If We Had Never Invaded Iraq...?

Hawk and Awe

HR Heisman
Sep 15, 2012
5,528
5,035
113
So it was more of a "Hitler wasn't all bad because he liked dogs" kind of comment?

Ha! Honestly you could say my initial comment was really an argument of semantics - but I really do believe it's important.

One of the more annoying parts of the debate to me was the discussion on Iran and Syria in relation to the Iraq war. It gets spun as though the war was the CAUSE of the problems that region is facing and we would so obviously be in better shape if it was avoided. I just think talk like that is dangerous and only further divides this country. You don't always have to be on one side or the other. The reality is the answer is way more complicated than that.

I'll also backtrack on the "some good may have come from the war" comment. All I'm really getting at is they're no way to know what the world would look like today if that conflict was avoided. I'm interested in hearing theories and enjoy the thread topic, but its frustrating to see such overconfidence.
 

Jan Itor

HR Legend
Jan 31, 2009
27,546
11,608
113
If that world view held water, Bush should have gotten the job done. You can't both think they would easily bend to our will and admit they were not doing so. Take responsibility for your mess, learn from it, ask for forgiveness for screwing up the world and kick the neocons out of your party. Until then you need to have your nose rubbed in this mistake. Nearly your entire Presidential slate would have done and will make the same mistake in Iran. It doesn't look like your team has learned your lesson yet.

You're just trolling.
 

Jan Itor

HR Legend
Jan 31, 2009
27,546
11,608
113
You are definitely in the minority, but you aren't alone. I agree.

Assad was someone we could and did work with.

It's hard to look at the devastation and chaos in the Middle East that's grown out of our efforts to "help" without wondering if our actual objective wasn't to create exactly that devastation and chaos.

You know the old saw about the definition of "crazy" being that you do the same thing again and again expecting different results? We'll, unless you think all the folks running our foreign policy are nuts, if we keep destabilizing regimes and plunging nations into civil wars, maybe - just maybe - that's exactly what we intended.

So maybe the question we ought to be asking ourselves is why is this chaos a good idea for America? Or, to be more specific, what is it about chaos and civil war in those regions of the world that is better for the US than what would be there if we didn't destabilize those places?

Maybe it isn't so much a question of how we can exploit the chaos as that the chaos puts other world actors at a greater disadvantage. Who would be doing well if the Middle East were calm?

Cynical balance of power politics.

Just a thought. And, btw, you can ask that same question about Ukraine.


Hey natural, who is currently touting that Assad must go? You know their names. Obama, Clinton, Kerry, etc.... So it would appear that your side hasn't learned from the GOP removing dictators. Here, let me teach you about voting for the right people, and not putting people in the Oval Office that are determined to repeat these mistakes.
 

ft254

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jun 3, 2003
14,186
11,486
113
He was the sitting POTUS when the economy tanked, and therefore, will go down as getting the blame. The buck stops at the top. However, Mr. History lesson, the pieces were in place to tank our economy long before Bush ever took office. I'm not going to list them all because they've been talked about so many times, it's starting to get old. Hell, even WWJD knows and agrees that several pieces were in place under the Clinton Administration. A republican Authored legislation to seal the economy's fate, but the Democrats lined right up along with him. And the lack of regulation of Derivatives was on Larry Summers and his running buddies, who was appointed by Clinton.

So, there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides for the tanking of the economy. If you disagree, then you need to stop with the history lessons, because you either have no idea what happened, or refuse to acknowledge it happened.

This is nonsense.
 

Titanhawk2

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2011
11,700
5,014
113
Would we be facing ISIS now?

Would the economy have crashed?

What else would be different?

I'd argue "no" and "maybe, but not as badly" on the first 2. What do you think?
saddam would have probably died by now, and probably would have had similar situations as Libya and Syria
 

aflachawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
27,108
3,095
113
We could have pressured them into an agreement. Obama wanted completely out of there, and allowed Iraq to dictate the SOFA. Do you honestly think we couldn't have persuaded them to not hold our soldiers under their judicial system?

Please tell me you're not that naive. That, or you simply will not allow blame to be placed on Obama for anything.
Yes we could have but BHO had no interest in staying
 

Hawk in SEC Country

HR King
Gold Member
Nov 14, 2001
59,426
7,520
113
53
Hollywood, Fl
www.anthonydjurenphoto.com
Would we be facing ISIS now?

Would the economy have crashed?

What else would be different?

I'd argue "no" and "maybe, but not as badly" on the first 2. What do you think?


Afghanistan would have cleaned up a lot faster.

Other than that..... We don't know, but I suspect Bush would have left office in a far better light than he did.

I ask this..... When did this country stop fighting wars to win them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkssox1