Many times we have heard the question "if you knew then what you know now, would you have changed your position on the war?"
But logically, there really isn't a way to answer, is there?
To truly give an informed answer, one would have to know what would have happened had we NOT invaded, had we taken a different course. There's no sure way to know that.
Even so, life is full of educated guesses. So what do you think? Would your opinion have changed? And more importantly, what do you think would have happened had we taken a different course?
2006-10-31 05:26:44 · 6 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I would have handled it differently even not knowing what I know now. Everyone doesn't get the government they deserve but the majority does. The purpose of the war would not only be to remove Saddam as a threat but also to make being a threat to us an "ill bargin". And further to make supporting a leader that is a threat to us an equally "ill bargin".
I wouldn't have engaged in a full scale invasion but would have laid waste to Iraq. And would have continued until the Iraqis turned Saddam over to us. He would have been executed within days of his capture and we would have left.
We would have left the Iraqis with one warning become a threat and we will attack you and remove the threat. The same warning would have been issued to Iran and Syria.
I don't think the Iranians would be playing with Nukes or meddling in Iraq. The Syrians wouldn't be meddling in Iraq or giving arms to Hezbolla. And our troops wouldn't be overthere protecting a bunch of people that let a dictator stay in power.
2006-10-31 05:36:28 · answer #1 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should never have invaded. Saddam Hussein was effectively bottled up by all the international pressure that was being brought to bear on him at the time by the UN and world community. We had inspectors there. We had the no fly zone. We were watching everything he did. Hey, he was a terrible dictator and a definite menace. But I think the situation was being handled adequately at the time. It was far preferable to the chaos we have now which I think was totally foreseeable.
We can't be the worlds policeman for every bad guy out there.
Before we dedicate our military, we had better be a whole lot more certain of the threat than the pathetic evidence we had in this case.
Iraq didnt attack us. By invading Iraq, we have taken our eye off the real threats out there, and we have created a huge new breeding ground for anti-Americanism that will fester for years.
This was is costing upwards of $1-2 Trillion. Just think what otehr uses we could have for that money? But instead we are throwing it down a rat-hole in Iraq and getting nothing but trouble for it.
The war has resulted in a huge loss of international prestige for the US that will take a long time to rebuild.
The war will go down as one of the worst if not the worst blunders by any US president.
2006-10-31 05:44:45 · answer #2 · answered by rhblong2000 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lots more troops on the ground. Lots more money for reconstruction funnelled through NGOs rather than big businesses like Haliburton.
The biggest lesson would have been to make US troops behave more like UK troops. Sorry it's true. US operating procedure is part of the problem.
We learnt our lessons a long time ago in NI - the US never has. UK troops were taught about the culture as well as basic arabic language, and their rules of engagement specified that they had to identify a target BEFORE shooting. US troops were taught nothing of language and culture, so they pissed people off by being culturally insensitive. Their training and rules of engagement means that they shoot first and ask questions later, resulting in lots of innocent unarmed civillians being killed. UK troops made an effort to engage with the population - foot patrols almost immediately in berets rather than helmets (despite the risk), sitting down and talking to elders etc. US troops patrolled in armoured vehicles and stayed distant so they seemed to be occupiers rather than liberators.
2006-10-31 05:40:55 · answer #3 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I said no to war then and knowing what I know now I was right!
2006-10-31 05:29:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would say... same thing as we are doing now with IRAN and North Korea...
BULLSHIT...
As long as Bush, Dick, Rummy, Condi and Karl are there in the power.... Deja Vu...
2006-10-31 05:36:25 · answer #5 · answered by Affu Q 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think we had him contained with the sanctions that were in place and the no-fly zones.
2006-10-31 05:28:55 · answer #6 · answered by DW 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋