What if the United States won the Iraq War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dahir
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 29
  • Views Views 5K
D

Dahir

Board Member
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
What if, by January 2004, the United States had successfully captured, tried, and executed Saddam Hussein, defeated the entire Iraqi resistance?

Had that happened, how would today -- 10/28/2006 -- look? Would it be the same, or be slightly or greatly different? And what would the Middle East change -- focus especially on Iran and Syria here.
 
Dahir said:
What if, by January 2004, the United States had successfully captured, tried, and executed Saddam Hussein, defeated the entire Iraqi resistance?

Had that happened, how would today -- 10/28/2006 -- look? Would it be the same, or be slightly or greatly different? And what would the Middle East change -- focus especially on Iran and Syria here.
Click to expand...

I think, regardless of the military situation, there would be a Shiite coalition in power in Iraq, which would probably be fairly friendly towards Iran. This might not have been to the liking of the US, but as long as both the US public and the Shiites would insist on democratic rule and elections the results could not be much different.
 
KAding said:
I think, regardless of the military situation, there would be a Shiite coalition in power in Iraq, which would probably be fairly friendly towards Iran. This might not have been to the liking of the US, but as long as both the US public and the Shiites would insist on democratic rule and elections the results could not be much different.
Click to expand...

I'd go along with that. I suspect that's where it will end up anyway, after a lot more bloodshed. The post-war bloodshed in Iraq has been caused by an assortment of groups with their own interests willing to use violence to achieve them and establish a power base in the 'new' Iraq. Some of those groups are pragmatic enough to co-operate on occasion if it is in their mutual best interests but the idea of some united "resistance" in Iraq is a total fantasy and always has been. They aren't bothered who that violence is against, it could be and has been against Coalition forces, Iraqi security forces and indeed each other.
 
655,000 citizens of iraq dead.

900,000 misplaced.

these are all the faults of al qidea and other groups, and not the military in general, but if bush wasn't there, none of this would have ever happened.

how is america loosing this war? with all of these deaths.. this is definetely a bloody war.
 
thirdwatch512 said:
655,000 citizens of iraq dead.

900,000 misplaced.

these are all the faults of al qidea and other groups, and not the military in general, but if bush wasn't there, none of this would have ever happened.

how is america loosing this war? with all of these deaths.. this is definetely a bloody war.
Click to expand...

This is not the fault of Al Qaeda. The USA INTENTIONALLY BOMBED FALLUJAH KNOWING OF THE CIVILIAN COUNT. Over 150 mosques were destroyed. Thousands killed. Last i recall the insurgency groups and al qaeda did not fly high and bomb them like the coalition troops. Dont try to be slick and make the blame among everyone. It is the US fault, dont try to share the complete blame with the insurgency.
 
What would happen?
I thought that was obvious!

They'd suddenly realise that they are the biggest bunch of loosers ever.

There are some victories which are sort of pre-programmed by Allah to be a loose. So who fights to win stands out as the bad guy for everybody else to beware of.

But that doesn't mean to say that every loosing game plan will will; just that the winning game plans loose in the long run. Everybody knows that, don't they, or is that just Aussie Indigenous culture (uh oh, now maybe I'm in trouble for spilling beans)?

But its really important! If your win is true then you are always loosing to Allah; so every win is a loose. A few loosing streaks turn into the victory only because in Allah we are all Judged ultimately. Be meek dudes.

waram
 
thirdwatch512 said:
655,000 citizens of iraq dead.

900,000 misplaced.

these are all the faults of al qidea and other groups, and not the military in general, but if bush wasn't there, none of this would have ever happened.

how is america loosing this war? with all of these deaths.. this is definetely a bloody war.
Click to expand...

i don't get your point by bringing up al qaeda blah. and what other groups did you mention there?

people loves to point al qaeda as the invisible culprit. how long will this happen? would they be also blamed for the killed whales, tortured walrus or an earthquake?
 
My own suspicion is that it would be very similar to what it is today. The differnce is Saddam would have been executed by now. His Government would have been overthrown and there would be fighting over who will control the country.

I do not know if there would be less or fewer innocent deaths. But I believe it would be less and it definetly be be a lot less American and British Deaths.
 
The U.S. "winning" in Iraq is dependant on the Iraqi people, not the U.S. When the citizens begin to believe that this government they elected is stable and not going to fall apart, then more Iraqis will be willing to openly and actively support it.
 
Asyur an-Nagi said:
i don't get your point by bringing up al qaeda blah. and what other groups did you mention there?

people loves to point al qaeda as the invisible culprit. how long will this happen? would they be also blamed for the killed whales, tortured walrus or an earthquake?
Click to expand...

I think people got it into their head that anyone fighting against crusaders are consequently termed al-qaeda, and anyone taking the crusaders as protectors and freinds or not fighting them (because they are not able too for some reason) are peaceful people.
Who know's anyone who probably voice against it and support the resistance vocally probably be considered al-qaeda.

I suppose it make's most of the members in this forum al-qaeda. I simply don't care what they choose to label, it just a means to do so for political reason, and stir up/or silent the ignorant herd.

I personaly think resistance should go on, and I suggest people look into the Quran and the sunnah for doing so, and should be in accordance with it as best as possible.
 
Last edited:
AbdulHassanAmir said:
They did win...
Click to expand...

I'd beg to differ, so would much of the world.

But what's your definition of success?

NOT achieving set goals is success to you?

No WMD's, Bin Laden, or even competent replacements for Saddam.

If you see unchecked goals as success, than Iraq is one of them, so was WW2 for the Germans, and my last driving exam for me (which I failed).
 
Dahir said:
I'd beg to differ, so would much of the world.

But what's your definition of success?

NOT achieving set goals is success to you?

No WMD's, Bin Laden, or even competent replacements for Saddam.

If you see unchecked goals as success, than Iraq is one of them, so was WW2 for the Germans, and my last driving exam for me (which I failed).
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the Iraq War, that was over years ago. The stated objective, which was the end of the Saddam regime, was accomplished. The problem is that there wasn't a stated objective or a plan for the post-war situation. I'm not sure what Bin Laden has to do with the Iraq War though.
 
Skillganon said:
I personaly think resistance should go on
Click to expand...

'Resistance' against what? There is no 'resistance'. What is happening in Iraq is sectarian violence with assorted interest groups, some religiously motivated (of both Shi'a and Sunni varieties), some politically motivated, many of which are at each other's throats. The Iraqi government and US/coalition troops are just two (allied - sort of) factions amongst many factions.

The whole thing is huge mess, for which both the Americans and Iraqis themselves are responsible for, but what you want to 'go on' is mindless, pointless, unnecessary death and bloodshed which has nothing to do with 'resistance' or 'Muhajadeen', or Islam. The more people who actually face up to what isactually happening rather than clinging to fantasies about it the more likely it actually is to stop, in compromise and peace not 'victory' for anybody.
 
Dahir said:
I'd beg to differ, so would much of the world.

But what's your definition of success?

NOT achieving set goals is success to you?

No WMD's, Bin Laden, or even competent replacements for Saddam.

If you see unchecked goals as success, than Iraq is one of them, so was WW2 for the Germans, and my last driving exam for me (which I failed).
Click to expand...
I never said they were successfull. They won against Saddam and toppled his regime. And now there is a brand new war in Iraq.
 
Trumble said:
'Resistance' against what? There is no 'resistance'. What is happening in Iraq is sectarian violence with assorted interest groups, some religiously motivated (of both Shi'a and Sunni varieties), some politically motivated, many of which are at each other's throats. The Iraqi government and US/coalition troops are just two (allied - sort of) factions amongst many factions.
Click to expand...

Resistance against the crusaders and the one who take them(Crusaders) as Guardian and protectors, the crusader institute goverment.

Contrary to your politically flavoured words such as peace, humanity e.t.c.
The sectarian violence is just what crusaders favored as possible alternative i.e. united confrontation to the allied troops.

I really do not believe the old mens that sit's in the parliament or the fundies in washington did it out of the goodness of their heart or out of love for Islam(Muslims)


The whole thing is huge mess, for which both the Americans and Iraqis themselves are responsible for, but what you want to 'go on' is mindless, pointless, unnecessary death and bloodshed which has nothing to do with 'resistance' or 'Muhajadeen', or Islam. The more people who actually face up to what isactually happening rather than clinging to fantasies about it the more likely it actually is to stop, in compromise and peace not 'victory' for anybody.
Click to expand...

Well much could of been ovoided if the gun blazing american's, did not excercise the millitary might on a already desolate land that where in the brink financial instability by the countless sanction that supposedly restrict their old-freind from being a threat because he fell out of favour.

I will cling to my fantasies whatever you wan't to call it, and part of it involves the allied troops loosing/leaving. I am sure they are main part of the problem. Never doubted that, and I expected much what is happening today from the the initial conception of such Mighty bravado by the american-allied regime.

Anyway aslong at it has to do with Muslims it is everything got to do with Islam, and me.
 
Trumble said:
'Resistance' against what? There is no 'resistance'. What is happening in Iraq is sectarian violence with assorted interest groups, some religiously motivated (of both Shi'a and Sunni varieties), some politically motivated, many of which are at each other's throats. The Iraqi government and US/coalition troops are just two (allied - sort of) factions amongst many factions.

The whole thing is huge mess, for which both the Americans and Iraqis themselves are responsible for, but what you want to 'go on' is mindless, pointless, unnecessary death and bloodshed which has nothing to do with 'resistance' or 'Muhajadeen', or Islam. The more people who actually face up to what isactually happening rather than clinging to fantasies about it the more likely it actually is to stop, in compromise and peace not 'victory' for anybody.
Click to expand...

Obviously , you dont know the politics or the real situation in Iraq. The current sunni areas are united under Sharia. There are 2 shiite groups, 1 accepts the american involvment, 1 does not. Thats the truth, thats whats happening. The sunnis have taken baghdad and all will soon InshAllah come to them.

P.S. Dont rely on western propaganda
 
mahdisoldier19 said:
P.S. Dont rely on western propaganda
Click to expand...

Which propaganda should be relied on?

The situation in Iraq is much more complicated than anything that has been suggested here. It is complicated to the point that even those that are there and involved don't understand the full scope of the problem. I am not sure anybody does.
 
GARY said:
Which propaganda should be relied on?

The situation in Iraq is much more complicated than anything that has been suggested here. It is complicated to the point that even those that are there and involved don't understand the full scope of the problem. I am not sure anybody does.
Click to expand...

No you make it complicated then it is.

There is a SUNNI ISLAMIC STATE established in the sunni areas.The center of the Islamic State is in Baghdad There are 2 groups of Shiite surgency. 1 Goes with the Americans, the other does not. Thats how simple it is. I dont know what you cant understand? How much more clarification do you need? And Offcourse this is a full scale Invasion by the USA.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top