If Bush didn't jump the gun and decide to invade Iraq, would we have been better off today in America?

Question

Would he have done any of the things he promised? Would he have invaded another irrelevant country? Would he have still won a second term even though he would not have been able to scare people into voting for him again?

"What-ifs are a complete waste of time and energy." Uh huh....questioning our choices are stupid......


Our allies didn't think our plan was such a good idea.....

Answer 1

One simple fact, think of all of the schools, the bridges, the science, and the roads and more we could have built with the $750 billion we wasted on Bush’s war of lies. Then ask yourself what better off really means.

Then multiply this by 50 years 6 wars and literally $15,000 trillion dollars we have wasted on wars and military excess and ask your self how great a nation American could have been if we had used this immense incalculable wealth for all of the above plus, ending cancer, aids, diabetes and all of the other scourges that beset us.

Then consider what we could have done with all that was left over.....the answer; anything beyond our wildest dreams........

But no, we've squandered our future on a pile of debt so gargantuan if defies sensible exhortations about paying it all off in our life times. As result we are growing poorer, the dollar is loosing value and our standing as a power in the world is weakening.

Yes we would have been better off had Bush not invaded Iraq, but more so if our government of the last 50 years had focused on building America and not squandered the wealth and dreams built on our backs, our lives and those of our fathers; on the follies of empire, an empire that has achieved one thing.......millions that hate us beyond our boarders, not alone because of what have not done but what we have......

As your self this when you ask, would we would be better off if………..

Answer 2

WRONG!!!

If we had not gone there Saddam would still be there

I don't know how having a dictator who constantly defied the UN by not letting them in to his factories, as well as the fact that Saddam's people gassed and killed several people still alive would be good for anyone.

So you're willing to be for a Dictator because the guy you didn't vote for got rid of him?

You don't think we should defend ourselves against people who are trying to harm us because you don't like the president. That's messed up, I think you need to look up the word extremists, that any means necessary crap is what the terrorists are doing, which makes you not much better than they are.

They are going to schools now and movies that they want, voting, plus several Al-Quida members have been captured or killed while we have been there.

I don't get how people aren't smart enough to see this is a whole new enemy, in fact they just found inmates in California I think it was. They were starting a terror cell but they were stopped, they were planning an attack on America. These people recruit these nut jobs and get them to do damage, how aren't people smart enough to see that?

Answer 3

Is this just a statement of opinion in the guise of question? Irrelevant country just states VERY clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Do some research and find out why it was incredibly relevant to take that country vs Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Funny thing is we could have walked in and trampled any one of those countries if we had wanted to. There is a very strategic reason as to why it had to be Iraq and no it was not political.

Answer 4

Most likely things would be better. I can't predict anything else though. Iraq was not needlessly invaded, it was bad intelligence. It could have just as easily proved true that Iraq had WMD, that was not a far-fetched claim (although I didn't believe it at the time, and it turns out I was right).

Answer 5

Saddam had to be removed from power. But so does Ahmadinijad and Castro, et al. He just went too far invading Iraq.

Answer 6

It is the most colossal foreign policy mistake in U.S. history. The damage to our domestic agenda has been severe (falling bridges at rush hour is just the tip of the iceberg).

Our economy was already being wrecked by the aftershocks of the Reagan deficits and Greenspan's mismanagement of Wall Street finance. Clinton at least started to put the U.S. fiscal situation back in the black. But macroeconomically, its hard to say if we'd be better off. There were still lots of liar loans being given out for houses people couldn't afford. A Ponzi scheme of fictitious capital is the only thing that kept our economy going.

Answer 7

Dictator Dumbya is in it for the "haves and have mores", including himself. There is NOTHING that he touched that isn't FUBAR. Anybody remember the man-made disaster that is New Orleans? Down with UNelected Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 8

Sadaam Hussein was a sponsor for terrorism, plain and simple. He was sending $25,000 to the families of Palastinian suicide bombers. He provided refuge to other terrorists. He was waiting for the UN to lift the embargo so he could reinstate his chemical weapons program.

Would we have been better off? Maybe, and a little monkey that was on our back in 2002 may be a massive gorilla now if we had not taken action.

Answer 9

Hell yah! We should have stayed the course and gone after Bin Laden! There is still no proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. This was just part of Bush's plan to take on Iran!

Besides, the declaration of war that Congress signed was against the Taliban, not Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies assumed it was for Iraq also.

Answer 10

Sorry, but the concept of Iraqi liberation was Bill Clinton's brainchild. He signed the Iraqi Liberation Bill in 1998.