If President George Herbert Walker Bush invaded Iraq in 1991 would 9/11 have happened?

Question

I just want to test your understanding of the war on terror. Please play along.

Lets not bring the "butterfly effect" into this. The point is would that invasion have lowered the risk of a terrorist attack ?

tweety, there is a reason why many Americans ended up believing that Iraq and 9/11 were connected. It wasn't because the Bush administration went out of their way to clear up any misunderstandings about Saddam's alledged involvment. They never directly said it, but they heavily implied it. Which makes them just as guilty as if they actually directly said it. You are being intellectually dishonest.

Answer 1

While the link to Iraq and the war on terror is weak we can never fault The elder president Bush for not invading Iraq. I agree that we can't change the past. The elder President Bush followed the mandate that was given to him from the international community. He may have wanted to invade Iraq but he didn't have the international support to do so. He chose wisely not to. That decision most likely had nothing to do with 911 happening or not happening. President Clinton made more decisions that helped 911 happen than the elder president Bush probably ever did. Although I would not hold President Clinton responsible. The forgotten war in Afghanistan is the only war I believe is actually fighting terrorism. Iraq seems to be creating it.

Answer 2

We can never know.
The U.N. Iraq weapons inspection teams were set up shortly after the Gulf war in 1991. The purpose was to locate and destroy Iraq's CBR arsenals and any ballistic missiles.
At this time, Saddam had not had time to build up his reputation of expelling the inspectors, rejecting U.N. resolutions and generally playing cat and mouse with the U.N.
With the inspection teams in place it would have been viewed as an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation which was seemingly cooperating with the U.N. The anti-war leftists in this country would have blown a gasket and had a field day.
The events of 9/11, in my opinion, were the result of our ineffective response to the acts of war, terror and murder perpetrated against Americans for over 25 years by the Islamic radicals - tactics which, until the recent invasions, were carried out with pretty much impunity. This inaction was viewed as weakness by the terrorists.
Remember, a war on terror can not necessarily be defined as a war on any particular nation - it is a war against an ideology of hate and domination that history has clearly shown isn't content to keep its demented blood lust confined within its own borders. Their threats are crystal clear and the dangers are equally clear - it amazes me that people can be so much in denial about an ideology that has demonstrated its willingness to slaughter innocent men, women and children to further its agenda.
Ask yourself how effective the appeasement, negotiations and diplomacy used prior to WWII were in eliminating the NAZI agenda of hatred and domination.
The events of 9/11 were inevitable - we cannot return to the policies of inaction and no effective response again.
To answer your question, no, I do not believe the events of 9/11 would not have happened. The terrorists depend on submission through terror and, until the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, have pretty much had their way in plotting and planning their attacks at will against a world unwilling to confront them.
Spain has surrendered, France and the rest of the passive world is close behind - it appears the U.S. and their true allies are the terrorists' last hurdle in their objectives of hatred and domination.

Answer 3

Definitely yes. Terrorists will have a safe haven in Iraq. If the event happens coinciding with the Soviet collapse, worse than 9/11 might happen because thousands of nuclear bombs out there would be unguarded.

Answer 4

Yes. Saddam was a secular Muslim ruler. Bin Laden and al Qaeda are religious fundamentalists and hated Saddam for being too soft on non-Muslims, women's rights, etc. Bush Sr predicted America would have gotten bogged down in Iraq - if this was right, America's other enemies might have struck even sooner had they sensed vulnerability.

Answer 5

This isn't a game. You can't alter an event in the past, and attempt to judge what would have happened in the future. You don't know who will die, who will come to power...so many variables. It doesn't even make sense.

My guess is that it would have happened though, since Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 in the first place. In fact, 9/11 may have occurred even sooner...maybe on Clinton's watch.

Answer 6

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on whether we stayed until the Middle East was more stable, or we cut and run.

The connection between 9-11 and terrorism is indisputable. A Middle East where every nation is supporting and funding terrorists is the ME we have currently.

Answer 7

It's obvious where you're going with this.

Show me ONE video of any Bush 43 Administration official claiming that Saddam was responsible for 9/11... it's not out there, because they NEVER SAID HE WAS.

Answer 8

confident the invasion of Iraq replaced into planned years in the past. the only question is, if no longer 9/eleven then, what journey could have paralyzed the minds of the individuals with adequate concern to maintain the help needed for the conflict?

Answer 9

Yes, radical muslims want everyone that don't agree with their way of thinking to die.

Don't think for a minute that they wouldn't chop your head off.

You would look pretty silly running around with no head. Well for a few seconds anyway.

Answer 10

Yes and far worse!

Since invading Iraq terrorism incidents have risen seven tims according to a state department report from 3 weeks ago.

War = more enemies = more terrorism against us!