What If No Iraq Invasion ?

POSTED BY: Jongsstraw
UPDATED: Monday, September 18, 2023 03:55
VIEWED: 6880
PAGE 3 of 6

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:43 AM

No invasion?

Evidence would continue to be presented that thousands of Iraqi children were dying from malnutrition and disease, resulting in a rising call for the lifting of UN sanctions.

Sanctions would be lifted and eventually France and Russia would be able to exercise their oil concessions "under proper international supervision."

Six months later Iraq demands that the US/UK patrolled "no fly" zones be lifted. Russia and China back the motion in the security council, France abstains under US pressure and the US has to use it's veto again. Eventually a compromise is reached that allows the flights to continue "with unanimous security council backing" but which severely curtails the ability of the crews to react to provocation.

Three months later an RAF plane patrolling the northern no fly zone is shot down. The UK presses to have the rules of engagement changed so that they can hut radar and missile sites but the UN refuses. The US and UK say that they are no longer willing to risk personnel policing the no fly zones if their crews do not have the right to self defense. With no authorization forthcoming the US/UK cease operations.

Six months later Saddam's troops move into Kurdistan to deal with a group of Kurdish Islamisists south of Mossel. Afterwards they engage in a protracted struggle with the PKK for control of the larger Kurdish cities. In the south Saddam's rapidly rebuilding armies secure the oilfields and the port city of Basra against a Sh'ite insurgency.

The US accuses Saddam of reconstituting is WMD programs that had remained dormant during the years of sanctions. Iran announces it's own nuclear program, Saudi Arabia builds two Russian designed experimental reactors. As it becomes clear that Iran is accelerating production of enriched uranium Saudi Arabia buys a bomb outright from Pakistan in defiance of nuclear proliferation treaties.

Israel, seeing that international law is being flaunted attack either Iraqi or Iranian nuclear sites. The whole area goes into high alert. At that moment Al Queda operatives kill the King of Jordan in a martyrdom style suicide attack. Jordan descends into chaos destabilizing the region. With Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel all rearming it looks like a regional war can not be averted.

In the US the high cost of oil ($7/gallon petrol) sparks an economic downturn that goes global in months. Drilling starts in ANWR to secure a "strategic supply." The economic downturn effects health and education spending while defense spending rises as American military resources race to secure US economic assets.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In the US the high cost of oil ($7/gallon petrol) sparks an economic downturn that goes global in months. Drilling starts in ANWR to secure a "strategic supply." The economic downturn effects health and education spending while defense spending rises as American military resources race to secure US economic assets.

The US President is pressured into drinking a Dr Pepper, "What's the worst that could happen?"

Clumsy as ever he spills the drink on the top secret White House control nuclear panel while snorting a line of cocaine off a hookers butt cheek, the sticky brown liquid fuses the circuits causing an immediate launch of the US's entire Nuclear arsenal, sparking M.A.D. as all other Nuclear powers launch their weapons at everyone else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:15 PM

Nah, this isn't "the worse that could happen ever." There is no WMD attack on the US, there isn't even a full scale shooting war in the mid east. Ok so some more Kurds get massacred and a madman gets to play with anthrax and sarin again but hey no biggie. Only real story is the horror of $7 petrol.

Reality isn't clean and pretty. The "road not taken" often looks better simply because you don't know what could have happened because you didn't take it. Not doing the Iraq thing may have resulted in world peace, we might all be singing kumbya and holding hands, or we could all be dead. The most likely scenario is something in between something just as f****** up but in a different way. Then we'd all be sitting here posting to a thread called "What if we'd invaded Iraq"

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:50 PM

Ummm... no offense, but I'm not going to be singing Kumbaya in this life or any other, not even with a gun to my head or if nailed to a cross...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:54 PM

Ok point taken, perhaps singing kumbaya and a lingering nuclear death are not all that different.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:49 PM

Huh. Interesting topic.

Hans Blix declares Iraq in substantial compliance with UN resolutions. The embargo is lifted, and Iraq signs oil deals with France and Russia, with payment to be made in Euros. (This was on the table immediately before we invaded, of which you are all woefully ignorant.) The dollar drops about 10% in value. The USA deficit remains at its current official level, but does not include the additonal $4 trillion. Without the distraction of the Iraq invasion, USA troops are allowed to monitor Afghanistan much more closely, and a working democracy and economy is eventually cobbled together.

Oil flows from Iraq at increased levels. The price of oil stays at about $30/ bbl and the price of gas at about $2/ gal. Venezuela, and Russia do NOT reap an economic oil boom and thus do not gain regional advantage. Eventually, China and Iraq reach a long-term cotract and China is not forced to play footsie with Somalia, and does not supply arms in exchange for oil. The crisis in Darfur is reduced.

Meanwhile the USA oil companies do not "earn" record profits, and they grind their teeth in frustration because they have been blocked from the world's second-largest oil fields. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE have reduced incomes, and are forced to face internal unrest. Democractic institutions gain power in Saudi Arabia, while the radical Sunnis are exported to Pakistan and become terrorists. Without the pressure of occupying Iraq, the USA is not forced to declare Pakistan as an "ally" and eventually cuts economic and trade ties in recognition of active jihadism and promotion of terrorism under (miliary leder) Pervez Musharraf.

Iraq remains a tyranny, albeit a secular and more prosperous one. Sddam turns Iraq over to his two batshit sons. The no-fly zones are continued, and while the central Sunnis become more prosperous the southern Shias devolve into squabbling groups of improverished tribes. Meanwhile, the Kurds make steady gains towards democracy in the north.

Concerns continue about Iraq's potential WMD interests, as well as Iran's. The situation is monitored closely by the IAEA but remains problematic. Israel and the Palestinians continue as before.

ETA: Without the inducement of $120/ bbl oil, biofuels, alternative energy, and fuel-efficient cars remain a figment of ecologists' dreams. There are no food riots because of biofuel demand, people continue to drive even bigger SUVs and the problems of rampant energy consumption stay on the table for the future.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

REAVERMAN

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So when should we have gone back into our shell? After WWII? If so, then large portions of the world would enjoy the same standard of living and freedoms as North Korea or Cuba.

I was under the impression that large portions of the world already have the same (or worse) living conditions and freedoms as those two.

And, no, we shouldn't have gone back into our shell. We should have continued our Cold War policy of helping out anyone who'll help us, whether they're a liberal democracy, or a draconian dictatorship. Hell, without the Soviet Bloc's interference, we should have expanded that policy. The world would be a much more stable place without foolishly naive good intentions guiding policy.

In that regard, the neocons are just as bad as the worst of the bleeding-heart liberals. Spread democracy to the globe? Yeah, that's working out just wonderfully so far, isn't it?

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:34 PM

Gosh, this is such a great idea for a thread! Doesn't anyone else want to play?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:22 AM

What if no Iraq invasion ?

No excuse to let bin Laden go. Perhaps a real trial at the Hague to see if al Qaeda was indeed the organization responsible for 9/11.

The world still allied with the US on fighting terror.

Here's a site that's fun - you can see what you can buy for 3 trillion dollars - the cost of the Iraq war: http://3trillion.org/ I fixed global warming, gave everyone in the US health care, planted five million trees, and a few other assorted things, and came home with almost a trillion in change. The stuff you didn't do because you were busy spending for other stuff - that's called 'opportunity cost' btw.

Of course, under GW Bush none of that good stuff would be close to happening anyway with all that money. US internal 'security' would be vastly better funded. Central and South America would be under the undistracted eye of Sauron.

OTOH China wouldn't own the US dollar, and maybe, just maybe, the US government wouldn't be digging itself into the debt-hole even further.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KWICKO

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:40 AM

Quote:
No excuse to let bin Laden go. Perhaps a real trial at the Hague to see if al Qaeda was indeed the organization responsible for 9/11.

Rue, why you gotta be hatin' on bin Laden? Don't you listen to your President? He says he's not all that worried about him, and doesn't spend much time thinking about him.

For the humor-impaired among you, that was what we call "sarcasm".

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE