If we had not taken care of Iraq

[gem1]

Where would we be now if we had not invaded Iraq. By the end of the 90's it was costing us $40 billion a year just to mainain the status in Iraq.
1. How far would that have escaladed
2. What other problems would we have from building factions
3. What ultimatems would the UN now be dictating
4. Would terrorest be building groups in Iraq

Where would we be now if we had not took care of Iraq?

[DopplarEffekt]

I agree with the fact that we needed to go into Iraq, but what you just said made no sense whatsoever. Please refrain from posting if you do not know what you are talking about.

[gem1]

At 7/2/04 11:19 AM, -CrazyAngel- wrote: Please refrain from posting if you do not know what you are talking about.

This is about debate and politics not sports. If YOUR going to act like an asshole, don't post here.

[D2Kvirus]

At 7/2/04 10:54 AM, gem1 wrote: Where would we be now if we had not invaded Iraq. By the end of the 90's it was costing us $40 billion a year just to mainain the status in Iraq.
1. How far would that have escaladed

Probably not as high as, say, funding a full scale invasion (for reasons unproven), and the costs that go with increasing security when the locals don't happen to be very happy to have an army there under false pretences. Oh, and then there's the Court Marshalls for the abused prisoners...

2. What other problems would we have from building factions

The factions deserting you. At that point, the shit level rises from around the waist, where it currently resides, to around the chest.

3. What ultimatems would the UN now be dictating

If you have any WMD, can you demonstrate using them? If anything, they should've been giving them to Bush long ago - stop rattling that sabre of yours for little or no reason, as it makes you look like a war-mad dictator. Emphasis on "dic".

4. Would terrorest be building groups in Iraq

Nope - hey, even the 9/11 Commission casually pissed on the bullshit about Osama and Saddam being in cahoots.

Where would we be now if we had not took care of Iraq?

A Lot Better Off.

[DrKilledByDeath87]

At 7/2/04 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Where would we be now if we had not took care of Iraq?

A Lot Better Off.

AMEN

[gem1]

At 7/2/04 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Probably not as high as, say, funding a full scale invasion

No but this is the meands to an end, where as before there was no end to the conflict. It was about a lot more than WMD inwhich the medea has focused.

[D2Kvirus]

At 7/2/04 11:35 AM, gem1 wrote:

At 7/2/04 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Probably not as high as, say, funding a full scale invasion

No but this is the meands to an end, where as before there was no end to the conflict. It was about a lot more than WMD inwhich the medea has focused.

Excuse me, has the conflict ended? Who says?

Oh yes, there's pictures on TV of a new regeime being dumped in place, but why have the entire population of Iraq (as we're led to believe) suddenly stopped clashing with troops and generally bombing stiuff left and right?

Then again, it was announced last April the "war" was over. So, why is money still being spent sending troops over to iraq, and shipping the bodies back? Doesn't sound finalised, or indeed an end, to me.

[ReiperX]

At 7/2/04 11:35 AM, gem1 wrote:

At 7/2/04 11:30 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Probably not as high as, say, funding a full scale invasion

No but this is the meands to an end, where as before there was no end to the conflict. It was about a lot more than WMD inwhich the medea has focused.

The main reason the WMDs are the main concern on the media is that it is the reason President Bush gave us for the invasion. Then when he realized that the WMDs were not to be found he changed the reason to what, humanitarian reasons? The charges brought up on Sadaam by the Iraqi courts that he refused to sign were all from the 80's and early 90's. I have still yet to be given any reason we should have invaded that either is not something he did 10+ years ago or has been shown false.

[gem1]

At 7/2/04 11:41 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Excuse me, has the conflict ended? Who says?

Your not paying attention.

[Pilot-Doofy]

I think we should slap Saddam back in office. Even though we say he was cruel, we are civilized people. Those sand monkeys aren't. It may be cruel what he did but he was the only one who kept them in line. Sure, we should keep a constant watch over his ass to make sure he isn't planning to blow up the world but he was a good leader to those people.

Let Iraq die with Saddam if it comes to that. He kept those unruly shits in line, why not let him rule again?

[D2Kvirus]

At 7/2/04 11:48 AM, gem1 wrote:

At 7/2/04 11:41 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Excuse me, has the conflict ended? Who says?

Your not paying attention.

If you state sending in troops was "a mens to an end", that insinuates that there has ben some form of end product. However, I doubt the intended one was a few hundred dead troops.

[gem1]

At 7/2/04 11:52 AM, pilot-doofy wrote: I think we should slap Saddam back in office. Even though we say he was cruel, we are civilized people. Those sand monkeys aren't. It may be cruel what he did but he was the only one who kept them in line. Sure, we should keep a constant watch over his ass to make sure he isn't planning to blow up the world but he was a good leader to those people.

Let Iraq die with Saddam if it comes to that. He kept those unruly shits in line, why not let him rule again?

He took their oil, their money he supressed them, killed them and torchured them. They could not rise up and defend themselfs.

[niffweed17]

At 7/2/04 12:11 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 7/2/04 11:52 AM, pilot-doofy wrote: I think we should slap Saddam back in office. Even though we say he was cruel, we are civilized people. Those sand monkeys aren't. It may be cruel what he did but he was the only one who kept them in line. Sure, we should keep a constant watch over his ass to make sure he isn't planning to blow up the world but he was a good leader to those people.

Let Iraq die with Saddam if it comes to that. He kept those unruly shits in line, why not let him rule again?

He took their oil, their money he supressed them, killed them and torchured them. They could not rise up and defend themselfs.

well, at this point it would be irresponsible to reinstate saddam, but i think pilot has a point here. who says we have the right to jump in to iraq and fight a war against their leader just because we don't like him and he does stuff we don't agree with (like torture)

[Raptorman]

Hmmm... if we left the status quo in Iraq..

1. There would be one more murderous dictator in the world, and one that really doesn't like us to boot.

2. The psycotic towel heads of the world would not be able to conserve their resources for another strike at the belly of the West instead of spending most of it futilly throwing themselves at our fangs and generating a lot of bad will by killing a lot of their fellow Muslims.

3. We would continue indefinitely with the steady cash and life drain of enforcing no fly zones ect. While some of our dubious allies continued to profit from clandestine deals made with the Bathists.

4. The people and infrastructure of Iraq would contine to falter under the ruinous and ineffective UN sanctions.

5. Most importantly, we would never correct our calllous betrayal of the Shia' and the Kurds by forrmenting inserection and then abbandoning them to the tender mercies of Saddam.

[Camarohusky]

I don't see why people keep rtying to think counter-factually about what would have happened if we went in... We went in, now let's face it. It's up to interpertation whether Iraq is better or not, and the fact that it can be debated means that our going there was a mistake. We meant to fix the country (or thats at least what they tell us) and it isn't outright better, and it doesn't look like that will change in the near future, or even the far future for that matter. Not to mention that 830+ American soldiers are dead for somethnig a large part of the public doesn't agree with, and that a large part (mainly the part that does agree with it) has no idea about. I doubt there will be any memorial for these soldiers. They will be forgotten in history alogn with all of the other recently unpopular conflicts (i.e. Panama, Granada, etc.)

[JoS]

Sadam and terrosits must really not get along if their hate for the Us cannot allow them to work togetehr. And thats alot of hate right there. Its really sad.

[BAWLS]

At 7/2/04 10:54 AM, gem1 wrote: Where would we be now if we had not took care of Iraq?

And where would we be if Bush's daddy HAD invaded Iraq, at the end of the Desert Storm operation? Hundreds of thousands of Kurds were slautered as a result of NOT sending military support to assist the Kurds, whom the CIA have been funding.

It might have been better to invade Iraq right after their losing of the Gulf War, and not a decade later just to finish some unfinished business and get some oil for Dicks company.

[witeshark]

At 7/2/04 11:19 AM, -CrazyAngel- wrote:

Please refrain from posting if you do not know what you are talking about.

Umm what are forums like these for? If everyone has to worry about what you are gonna think before posting well figure it out. As to going in Iraq, of course it had to be done. Anyone can see that

[gem1]

At 7/2/04 05:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't see why people keep rtying to think counter-factually about what would have happened if we went in... We went in, now let's face it.

That's true but many are trying to crucify Bush for doing so. If one is going to crucify Bush for it then the question is valid.

[RedSkunk]

If we hadn't "taken care of Iraq" in the first place, I imagine it would be where it was before we invaded - a modern nation with socialized healthcare, functioning infrastructure, a secularist government.

[gem1]

At 7/2/04 10:57 PM, SCHMEGULTON_MACGEE wrote: If we hadn't "taken care of Iraq" in the first place, I imagine it would be where it was before we invaded - a modern nation with socialized healthcare, functioning infrastructure, a secularist government.

All that worked for Sudam and his klan but it did not work for the people of Iraq and certainly not for the people of Kuwait.

[RedSkunk]

At 7/2/04 11:05 PM, gem1 wrote: All that worked for Sudam and his klan but it did not work for the people of Iraq and certainly not for the people of Kuwait.

Oh. sorry.

I didn't know you actually lived in Iraq in the 1980's. THANKS FOR THE TIP.

[NoHitHair]

At 7/2/04 10:54 AM, gem1 wrote: blah blah blah

How about instead of offering us an A or B plan, you offer us a C one?

How about that money that we were spending to "keep Iraq stabilized per year", we instead find other ways to distribute and just plain ignore them?

At 7/2/04 10:54 AM, gem1 wrote: Where would we be now if we had not invaded Iraq. By the end of the 90's it was costing us $40 billion a year just to mainain the status in Iraq.
1. How far would that have escaladed
2. What other problems would we have from building factions
3. What ultimatems would the UN now be dictating
4. Would terrorest be building groups in Iraq

Where would we be now if we had not took care of Iraq?

No offense but you seem to have a lot of trouble spelling basic words so I'll have to ask you for your source on that $40 billion a year claim.

[gem1]

At 7/3/04 08:36 AM, ANGRY_HATE wrote:

No offense but you seem to have a lot of trouble spelling basic words so I'll have to ask you for your source on that $40 billion a year claim.

I got that at the office, but I won't be back in there till Wed. If you can come up with another figure I'd be glad to see it.

[Professor-Burgees]

better to invade them when we did rather than let Saddam build his defensive power up more...he would have killed even more of our lads when we did invade...Imean, come on...it was bound to happen at some point

[Bubba-Phat]

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, George Bush and friends would see their companies stay at the same place they were instead of expand and strengthen. Boo hoo.

[Ericle]

if we had not taken care of iraq simply nuthin wud have happened. maybe bush may have gone down to iraq wiv his whole family and a hick lynch mob to kick his ass. other than that no one wud have cared!

[beaucoup-yeux]

if we had not gone to iraq, thousands would be alive, and Bush would have gone down in history as a mediocre president, not as a sick man with no regard for human life.

[beaucoup-yeux]

wait a second, the title is if we had not taken care of Iraq?
we cause many more problems than we solved. If anything, Iraq is now in need to be taken care of. It has gone from a kinda sorta wannabe rouge nation, to a hellhole infested with terrorists and business men and civilians in the crossfire.