we would've invaded Iraq if 9-11 had never happened?

12/6/2005 11:31:03 PM

Yes. We would have found a way

12/6/2005 11:41:57 PM

We would have invaded much later (maybe Bush's second term) and we would have probably done things very differently.

But all in all, what needed to be done had to be done.

What is your point? Were you hoping we would all say "Of course not" so you could then proclaim "Ah Ha! A Motive for Staging 9-11! I got you all!!1

12/6/2005 11:47:08 PM

I'll go ahead and say "of course not."

But minus the conspiracy stuff.

12/6/2005 11:56:08 PM

Congress would never have given permission.

12/6/2005 11:58:51 PM

Quote :

" What is your point? Were you hoping we would all say "Of course not" so you could then proclaim "Ah Ha! A Motive for Staging 9-11! I got you all!!1"

No. I wouldn't make that point...I'd make the point that 9-11 was falsely linked to Iraq.

12/7/2005 12:00:29 AM

Shit woulda happened eventually. Probably just as suspicious grounds but shit woulda happened.... "The nigga tried to kill my FATHA!"

If this hadn't happened would something like beef with NKorea or China elevated instead?

12/7/2005 12:07:08 AM

It'd happen.

It just wouldn't have been as supported as long as it was.

12/7/2005 12:10:39 AM

Rove isn't that smart, and Americans aren't that dumb.

No way they'd invade and occupy a country on the pretense that some guy with really big ears and a funny last name thinks invading Iraq will bring peace and harmony to the Middle East.

Plus, imagine Bush's approval ratings without 9/11. He'd be lucky if he got anything done, let alone a preemptive war.

12/7/2005 12:13:41 AM

Nah it'd still happen.

You saw the fireworks show they put on in the UN. Then all the working up the public that they did. If they said it was for freedom and that it was our patriotic duty to liberate the people of Iraq, then paid the media properly to display the videos they had and the views they had, we'd go to war over it. Only trick is that when the dust cleared and everybody started seeing clearly again there'd be less support.

It's like what my grampa said about the Germans only needing a brass band to go to war, only we use a few buzzwords and some pretty videos.

12/7/2005 12:22:32 AM

we would have, but it would have been later, and we would have done things a lot differently.

We would never have ever bombed Afghanistan if 9/11 didn't happen though, and we didn't invade Saudi Arabia after 9/11 happened either.

What needs to be done still hasn't been done though, sadly.

12/7/2005 12:34:27 AM

^thats right...we havent invaded Iran or North Korea yet

12/7/2005 1:01:26 AM

^have fun with that...MAD is a bitch

12/7/2005 1:04:09 AM

no....we would win

12/7/2005 1:22:43 AM

^no...you fight a crazy country with nukes...and the best army on earth wont be able to save you.

take a lesson from the Cold War, MAD will keep us out of that fight w/ N. Korea.

oh, wait, youre a troll. why did i bother?

[Edited on December 7, 2005 at 1:29 AM. Reason : .]

12/7/2005 1:28:55 AM

Well, Bush was talking about it before he was even nominated, so...yeah.

12/7/2005 2:46:21 AM

Not a chance in hell.

12/7/2005 1:32:37 PM

Damn. I was hoping for a "do you believe in life after love" thread.

12/7/2005 1:33:56 PM

the motivation to invade iraq would still have been there

another excuse would have been found somehow.

12/7/2005 1:35:51 PM

Quote :

"we would've invaded Iraq if 9-11 had never happened?"

It's possible that they could have sold the public on the war and went ahead with the war without a 9/11 type of event, but it was much easier for them to go to war with 9/11. The PNAC documents talk about the need for such a "catalyzing", "new Pearl Harbor" like event. Prior to invading 9/11, the Bush administration was stressing that Iraq/Saddam could hand over WMDs to terrorist organizations, which could then attack America. Without a major "terrorist" attack like 9/11, they wouldn't have been able to use that supposed threat to sell the American people on the war.

12/9/2005 3:45:17 PM

Do you believe in magic?

12/9/2005 3:47:44 PM

Yes. We would have found a way.

12/9/2005 3:49:01 PM

in love after love?

12/9/2005 8:50:12 PM

yes, we would have. The bush team was planning to invade since they came into office. Getting tough on iraq was a campaign platform. Sept. 11 was quite fortunate for the bush administration. His first term was well on the way to becoming like this last year before sept. 11.

He was getting embarrassed left and right. Anyone remember the chinese spy plane? He only got the tax cuts passed in the post 9/11 hysteria.

[Edited on December 9, 2005 at 9:30 PM. Reason : sdf]

12/9/2005 9:28:50 PM

I don't believe we would have. I think we would have taken some action in Iraq, perhaps funding an insurgent force or something on those lines, but my personal opinion is that the President himself probably wouldn't have given the hawks as much leeway hadit not been for the events of 9/11. Remember, prior to 9/11, a lot of the key folks such as Rumsfeld were on the verge of being dropped from the cabinet...

12/10/2005 12:05:04 AM

Quote :

"Well, Bush was talking about it before he was even nominated, so...yeah. "

That's all he could do though, was talk about it. Soon after he was declared winner, i seem to remember him trying to get congress in on the idea, and getting shot down.

12/10/2005 12:39:45 AM

Quote :

"Plus, imagine Bush's approval ratings without 9/11. He'd be lucky if he got anything done, let alone a preemptive war."

12/10/2005 1:27:35 AM

Quote :

"We would have invaded much later (maybe Bush's second term) and we would have probably done things very differently. "

that incompetent dipshit would have never gotten in for a second term if it weren’t for 9/11

I hate to use this as a reference, but if you've seen the Michael More movie, it's it pretty good perspective, he was wasn't flying too high before 9/11. He'd want a war, sure, but he'd just fizzle out in a course of events no different from his first year or so of office and we'd have some democratic president right now.

12/10/2005 2:26:18 AM

Quote :

"Congress would never have given permission."

it's funny when people think the president needs congress' permission.

Quote :

"if you've seen the Michael More movie"

referencing michael moore throws all your credibility out the window. same goes for ann coulter or anything salisburyboy posts.

[Edited on December 10, 2005 at 8:44 AM. Reason : *]

12/10/2005 8:43:37 AM

^^ Revisionist history. He was already on his second round of tax-cuts when 9/11 happened. Re-done stem cell research, and radicallized the EPA.

12/10/2005 9:09:07 AM

of course not. if saddam hadn't flown those planes into the twin towers, we'd have no reason to invade
well, maybe if he'd paid for them to be flown into the twin towers
ok, maybe if he'd met with one of the hijackers
maybe if he had weapons of mass destruction
maybe if he had weapons of mass destruction related programs
babies torn from incubators?
would you believe he once laughed at the president?

ok ok, he sends out cards that say "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas."

12/10/2005 10:20:49 AM

oh i don't know, MAYBE if he'd been shooting at planes in the no fly zone that he had agreed to

or MAYBE if he'd been deliberately thwarting the efforts of WMD inspectors

my problem has always been that they didn't use those reasons for war, you know the legitimate ones

12/10/2005 11:17:57 AM

they did use them in more complex policy speeches, but they didn't make very good propaganda... all wars need propaganda... i guarantee that the popular arguments used for WWI and WWII didn't scratch the real issues why we went in. Same with the Civil War - shit even the revolutionary war had its fair share of propaganda (hello boston massacre)

the hoi polloi can't handle the truth. they get propaganda. if they're further interested, they can easily find the truth in our society, but they have to make a little bit of personal effort (opening a newspaper, for instance)


[Edited on December 10, 2005 at 11:31 AM. Reason : s]

12/10/2005 11:27:44 AM

Quote :

"it's funny when people think the president needs congress' permission."

May be true as far as i know. But sure as hell a president can't go to war without support from congress, the ppl of the nation, etc...

Quote :

"referencing michael moore throws all your credibility out the window. same goes for ann coulter or anything salisburyboy posts."

stfu, the thing that should be held to reduce someone's credibility is using a source outside of the bound of it's credibility or missquoting. You lived through the time before 9/11. I could be quoting my asshole if you could verify the information from your own experience. If you read the source without the way in which the referencer handled the infomation and drew conclusions from that, then you're an ignorant tool, discussing politics is worthless for you, go listen to your "credible" source and tell it to someone that cares.

12/10/2005 2:53:42 PM

Quote :

"it's funny when people think the president needs congress' permission."

it's sad when people don't know shit about the US Constitution.

12/10/2005 5:50:29 PM

^Case in point

12/10/2005 5:58:09 PM

^Enlighten me. Where in the Constitution does it say that the president can declare war?

12/10/2005 6:01:52 PM

Congress hasn't declared a war since WWII.


Fucking War Powers Act, which should be repealed ASAP.

12/10/2005 6:13:27 PM

Quote :

"it's sad when people don't know shit about the US Constitution."

the president can't declare war on his own, but he can WAGE war for 90 days

in three months time you can be in all out full on war that you can't just take your ball and go home

in short, eat shit

12/10/2005 7:39:50 PM

Yeah, I'm sure we could have liberated Iraq and beat off all the insurgents in 90 days

12/10/2005 7:46:12 PM

that's not what i said

what i said was he could start a war within 90 days that you can't get out of

12/10/2005 7:48:04 PM

oh that's a brilliant fucking idea

12/10/2005 8:01:45 PM

all that's being said here is that ANY president has the ability set forth in the constitution to send troops into military action anywhere in the world, without the consent of congress.

congress, after 90 days, could make a big fuss, they could even force the withdrawal of those troops. the problem is, if said president started what we would call a conventional war, you can't just leave. congress would have no choice but to see it through.

in this case, congress could make every member of the us forces leave iraq, if they wanted to. but they won't and they really can't because of having to clean up our mess.

it really should be changed so that there is some oversight on the president's ability to deploy troops.

[Edited on December 10, 2005 at 8:21 PM. Reason : *]

12/10/2005 8:20:54 PM

I'd like to see a president try to win a war without any funding appropriations!!! HA! TAKE THAT

That said... "One morning, you, a 4-star general in this nations army, receives two phone calls: from the President telling you when and where to invade; the second a conference call from the majority leader in congress proclaiming that no declaration of war does or ever will exist and that any such invasion will be unconstitutional. What do you do?"

12/10/2005 9:47:09 PM