[Eight Ace]

Hello and welcome to Eight Ace: The Iraq Hypothetical.

you know, *sighs*, the Iraq situation is teetering on civil war ...or is it just wanton slaughter
by one group of muslims against another, aided greatly by yet more fellow muslims from surrounding
countries, or from anywhere else on the planet, being funneled into Iraq to make jihad on Americans?

Then we were told that, with everyday bombings by muslims on muslims, a greater percentage
of Iraqis turned out to vote than did Americans in their last poll, this may be "disproved" by ninty any minute,
but 'til then.. why would they bother at all if they wanted nothing to do with what the coalition was offering?

the answer of course is: aww yeah but US/UK/Aus/etc shouldn't even be there to start with! and everything and all that!

So this Eight Ace Hypothetical, the first in a new 75 part series, asks:

*what if some WMDs were found?
*what if Saddam admitted helping fund..no wait, masterminding 9/11?
*what if Saddam was captured and his army dismantled?

what then would be different?, would Iraq have said thank you and insist on reform?

or would the sunni/shi'ite/al qaeda/islamic jihad/clan/tribal conflicts go ahead
and undermine and destroy any progress, just to claim no progress had been made.



..thoughts?

[ninty]

I don't get it. Do you want those who oppose the war to hypI don't get it. Do you want those who oppose the war to hypothetically support the war if things were different?

1. WMD: I do not support preemption as a strategy in any countries foreign policy. Thus if WMD had been found in Iraq, I don’t believe I would have supported the way, although I’m sure many who oppose it now might change their mind if WMD was found.

2. 9/11: If, in another dimension, Saddam had been the mastermind behind 9/11, that would be considered an act of war upon the country in which it took place. Therefore, I would support retaliatory measures against that country.

3. Hasn’t Saddam already been captured and his army dismantled?

If any of these things were different, would Iraqi’s respond any differently? I doubt it. It’s their country. Their defending it. I don’t think any country in the world would let another country overthrow it even if the country being overthrown was in the wrong.

The groups could be undermining everything to make it seem as nothing had been gained I suppose. I really don’t know.

Then again, your statements are hypothetical, and thus, does it matter?

[Eight Ace]

Originally Posted by ninty

I don't get it.... Then again, your statements are hypothetical, and thus, does it matter?

ffs, perhaps that's why I called it a hypothetical, if you can't grasp the concept please don't reply.

(and yes I am aware saddam has been captured, I was mixing the fact of
his military defeat and the current insurgency with the two hypothetical points.)

[Stammer]

It wouldn't be any different, however if it had been proven that Iraq had WMDs, and Saddam was a key player/mastermind of the September 11th attacks then I think practically everyone in the country would have been for the war. But personally I don't feel the the Iraqi response would have been any different to our invasion.

Now maybe if the post-war planning was tip top and we had huge international aid then possibly things would have been vastly different.

[Eight Ace]

Originally Posted by Stammer

It wouldn't be any different, however if it had been proven that Iraq had WMDs, and Saddam was a key player/mastermind of the September 11th attacks then I think practically everyone in the country would have been for the war. But personally I don't feel the the Iraqi response would have been any different to our invasion.

Now maybe if the post-war planning was tip top and we had huge international aid then possibly things would have been vastly different.

yes I agree it would be just the same even if the coalition had the "moral high ground", also with this
kind of insurgency would it make any difference on the ground that everyone at home was for the war?

And if the post war planning was better and there was vast international aid,
would that just mean more attacks on civilians recieving that aid?

the conflict in Afghanistan has much more international support, but insurgents there are also
now adopting the methods used in Iraq (naturaly, as many of them are the same people), coalition
troops will become bogged down there as well.

Is it just too hard and costly to defeat an ememy who will destroy his own people and indeed
himself, to make sure any chance of democracy fails and his country remains a tribal battleground?

[Vance]

Originally Posted by Stammer

however if it had been proven that Iraq had WMDs

Oh, it was proven. Can't say much more than that though. oOo: