WI: Bush declares War on Iraq on a later date

Hashasheen · Dec 14, 2008

this suddenly came to me after reading several threads on President Gore, No Iraqi War, Bush chokes on a pretzel and other related things.
So What If Bush declared War on Iraq not in 2003, but from 2004 to 2007?

Masri · Dec 14, 2008

If Bush waits long enough then the butterflies could be pretty interesting.
The delay could butterfly away the election of Ahmadinejad in Iran as ITTL his hardline message may not have as broad an appeal.
Now that I think about it this might have a similar effect on the democracy movements in Lebanon, Egypt, and Palestine as well making moderate reformers much more popular because of decreased Anti-American sentiment.
This could make a pretty interesting TL.
OOC: First Post!

CaptainAmerica · Dec 14, 2008

well he wouldn't invade until 2005. No president invades a country right before the election but it does leave the possibility that Iraq is never invaded but Iran. If i'm not mistaken Iran began making enriched uranium in 2004.

Mr. BoJangles · Dec 14, 2008

Hashasheen said:
this suddenly came to me after reading several threads on President Gore, No Iraqi War, Bush chokes on a pretzel and other related things.
So What If Bush declared War on Iraq not in 2003, but from 2004 to 2007?

ok... first of... there never has been a DoW since WWII. legally, this is not a war but a conflict. however, it is a war nonetheless.

now... i agree with the later he waits, the more interresting the butterflies. a later date would/could prove the WMD question to be accurate.

Sissco · Dec 14, 2008

Hang on a min folks

There was this horrible WMD threat from saddam, and now we're seeing the same threat comming from Iran!

How about we expand this senario...Imagine if Bush decides to invade Iraq in 2005 and orders the American and British troops to push on into Iran to kill two birds with one stone!!

Now that would be

MY

ideal senario!!!

ninebucks · Dec 14, 2008

Sissco said:
How about we expand this senario...Imagine if Bush decides to invade Iraq in 2005 and orders the American and British troops to push on into Iran to kill two birds with one stone!!

Now that would be [my] ideal senario!!!

Why? Do you have a penchant for scenarios in which Western armies get their asses handed to them? Invading Iraq and Iran at the same time would be impossible, and would result in huge loss of life on all sides.

Sol Invictus · Dec 14, 2008

We needed to beseige Iraq for a decade, killing an estimate 500,000 to 1,000,000 children and God knows how many adults before invading, even now they are still fighting back.

Iran would be ten times, a hundred times harder.

Mr. BoJangles · Dec 14, 2008

Sol Invictus said:
We needed to beseige Iraq for a decade, killing an estimate 500,000 to 1,000,000 children and God knows how many adults before invading, even now they are still fighting back.

Iran would be ten times, a hundred times harder.

are you calling us baby-killers?

Sol Invictus · Dec 14, 2008

09camaro said:
are you calling us baby-killers?

Pretty much yea...
Well not you personally, USA, Britain, the international community etc etc.

Sissco · Dec 14, 2008

Bomb the hell outa Iran....we should've done it during the Iraq Invasion in 2003!!! We out to give Israel a hand with dealing with Syria, Jordan and Lebannon!

Zyzzyva · Dec 14, 2008

09camaro said:
are you calling us baby-killers?

That's not the right response. The right response is: So, the US killed 1/2 - 1m babies? Ok, so... if the US kills at a constant rate since the invasion (around 1700 days ago) then it has killed somewhere between 300 and 600 babies a day since March 2003.

Wow, that's a lot of babies per day.

Sissco · Dec 14, 2008

As usual the number of "Civillian" deaths are over estimated! The U.s targeted and struck at Saddams military and any Al-Queda insuegents...there's probably only a few thousand deaths at most in Iraq since 2003!!!

Zyzzyva · Dec 14, 2008

Sissco said:
As usual the number of "Civillian" deaths are over estimated! The U.s targeted and struck at Saddams military and any Al-Queda insuegents...there's probably only a few thousand deaths at most in Iraq since 2003!!!

Ok... that's also stupid. The death toll is in the hundreds of thousands. Just not a million babies.

Sissco · Dec 14, 2008

Any Deaths on Civillians would probably have been commited by Iraqi troops in 2003 or al-Queda insurgents/Terrorists....Mostly backed by the hating Iranian Government.....It's time people stopped looking at the American Invasion of Iraq and crying about how "Wrong" it was.....it was the correct thing to do!

richie42 · Dec 14, 2008

Would a later Iraq War have butterflied the election of Ahmadinejad in '05?

Sol Invictus · Dec 14, 2008

Zyzzyva said:
That's not the right response. The right response is: So, the US killed 1/2 - 1m babies? Ok, so... if the US kills at a constant rate since the invasion (around 1700 days ago) then it has killed somewhere between 300 and 600 babies a day since March 2003.

Wow, that's a lot of babies per day.

No, because this was the death toll from sanctions between the wars.

Helltanz98 · Dec 14, 2008

Sol Invictus said:
We needed to beseige Iraq for a decade, killing an estimate 500,000 to 1,000,000 children and God knows how many adults before invading, even now they are still fighting back.

Iran would be ten times, a hundred times harder.

Ya know for a guy who takes his name from the Roman god of Soldiers your an ass. The US government never sanctioned the murder of children those casualties if they exist are likely terrorist attack related.
Never mind Zy beat me
In any event I'd say wait till Saddam has made a public adress and then cruise missile his ass. Hey we didn't capture but you see that burn on the wall

JohnJacques · Dec 14, 2008

He's referring to sanctions- not terrorist attacks or deaths by violence.

Mr. BoJangles · Dec 14, 2008

Sol Invictus said:
Pretty much yea...
Well not you personally, USA, Britain, the international community etc etc.

that extends to me. as im in the USAF

Zyzzyva said:
That's not the right response. The right response is: So, the US killed 1/2 - 1m babies? Ok, so... if the US kills at a constant rate since the invasion (around 1700 days ago) then it has killed somewhere between 300 and 600 babies a day since March 2003.

Wow, that's a lot of babies per day.

yeah. lol.

Zyzzyva said:
Ok... that's also stupid. The death toll is in the hundreds of thousands. Just not a million babies.

yup

Sol Invictus said:
No, because this was the death toll from sanctions between the wars.

really? huh. cause the santions were limiting the ability of iraq to procure uranium or any military supplies.

fhaessig · Dec 14, 2008

Sissco said:
As usual the number of "Civillian" deaths are over estimated! The U.s targeted and struck at Saddams military and any Al-Queda insuegents...there's probably only a few thousand deaths at most in Iraq since 2003!!!

Sissco said:
Any Deaths on Civillians would probably have been commited by Iraqi troops in 2003 or al-Queda insurgents/Terrorists....Mostly backed by the hating Iranian Government.....It's time people stopped looking at the American Invasion of Iraq and crying about how "Wrong" it was.....it was the correct thing to do!

I really hope this is written tongue-in-check, but I've got this horrible feeling it is not.

Just in case you were serious, a few links.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxTNz1IjHKE

http://www.counterpunch.org/schwartz07052007.html

While you can always discuss enquiry methods and numbers, the facts themselves don't seem to be in question.

You can find a lot more on internet, including direct eye-witnesses.