No 2003 Invasion of Iraq...

1. The U.S could have had more material and troops to work with in Afghanistan, it may have made more of a difference. Also it is often easier to manage a one front war then a two front conflict.

The Taliban rebuilt themselves in Pakistan not Afghanistan. More material in Afghanistan makes zero difference to the Taliban reforming.

2. I agree, the Republicans might not get hammered in 2006 and 2008 elections.

3. The U.S economy may have not taken as hard a hit it has recently, long wars are always very costly.

The GOP was facing much more then Iraq in 2006. They were still suffering greatly from Bush's failed Socal Security push, a whole host of scandals, Katrina and the people generally being very tired of several years of one party rule in Washington.

As for 2008 the Iraq War did not cause the banks to make massive amounts of bad credit default swaps which almost brought down the whole financial system. It was going to happen Iraq war or not and party in power was going to get blamed for it.

Take away the Iraq War and Bush still gets re-elected in 2004. Come 2006 the GOP loses at least one house of Congress and the credit crunch and mortgage meltdown still happens and the democrat wins the White House and gains control of both Houses of Congress in 2008.
 
Last edited:
If the Pakistani government cares for that area so much why exactly did the central government make deals with the Taliban to allow them to rule those areas?

What deals did they make? When? With who? Where?

I'm not calling bullshit on you, exactly. But I'm left with the
distinct feeling that your understanding of Pakistani politics may
be lacking depth and insight.

It's easy to talk tough. But in the real world, things tend to be
more complicated.
 
The Taliban rebuilt themselves in Pakistan not Afghanistan. More material in Afghanistan makes zero difference.


The GOP was facing more then Iraq in 2006. They were still suffering greatly from Bush's failed Socal Security push, whole host of scandals, and the people generally being tired of one party rule in Washington.

As for 2008 the Iraq War did not cause the banks to make massive amounts of bad credit default swaps which almost brought down the whole financial system. It was going to happen Iraq war or not and party in power was going to get blamed for it.

Afghanistan was more then just about the Taliban, there was Al-Qaida too especially in 2003-2004.

I said that the republicans might not get hammered in 2006 or 2008, that does not mean the dems will still not get a lesser majority in the congress and not win the White House.

Never mentioned anything about the banking system etc, just that having long costly wars does not help the economy and that without it the economic hit would be a little less.
 
What deals did they make? When? With who? Where?

I'm not calling bullshit on you, exactly. But I'm left with the
distinct feeling that your understanding of Pakistani politics may
be lacking depth and insight.

It's easy to talk tough. But in the real world, things tend to be
more complicated.

From 2007-2009 the Pakistani government started making a series of deals with the Taliban to effectively hand over control of large areas of the FATA to them.

They also in that time period moved their army out of many areas of the FATA giving the Taliban free reign to plan, organize, and regroup to fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan which is the major reason the number of dead U.S. and NATO soldiers has skyrocketed since 2009. The events that made possible the Taliban's major reorganization back into a real threat to NATO troops has been these 'peace deals' starting in 2007 that Pakistan has been making with the Taliban to hand over control of areas of their country to them.

Pakistan deal with Taliban emboldens militants

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan's strategy of trying to appease Taliban militants is showing signs of backfiring, as extremists move within 60 miles of the capital and threaten to spread their influence throughout the country.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Wednesday that Pakistan's government is "basically abdicating to the Taliban" by agreeing to let them implement Islamic law in the Swat region last week. Instead of putting down their weapons, as the government had hoped, the insurgents have since moved fighters into the neighboring Buner region, local lawmaker Istiqbal Khan said.

President Asif Ali Zardari has blamed the Taliban for a wave of assassinations in Swat in recent months, and he condemned a recent video that showed militants flogging a young woman they accused of having an improper relationship.

Rehman Malik, the head of Pakistan's interior ministry, told parliament Wednesday that Zardari will not allow militants to take control of the nuclear-armed country. "If there is no peace, the government will use force," he said.

The Taliban is gaining strength in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they ruled until the U.S. invasion in 2001. President Obama has ordered an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan before the end of the year and has called on Zardari to crack down on areas such as Swat that could be used as bases for terrorists plotting to strike the U.S. Clinton told Congress that Pakistan "poses a mortal threat to the security" of the U.S. and the world.

Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif told USA TODAY this week that he was worried the militants were emboldened by the Swat deal. Even some in Pakistan's relatively peaceful cities now feel unsafe. "The whole country is under threat," said Zahoor Ahmed, 41, a security guard.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-21-apology_N.htm
 
No Iraq would have meant that the usless conflict could have been avoided. Possibly no recession, Afghanistan would have been unavoidable because Osama Bin Laden was there...I suppose?

United States would have sent peace keepers into Africa and Pakistan? Possible war with North Korea and China, but the conflict might go toward the USA because its military is still in good condition?
 
one thing everyone forgets about in the whole Iraq situation are the no-fly zones. Those would have to be dealt with somehow. We had troops and planes around Iraq enforcing those zones, and the Iraqis were shooting at them. Sooner or later, the Iraqis are likely to get lucky and hit one. Then what?
 
Why not? The deficit might be a teeny bit smaller without the Iraq War but it wouldn't affect the conditions which created the financial crisis.

Its nice someone else realizes that the Housing Bubble and the Credit Crisis were not connected to the Iraq War.

2010 Egyptian turmoil may come sooner or get delayed a few years? How would the situation with Iran develop?

The view of many Iraqis is that the uprisings across region are linked to the removal of Saddam and people in other nations in the region being jealous that Iraqis now get to pick their leaders and they don't.

Egypt, Tunisia inspired by Saddam's fall: Iraqis

BAGHDAD: Iraqis on Saturday welcomed the revolt in Egypt that threatens to topple President Hosni Mubarak, with some claiming the tremors shaking Arab rulers had begun with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "Saddam was their teacher, and all of these dictators are his little pupils," declared Hussein Mohammed, taking a break from loading boxes of imported toys into a truck.

"The dictator (Mubarak) must leave -- all dictators must go," the 55-year-old added, noting that he stayed up until 4:00 am listening to the radio for news from Cairo. "From Morocco to Saudi Arabia, we Arabs want all dictators out."

Other Iraqis remained glued to their television sets throughout the day, with electronics store owner Maher Minjal tuning four televisions to different Arabic news channels reporting events in Egypt.

"The fuse was lit by Iraq, because we became the first Arab country to achieve democracy and get an elected government," said Minjal, 28, from his store in Baghdad's commercial Karrada district. "If the regime in Egypt falls, all other Arab regimes will fall, because Egypt is the biggest and most powerful country in the Arab world."

At least one Iraqi political analyst agreed with the assessment that Iraq had begun a process that seemed to be spreading across the Middle East. "It is absolutely true that (former US president George W.) Bush was right when he said that democracy in Iraq would sweep through the Arab world," Baghdad-based analyst Ihsan al-Shammari said.

"In fact, Iraq was the first democratic regime in the region, but we are different from Egypt and Tunisia in that we were changed by foreign forces (the US-led coalition) and they are being changed by popular uprisings.

 
jimc, brutality's always been a DISadvantage. It's how we lost Vietnam and sped up the Allies' win in ww2.

o It alienates populations, meaning they resist more. See Egypt and Tunisia. In Vietnam, our side's brutal treatment of its people made for plenty of VC recruits. The same thing also resulted in long-term terror resistance after the Philippine War.

o It makes people less inclined to help. Most Eastern Europeans were disinclined to help Hitler's regime because managed to be even worse to them than Stalin - quite the feat.


We'd still've had the econ crisis, Kenichiro. That was from an unrelated set of mistakes. We'd have a tad less debt, though.
 

Typo

Banned
Why not? The deficit might be a teeny bit smaller without the Iraq War but it wouldn't affect the conditions which created the financial crisis.
It would actually be pretty big
 
Think about it: Was there any Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before American "policy makers" told the Iraqi security apparatus to go home and thus allowed the Iraqi borders to remain unprotected??
Yes, but that was thanks to the no-fly zone in the north of Iraq. It was led by one Mullah Krekar and based around the town of Gulp. (Not making this up!)
Of course, even if they don't invade Iraq, Bush might try some covert ways to destabilize Iraq and get rid of Saddam- perhaps even assassination? (I'm sure that while assassination would be frowned upon, most frowners would rather see Saddam dead than killing more. (Though there's still the question of who takes over.))
There is also one ironic note. Before the war, Bush gave Saddam and his sons time to flee the country. What if they put country over ego and fled? Thus no Iraq War, no brutal wackos running Iraq (Others may be brutal, but not the whackjobs that the Husseins were...), and no massive, costly military buildup in the Mideast.
A final point. A lot of the Georgian military spent time in Iraq, only to get flown back by the USAF after Georgia's ill-fated invasion of South Ossetia. If there's no war, what will US/Georgia relations be? how will we react when they go into South Ossetia?
 
If we were going to adopt a "realpolitik" stance against Al Qaeda as we did against communism, well, if we were willing to side with Pinochet and the barbaric Khmer Rouge in order to stick it to the Soviets and their allies, then it would make some sense for us to ally with the likes of Muammar Qadaffi (as we are) and Saddam Hussein against Al Qaeda.

But, but.... what about the WMDs? Saddam's missiles ready to strike London within 45 minutes? His secret alliance with Zarqawi and his secret meetings with Atta? What about the fact he tried to kill the President's poppy? What about the 100% guaranteed shower of rose petals as soon as Baghdad was liberated?

Ah, it's good to laugh, sometimes.
 
Top