What if the US did not go to war in Iraq?

Question

What do you think those years would be like in the US, if the
US did not go to war in Iraq?

Answer 1

Some type of war or implosion was inevitable in Iraq because of the fundamental instability of Saddam's rule. In his qaurter-century of power he repeatedly sought conflicts with his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait) largely to hide what he was doing to his own people. Had the US not moved because of the purported Weapons of Mass Destruction (which everybody, including the French and Russians, thought he possessed), maybe he would have provoked the Iranians into another war. Alternatively, his continued thumbing his nose at the WMD/economic sanctions regime could have dealt the same sort of blow to the prestige of the UN system that Mr. Bush's war did.

We ought not to forget that, had this odious regime not been ousted in May 2003, thousands or tens of thousands more Iraqis would have been tortured, raped, killed, or otherwise brutalized by a government lionized by the angry idiots of the world (e.g., Sean Penn and Tariq Ramadan) as a bulwark of Third World-Arab-Islamic pride against us imperialist devils. The biggest problem--the underlying crime--of the current US-coalition campaign in Iraq is the sheer, criminal, incomprehensible incompetence of it.

Answer 2

Iraq would continue to exist as it had all the previous twenty plus years under its President Saddam.

The country would continue to be disliked by the West, especially thye USA which would of course, continue to try to forment a change and to vigorously seek other means to obtain control of Iraq's oil..

For the Iraqi people, their lives would go on, relatiively unchanged and while no better but then definitely no worse. They would have to tolerate the dictates of Saddam and his officials and suffer his sons.

Iraq, because of its oil, would have a going economy, relatively good infrastructure and the people would not be destitute. Most assuredly, there would not be wide spread ethnic violence or religious strifes, nor militia killings or insurgency witnessed post invasion.

All in all, in Western eyes, Iraq would not be considered a good country and definitely undemocratic. However, what was important then was that the common Iraqis had a life. Iraq would not have suffered hundreds of thousands killed or wounded and countless homes destroyed and the whole countnry devastated.

For the West especially America, there would be no mourning for the nearly 3500 killed and no trauma for the many thousands wounded or maimed. The multi billions of dollars could have been put to better use for the direct benefit of Americans and citizens of the 'coalition of the willing.'

America and its allies would not have been branded liars and aggressors, using false pretences in order to justiify the invasion.
For America too, there would be less ill-will from the global islamic community and therefore less to fret or fear about ppossible 'terrorist' plots or attacks. The country too would free considerable resources and thus could probably do more for its own people.

Of course, if the events of 2003 did not happen, America would not have control of Iraqi oil and defence and construction contractors would have far less to jubilate about. The hawks in the Bush Administration would then have to cast their eyes to find other countries to conquer to assuage their ego and aggressive bent.

If Iraq was not invaded, the US and its allies would then not find themselves as now so mired in foreign soil that they could not honourably extricate themselves other than shamefully admitting defeat and withdraw (read retreat.)

They would then also not be faced by the most embarrassing situation that not only has democracy not taken root (other than a luke-warm and contentious general election), the ococupation forces are universally detested, turning the whole self-imagined glorious good deed into a debacle and disaster. Bush would also not have to so loudly declare (embarrassing premature, as it turned out) "Mission Accomplished." The whole misadventure has become a true "Mission Impossible!"

Of course, if the invasion did not happen, Saddam would still be alive to strut his stuff. However, after three years and with Saddam now hastily convicted and hanged, Bush's Texan
swagger is also less pronounced for the simple reason that most Americans these days and certainly the rest of the World do not accept nor 'appreciate' his self- declared moral high grounds and 'good deed.'

In conclusion, if the US did not go to 'war', both the invader and the victim would be better off compared to now and the World would most certainly be safer from wider conflicts.

Answer 3

Interesting opening for speculation. A year prior to the war Iraq held an international trade show, Chinese advisers were selling and fielding antiaircraft radar systems and seeing how well they were doing against US. British planes enforcing the no fly zone, along with selling Iraq strategic missile technology, and missile guidance and rocket housings, Russia companies were trying to get a contract to rebuild the Iraqi oil fields, and refining plants, France's Elf Aquitaine was seeking an exclusive oil contract with Iraq, & Airbush was seeking a contract with Iraq. The French, Chinia, Russian governments were in clear violation of the UN' containment policy on Iraq and the UN's oil for food program, along with a number of european business and companies.
Had I been the US presodent when the UN failed to enforce it's own mandate then I would have removed all US forces from the region.
Iraq would have rebuild and modernized it's oil feilds, reconstituted it's armed forces, and actively sought the development of WMD's especially in the strategic missile technology area, and developed an Strategic missile program with the capabiity of striking targets in the entire region. What Saddam Huessin would have done with all that one can only guess. He did not have a very peacefull reign, almost the entire time he was in power he was waging war against someone.
To have WMD and a missile capable of striking Israel I do not think that it would be along time before he would have started something.

Answer 4

We wouldn't have the tax deficit that we have now. Iraq we be the same as it was before 911. Remember Bush went in there thinking Iraq had WMD's and had painted a picture of Osama and Saddam being in collaboration to justify the war, the simple fact is they hated each other and they haven't found an iota of a WMD in Iraq. This is Bush's big plan to build a Starbucks in the middle of Baghdad, capitalism at its best.

Answer 5

definite, and right here is why. a million. Saddam attacked Kuwait to movie star the Gulf conflict in 1991 2. We kicked Iraqi butt and Saddam surrendered 3. That conflict ended on specific subject set forth via the UN 4. Saddam broke 17 UN resolutions relating to the give up fire 5. UN did no longer something approximately it 6. US observed Saddam as a threat 7. usa did what the cowardly UN wouldnt do, bumped off Saddam So definite, the Iraq conflict replaced into justified. The UN could have executed something a protracted time in the previous, and consistent with probability the conflict could have been prevented, even though it purely talked. Saddam did no longer comprehend communicate, he respected purely action. hey, communicate is low-value. on occasion you gotta do better than negotiate.

Answer 6

While it is hard to say, I really believe that we would be in a much more unstable condition. I feel that if we hadn't gone in 2003, we probably would have ended up going in 2004 or 2005. What we have essentially done is focused the terrorist mindset to Baghdad, where they are fighting against our trained military instead of murdering thousands of innocent U.S civilians. The sad part of it all is that thousands of innocent Iraq civilians have now died at the hands of the terrorists (not that this was not already going on through Saddam and his state sponsored terrorism).
I think that if we had been content with giving the Afghans back their power over the terrorist's efforts, we would have had many more tragedies like 911. Saddam was harboring the activity that caused September 11, and we had to stop him. If he were still in power, terrorists would have the entire Middle East as a hideout, but as is, we have created a very unstable environment for the terrorists and have taken away a key sanctuary. This has put the terrorists on the defensive instead of giving them the comfort and time that they need to execute attacks on the U.S.
This is a great question, and I hope you get some responsible, intelligent responses.

Answer 7

Well about the same, I think the economies would be somewhat sludgiest, But what if Iran would have invaded Iraq and avenge the 1980 - 1988 war Iraq's proxy battle for America. What position would we all be in. We must maintain control of the oil.

Answer 8

Tens of thousands of Iraqis would have been murdered, raped, tortured and oppressed by Saddam. He probably would have reconstituted his WMD programs. Perhaps another war with Iran or other actions to threaten the Persian gulf. Iraqi people would be suffering without food, water, power, schools or medicine for many of them.

Al Qaeda and other terrorists would have received training and financial backing, as they did before the war, perhaps even get equipped with deadlier weapons, perhaps even chemical or biological agents.

France would be getting richer on arms sales to Iran, and Chirac cronies would be getting richer because of the Oil-for-Food scam. Russia, China and North Korea would also be getting rich selling arms, missiles and WMD technology to Saddam.

As Bush so rightly said, if we wait until the threat is imminent, then it is too late.

Answer 9

I can see the liberal press now if there were no more terror attacks on our country.

=============Headlines===============

Hussein Owns the Bushes, Like Father Like Son

Congress stopped George W. Bush from invading Iraq
today, just like they did his father George H. Bush some
ten years ago. Seems the Bush VS Hussein battle will
never be decided. But we are going to blame him for just
about ever other thing that goes wrong from here to
everywhere.


But if there had been other attacks.

=============Headlines===============

Why wont our president protect us. After being in
office for two years now, Bush has had three major
terror attacks in the U.S. The president is now blaming
congress for their failure to allow him to invade Iraq. This
paper feels like it's his failed international policy especially
his Middle East policy. Oh and be sure to send in your
"Item to Blame Bush for Today" card, just email, fax or snail
mail today. Lucky winners are drawn every day. You could
win a trip to Lebanon.

Answer 10

To the left they would have turned to Afghanistan and blamed Bush. To say we would be safer is ridicules for Saddam was averaging killing 20,000 of his on people each year, so four years post hence 80,000 dead Iraqis by there own leader and a breeding ground for more radical terrorism to plan and launch attacks. But in liberal hypocrisy is to only worry about deaths you can parlay into votes so we would turn our backs on those.