If the US wasn't currently engaged in Iraq, do you think it would be at war with Iran or Venezuela now?

Question

I've read speculations that state that Iraq was invaded mainly due to changing its oil currency from US dollars to Euros. Though there might be more to it than that, it would seem to give a basis why the EU was so against the war while American politicians were for it. That being said, both Iran and Venezuela have either recently switched from US dollars to Euros, or are very close to it. Could this be why the war drums are beginning to sound off again?

Answer 1

No.....
Your thought process is comeplete BS.

Answer 2

Oh yes, you can quote me on this, there will be a war between the U.S. and Venezuela and possibly divided between Iran all at the same time IF dear old Bush gets reelected. Hugo Chavez is accumulating a stockpile of weaponry at this very minute from Russia arms dealers and possibly a network of communists including Cuba (never mind if North Korea might throw down with Hugo, and if it does then we might see China jumping in at prospect). There's also the possibility that if there is a war on both fronts that Iran and Venezuela might, might, might share resources though it may be underground to mislead the U.S.

Then there is yet another possibility that other nations might sympathize with good old Chavez and join in the fight either directly through military might or by sharing resources and they're not that far off from doing it already, watch the news....

P.S. : Start of third world war, most definitely, you can quote me on this too.

Answer 3

Well, to be perfectly honest I'm not qualified to answer your theory about the Euros. That's the first I've heard of it.

As far as the other part of your question, if we would have WON in Iraq, I can say with confidence that Bushy woulda pushed on to Tehran. If that one worked, he'd go after that guy with the bad Pompadour hairdo in North Korea.

Remember, he listed 3 nations in his (in) famous "Axis of Evil" speech. Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The one at the beginning of his sentence would have been a bugger to topple, but Iraq was just there waiting to be "liberated", and had no real military capabilities to stop a Superpower invasion. No wait, I'm all wrong. We went there to get them "weapons of mass destruction" Sure am glad we got those out of the way. I just wish he would have worried a little more about all those little weapons that are killing our soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

Answer 4

No--if the US had not engaged in Iraq--the highest probability is --that we would have completed the job that was started in Afghanistan (the forgotten war) and the troops would now all be on "stand down" until the politicians could figure out the next blood letting they wanted to dupe us all into believing there was no way around !!!

Answer 5

Iran, yes. Venezuela no.

Venezuela is too easy to crush just by clever diplomatic and economic pressure. For example, their state run oil company sells a lot of gas over here. We could screw with their CitGo gas stations.

Iran is a ticking time bomb.

Answer 6

tis true 4 i read the same.
also read that saddam didnt want 2 absolutely disclose he had no nukes 4 fear iran might get feisty on iraq again.
us burns lots oil & the faith on the $ keeps us financed. 3rd world gets exploited & polluted & seems to be rebelling. exxon exec just got $450 million for 1 year +? & i know he didnt wake up to find an oil puddle in his water supply or garden. us should annihilate the world so to posess natural resources. what good is being #1?

Answer 7

i think it would invade syria , north korea and even somalia ,bombed iran and also saved darfor

Answer 8

NO!!!!