Voted4Dubya Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 would the US had crumbled because Saddam would have used his "WMD's" against us? Would terrorism have thrived in Iraq? Would nothing have really changed, and instead we could have focused on greater threats from Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie2008 Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Hmm...thats a tough question. I'm still of the feeling that Sadaam did have WMDs (although not on a grand scale) and hid them in Syria before the war. With that in mind, he could have been insane enough to try something had they still been around. Would I feel better about our country if we had not gone in? Probably. However, had Rummy listened to his generals and sent in an overwhelming force that was large enough to effectively keep the peace after the main battles ended and enforce the border with Iran, we may not be talking about much of an insurgency nowadays. We (as in our leaders) simply failed to take into account the racial and ethnic makeup of Iraq (similar to what Britain did in the 1920s when they drew the border) and we went in assuming they were just like Americans. Now on Iran, I think we would be focusing more on North Korea because after we invaded Iraq I think they backed down quite a bit. That may have been a real positive effect of the war...Libya has also taken us seriously and has turned its ways (as far as we know at least). Iran's current leader may or may not have been elected had we not invaded Iraq because of the overwhelming anti-american nature of that campaign. Things would be a lot different, I know at least that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptrick77 Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why liberating Iraq rose to the top of our "to do" list. ... without, of course, the knee-jerk-answering-a-question-with-a-question responses: "is the world a safer place without "Saddam Hussein?" ... “Are you suggesting that we should cut and run?†:ermm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straw Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Do you think Iraq didnt house terrorist? If you do then yes we shouldnt have invaded. Im positive they did so Im fine with us disrupting the terrorist process by hitting them in there country instead of them hitting us in ours. Mix in the fact that the terrorist DID have WMD's and you have a very dangerous situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptrick77 Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 There are many nations that house terrorists. That still does not answer why Iraq moved to the head of the class, in front of Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. Oh, yeah -- because Clinton let him get away :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CNOrtega Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 I believe Saddam had the rudimentary beginnings of a WMD program, and hid his supplies in Syria. The logic behing attacking them because they housed terrorists is fatally flawed. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of terrorists hiding in America. Technically that means we're housing them. Do we then, based on that doctrine, attack ourselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 If our housing of terrorists were a government sanctioned program, then you would have a point. We don't however, so it is a completely different thing, therefore irrelevant. FYI, cells in America are taken down when they pop up. It's part of our country policing itself. Countries that foster terrorist cells will not do this. So I guess someone needs to. Who do you recommend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CNOrtega Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Irrelevant because you didn't say it, or irrelevant because I said it? How do we know that they're not being sanctioned by the government? Do you know where every penny goes? I don't. There's always the possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 There's also a possibility that space aliens are encouraging the Taliban to re-coordinate and attack Mars.....but not likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHSVOICE Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Just read the entire Duelfer Report and you'll get a picture of what would have happened had we not invaded Iraq. The Washington Times summed it up nicely: http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041...92535-2936r.htm I'm reminded of the anti-war critics who assured me "the sanctions are working" and Saddam is "contained"......what a BIG LIE that turned out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 No Invasion The French and others would still be making money under the table... Oil Supplies would still be short Gas Prices would still be high And the Democrats would be yelling at Bush about him not doing anything about the WMD's and Al-Qaeda connections in Iraq! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobama Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 How many 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 That's irrelevant. A terrorist is a terrorist. They have many nationalities and the only problem I see with our strategy is that we are not targeting enough of the other nations that support terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voted4Dubya Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1That's irrelevant. A terrorist is a terrorist. They have many nationalities and the only problem I see with our strategy is that we are not targeting enough of the other nations that support terrorism. Whatever dude. When you and all your bunch were whining about the Dubai ports deal, yall were all pouting about how one or two of the terrorists were from the UAE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 You echo my previous point. We are NOT targeting enough of the other nations that are supporting terrorism. The Emirates are just one of many. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan need to be targets of our wrath (military as well as economic targets) as well, until they denounce terrorism and begin apprehending or executing the terrorists within their borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voted4Dubya Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 What the hell? The UAE? They are the most advanced nation over there as well as the most capitalistic. And you want to bomb them? You better be glad we even have them over there as they are our biggest ally in the Mid-East besides Israel. Jesus Christ almighty you people are nuts, wanting to bomb the whole world in oblivion. And no, we don't need to set our economic targets on the Mideast. Remember, you guys hate globilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50pinch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1That's irrelevant. A terrorist is a terrorist. They have many nationalities and the only problem I see with our strategy is that we are not targeting enough of the other nations that support terrorism. Excellent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Originally posted by BoBellCrewHow many 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, by the way? What does that have to do with a war on terrorism? 9/11 was the final straw... The wake up call... The pulling open of the blinds to shed light on the fact that Clinton had stripped our military and intelligence capabilities, as well as pulled out of situations before they were complete.... Now... debate a point worth making ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now