2004 something to the effect that his Muslim fuzzy wuzzy buddies “ran out of villages to burn,” this POST would be shorter than Negroid baby wallowing in Chinese oil.

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990)…considering the year that the Union of Soviet Socialists had invaded Afghanistan, when my Cracker home boy socialist Jimmy Carter {said with church lady tone} started helping the Mujahedeen, when our friends in France known for their “complex” foreign policy delivered the Ayatollah to Iran, when the Shiite’s Socialist enemy Saddam came to power one month after OPEC issued a series of price increases, which started a series of events that ultimately lowered gas prices (too late for Jimmy)…we would be safer, and this would not exist:

March 1997: “Though Bin Ladin had promised Taliban leaders that he would be circumspect, he broke this promise almost immediately, giving an inflammatory interview to CNN in March 1997. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar promptly "invited" Bin Ladin to move to Kandahar, ostensibly in the interests of Bin Ladin's own security but more likely to situate him where he might be easier to control.73
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74“(The 9/11 commission report, page 65-66)
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
details

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990) we would be safer, Israel would probably be toast by now, but this would not exist:

July 1997: “Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) President Saddam's speech on July 17 1997

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990) we would be safer, and I would not have voted for Andre V. Marrou to protest the stupid lukewarm “liberal” arts of war in Iraq, and this “Axis of Evil” comment by DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton would not exist:

February 17, 1998: “While speaking at the Pentagon on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton warned of the ‘reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ These ‘predators of the twenty-first century,’ he said ‘will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.’“ Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990) we would be safer; since this legal opinion would not have the words “Iraqi” and “Iraq” in it, therefore, this LINK between Iraq and 9/11 would really not exist:

February 23, 1998: One (“The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people…”), Two (“despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…”), Three (“if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq…”)! World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990) we would be safer, and we would ignorantly be tripping along without any knowledge of the “liberal” socialist fifth column that Saddam was so familiar with:

“Some voices have risen on the part of some peoples, journalists, writers, and, in a very restricted way, the voices of those who are preparing themselves, in the shadow, to replace the rulers there.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990) we would be safer. And maybe I would have gotten some answers to my questions after September 11, 2001, considering that I was discussing the Koran with a “Muslim” on August 30, 2001 at 10:35 PM, but considering that “Muslim’s” website I am not so certain:
Asmaa's Islamic research center
Untitled

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990) we would be safer, and I would never have had so much fun watching “liberal” shrunken heads say terrorism is a law enforcement matter then watching their “by any means necessary” hypocrisy defend “liberals” that say terrorists are “playing by the rules of warfare,“ all the while “liberals” avoid answering who “they” really are:

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings. It is only normal to say that punishment is a necessity in our world, because what is a necessity in the other world must also be necessary in our world on Earth. But, the punishment in the other world is faire and just, and the prophets and messengers of God (peace be upon them all) conducted punishment and called for it in justice, and not on the basis of suspicions and whims.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990) we would be safer, and “the events of September 11, should be seen on this basis:”

“Once again, we say that, injustice and the pressure that results from it on people lead to explosions. As explosions are not always organized, it is to be expected that they may harm those who make them and others. The events of September 11, should be seen on this basis, and on the basis of imbalanced reactions, on the part of governments accused of being democratic, if the Americans are sure that these were carried out by people from abroad.
To concentrate not on what is important, but rather on what is the most important, we say again that after having seen that the flames of any fire can expand to cover all the world, it first and foremost, needs justice based on fairness. The best and most sublime expression of this is in what we have learned from what God the Al Mighty ordered to be, or not to be.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

If the U.S. had never trusted the United Nations (of tyrants too) and never invaded Iraq under resolution 678 (1990) we would be safer, but, the “by any means necessary” crowd of “liberals” would still open-mindedly think that black stone idolaters who talk to rocks and trees for the coordinates of Jews are cool.

 

[jamesrage]

If the U.S. never invaded Iraq, what would be the consequence in your opinion? Would we be safer as a nation, or less safe?

What do you think would happed if a nation figured out that our threats were nothing more than hot air?Would that nation proceed to do what ever the hell it wants and continue to violate more UN accords and perhaps crank it up a notch or two?North Korea knew we wouldn't do anything to them and so does Iran.

 

[Awesome!]

What do you think would happed if a nation figured out that our threats were nothing more than hot air?Would that nation proceed to do what ever the hell it wants and continue to violate more UN accords and perhaps crank it up a notch or two?North Korea knew we wouldn't do anything to them and so does Iran.

I think the Bush administration did the right thing. We need to stay on the offensive and do what only pant@@itters like the terrorists and moron dictators understand. ACTION. I don't know if it will stop the plotting, but I think governments like Syria, Iran, etc. better check themselves because they could be next.

 

[Iriemon]

A very speculative question. But I could argue there is reason to think that:

Had the US not invaded Iraq, but kept up the diplomatic pressure, the inspections would probably have continued, and it would have become more and more clear that Iraq in fact did not possess WMDs that it was thought to have had.

The backlash against the US invasion of Iraq would not have occurred. Support for the US efforts against terrorists probably would have been stronger.

The Madrid and London bombings and others might not have happened.

The US would have 125,000 more troops to deploy to Afghanistan, increasing the probability of more effectively dispruting/eliminating the Taliban/Al-Queda elements there.

Scores if no hundreds of thousands of lives would not have been lost in Iraq.

The Iranians would have felt much less threatened by US agression, and possibly would not have elected the most anti-American radical on the slate in 2004. It's government may have been more open to negotiations on its nukes. With Hussein's Iraq on its border, Iran's ability to extend its hegemony would have been somewhat more limited.

Our nation would be about $400 billion less in debt.

The Democrats may not have taken control of Congress in 2006.

 

[Iriemon]

Anyone who doesn't believe that left unfettered, Saddam would have renewed his pursuit of the first Arab nuclear weapons, is being completely fatuous. The presence of inspectors had proven to be no impediment prior to Desert Storm and was proving to be no impediment afterwards. Folllowing the Gulf War, Dr. David Kay observed:



Source: Dr David Kay, "Denial and Deception Practices of WMD Proliferators,The Washington Quarterly, Winter 1995.

As Al J. Venter documents in Allah's Bomb: The Islamic Quest for Nuclear Weapons, the biggest shock of postwar Gulf War IAEA inspections was the discovery that Iraq had a very substantial electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) program for the envisaged production of an A-bomb. Vinter says:



After the Gulf War, the first IAEA inspectors termed their finds as "a remarkable clandestine nuclear materials production and weapons design program of unexpected size and sophistication."

In 1997, Dr. Kay concluded that while the Iraqis claimed to have had little success with the centrifuge enrichment program, there was a mismatch between the sophistication of the materials that they admitted to having imported and those that were actually turned over to UN inspection. This gap raised real concerns that a hidden centrifuge facility still remained to be found.

Scott Ritter, before he turned pro-Iraqi, detailed 20 tons of high-strength steel and stocks of carbon fiber for more than 1,000 gas centrifuges, all of which were linked to material believed to be still hidden.

While all major nuclear work appears to have been halted by the Gulf War, the abrupt ending of both UNSCOM and IAEA monitoring of Iraq's nuclear programs provided an atmosphere in which Saddam, based on his past behavior, was highly likely to re-start his efforts to be the first Arab on the block with nukes. Kay's and Ritter's findings strongly suggest that Saddam had never abandoned his desires for nuclear weapons.

Eventually, absent US pressure, economic sanctions would have been weakened or lifted, and Saddam would have been completely unfettered and free to indulge his favorite fantasy.

"While all major nuclear work appears to have been halted by the Gulf War" is the key element. Investigators found no evidence that Iraq had any kind of active program in the past 12 years. It is possible that he would have changed course and started it up again. But who knows. Sometimes even dictators change their stance. Look at Muamar Kaddafi, the Saddam Hussein of the 80s.

 

[oldreliable67]

"While all major nuclear work appears to have been halted by the Gulf War" is the key element. Investigators found no evidence that Iraq had any kind of active program in the past 12 years. It is possible that he would have changed course and started it up again. But who knows. Sometimes even dictators change their stance. Look at Muamar Kaddafi, the Saddam Hussein of the 80s.

All of Saddam's past behavior should strongly suggest to all and sundry that he would most likely, not "possibly", re-start nuke development just as soon as he thought he was clear of inspectors and sanctions. For example, according to the UN inspectors, Saddam never ceased working on increasing the range and payload capacity of his SCUDs and their variants, until they were in excess of the UN permissible specs. While the payloads were still far from being nuke-capable, they were certainly biological or chemical weapons-capable. Clearly, Saddam's urge to posses WMDs continued unabated. Left unfettered, what was he more likely to do? As you correctly state, nobody knows for sure. But even a naive extrapolation of his past as well as recent behavior, points in only one direction. IIRC, the 2002 NIE agreed with this assessment.

Qhaddafi didn't change his mind serendipitously. When compared to Saddam, Qhaddafi was pretty small change in terms of military capabilities.

 

[Iriemon]

All of Saddam's past behavior should strongly suggest to all and sundry that he would most likely, not "possibly", re-start nuke development just as soon as he thought he was clear of inspectors and sanctions. For example, according to the UN inspectors, Saddam never ceased working on increasing the range and payload capacity of his SCUDs and their variants, until they were in excess of the UN permissible specs. While the payloads were still far from being nuke-capable, they were certainly biological or chemical weapons-capable. Clearly, Saddam's urge to posses WMDs continued unabated. Left unfettered, what was he more likely to do? As you correctly state, nobody knows for sure. But even a naive extrapolation of his past as well as recent behavior, points in only one direction. IIRC, the 2002 NIE agreed with this assessment.

Qhaddafi didn't change his mind serendipitously. When compared to Saddam, Qhaddafi was pretty small change in terms of military capabilities.

I don't think any one suggested Iraq should have been left unfettered. There are many ways to fetter short of invasion and occupation.

 

[jamesrage]

A very speculative question. But I could argue there is reason to think that:

Had the US not invaded Iraq, but kept up the diplomatic pressure, the inspections would probably have continued, and it would have become more and more clear that Iraq in fact did not possess WMDs that it was thought to have had.

Saddam was not going to let any inspector look where they wanted to look.In case you haven't noticed the UN is not a threat to anyone.Look at Iran and look at North Korea.

The backlash against the US invasion of Iraq would not have occurred. Support for the US efforts against terrorists probably would have been stronger.

The Madrid and London bombings and others might not have happened.

Bull ****,Anywhere there are radical Muslims there is terrorism.Look at India,Malaysia,parts of Africa and other countries where radial/Islamo-nazis reside.

Scores if no hundreds of thousands of lives would not have been lost in Iraq.

And more lives would have been lost if Saddam was allowed to get his hands on WMDs.Logic would have told Saddam that empty threats would have allowed him to get away with anything he wanted to get away with.We made the mistake of letting Hitler get away with so much prior to WWII,it resulted in 40-50 million lives being lost.

 

[Iriemon]

Saddam was not going to let any inspector look where they wanted to look.In case you haven't noticed the UN is not a threat to anyone.Look at Iran and look at North Korea.

What are you talking about. He let lots of inspectors in to look where the wanted to look. Time and again they followed the leads of our sources as to where the WMDs was supposed to be, and time and again found nothing.

Bull ****,Anywhere there are radical Muslims there is terrorism.Look at India,Malaysia,parts of Africa and other countries where radial/Islamo-nazis reside.

Both the London and Madrid bombings were based on those countries committing troops to Iraq. Paris and Berlin weren't bombed.

And more lives would have been lost if Saddam was allowed to get his hands on WMDs. Logic would have told Saddam that empty threats would have allowed him to get away with anything he wanted to get away with.

They weren't empty threats. Iraq was bombed based on previous non-compliance. When he was pushed he had let the inspectors in. They found nothing, because Iraq had no WMDs.

We made the mistake of letting Hitler get away with so much prior to WWII,it resulted in 40-50 million lives being lost.

Iraq is not nazi Germany. We didn't let Iraq get away with invading Kuwait. What were we letting Iraq get away with?

 

[Duke]

If the U.S. never invaded Iraq, what would be the consequence in your opinion? Would we be safer as a nation, or less safe?

Look, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, the smoking gun would have come as a mushroom cloud. Okay? Do you want a mushroom could? Do you?


Duke

 

[Awesome!]

A very speculative question. But I could argue there is reason to think that:

Had the US not invaded Iraq, but kept up the diplomatic pressure, the inspections would probably have continued, and it would have become more and more clear that Iraq in fact did not possess WMDs that it was thought to have had.

The backlash against the US invasion of Iraq would not have occurred. Support for the US efforts against terrorists probably would have been stronger.

The Madrid and London bombings and others might not have happened.

The US would have 125,000 more troops to deploy to Afghanistan, increasing the probability of more effectively dispruting/eliminating the Taliban/Al-Queda elements there.

Scores if no hundreds of thousands of lives would not have been lost in Iraq.

The Iranians would have felt much less threatened by US agression, and possibly would not have elected the most anti-American radical on the slate in 2004. It's government may have been more open to negotiations on its nukes. With Hussein's Iraq on its border, Iran's ability to extend its hegemony would have been somewhat more limited.

Our nation would be about $400 billion less in debt.

The Democrats may not have taken control of Congress in 2006.

I agree that there has been a enormous price for the direction we have chosen, however after 911 I think we have chosen the right direction. We have to fight this new threat no matter what the cost because if we leave these governments unchecked, we will probably be attacked costing us a lot more than our current debt.

 

[Awesome!]

Look, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, the smoking gun would have come as a mushroom cloud. Okay? Do you want a mushroom could? Do you?


Duke

I don't know if it would of come as a mushroom cloud, but I agree that if the U.S. didn't invade Iraq and be pro-active against this threat we probably would be hit again. Even after all that we have done, we can still get hit anytime with this threat. That is the reality, we are in an allout brawl and the sooner our country, and friends all get on board and recognize this, we will make more progress destroying this threat.