If Kerry had been president, do you think we would have invaded Iraq?

Just curious.

and welcome back and love your sig line :-)

I lean to the side of yes, but it would have taken much longer... but again, not sure.

who bothered to admit it, or attempt to explain.

He did vote for a resolution that had 'teeth' to it in the event the inspectors failed, etc. So, that's why I said, yes/not sure, because he did so, that shows at some point he was willing to use military action.

Although I think Kerry might have let the inspections play out. He would have gotten the permission to invade (and remember, that along with UN Resolution 1441 was what allowed the inspectors back in), and it's doubtful whether or not he'd have done anything when they found no WMDs or facilities capable of making them in the future.

It's hard to tell whether or not the PNAC crowd within the Pentagon would have been persuasive enough to get him to fabricate other "evidence," or whether or not he's involved enough with that crowd to go along with any of it.

I think it likelier he'd have used other means to destabilize Hussein. I'm not convinced that would have been much better for the Iraqi people, given the likelihood of a civil war in the absence of a strongman.

Who knows? All we know now is that it's left the US in the middle of an unwinnable war against a people who are motivated more every day to throw us out of their country, and cost us allies around the world. Repairing this mess is going to be a very tall order.

He would have let the UN inspectors finish their job, and finding no WMD's simply ensured Iraq was contained.

go forward.

Why should I do it?
Why should Kerry?
Isn't that one of the conventional wisdoms?

:shrug:

but I was addressing a related issue.
That's all.
Got a problem with that?

I think answering these hypotheticals doesn't serve much purpose & it certainly doesn't convince anyone one way or the other.

Seems to me it diverts attention from the matter at hand.
The present.
This election.
Getting Bush out of office.

I think answering these hypotheticals doesn't serve much purpose & it certainly doesn't convince anyone one way or the other.

Thank you for your opinion.

Got a problem with that?

Nope. I don't even have a problem with people belligerently asking me if I have a problem. :eyes:

I could say your original response with the shrug and no text was belligerent too, but I think it was more just colloquial--- which was my intent in my "got a problem with that" as well...

:party:

No. And while intelligence agencies around the world may have blown it on the possession of WMD's, does anyone really believe Iraq was likely to launch them at Israel any time soon? Wouldn't there have been SOME indication that Iraq was preparing to make an idiot move like that? Or are we supposed to believe they were going to do it because Hussein woke up that morning with a hangover?

I remember in 1998 Kerry was a strong supporter of Clinton going to Iraq and over-throwing Saddam, at least that was the belief I got from video I've seen. I don't think he'd of done it in a way Bush did it, but I do believe he'd of invaded Iraq. I do think however he would have involved the UN.

... may take today (which is all "what-if"), as it played out then, I do not think he would have.

I don't even think it would have been an issue. There would have been no IWR. Kerry would have likely gone into Afghanistan, and concentrated all his resources there. The containment policy of Clinton is now known to have worked. There was no reason for him to change it (9-11 or not). It was BUSH who started beating the Iraq War Drums from almost Day One, and making the case that Iraq was still a threat. It was BUSH presenting all the "evidence" to this effect.

BUT... EVEN IF Kerry had taken the route Bush set us upon, the result would have been different. Let's say that post 9-11, he viewed Iraq as an unknown and therefore very risky threat, since they could potentially hand weapons over to terror groups (extremely unlikely even if they had them, I know).

Let's assume he would have gone to the U.N. to ask for the return of weapons inspectors. Let's also assume he would have argued for a similar resolution making the threat of force a real threat to try to get Saddam to comply.

President Kerry would NOT have argued every point that the U.N. came back with showing Iraq to be in compliance. President Kerry would NOT have made a case for war to Congress and the American people using intelligence that wasn't thoroughly vetted (and any read of the papers at the time could have told him the intel he had was problematic at best). President Kerry would also NOT have cherry-picked (and outright made up) much of this intelligence to argue an the case for war. President Kerry would NOT have scuttled a promised UNSC resolution authorizing use of force. President Kerry would NOT have gone to war as a "first resort".

President Kerry would have let the U.N. Inspectors do their job and, upon seeing that Iraq no longer had any significant WMD programs, called off the dogs.

That's what he would have done. That's what a true statesman would have done. Just my opinion.

of congress, talking hypothetically as we are

he'd have been IMPEACHED!

he also would not have been able to have gotten a war resolution passed in the first place, with a partyline pug congress AND media against him

Can anyone point me to any Kerry statement in support of invading/taking out Saddam before this administration started to actively market it? I'll bet there isn't any. Kerry most certainly would have gone after the AQ in Afghanistan, but he would have addressed the real source of terror: the financial network that nurtures it.

Nobody held a gun to George's head and told him to disregard the UN inspections that were underway. He was sold on the $$$$ to be made by Republican Party fatcats and the cartoon fantasy that he'd be an American "hero" for furthering the PNAC agenda. Too bad for Bush, perhaps if hadn't surrounded himself with the inbred, sycophantic group thinkers, he'd have understood what a monumentally stupid decision he made to drive this country into this ME quagmire, head first.

No, I don't believe he would have in the way that Bush has, including the possibility that if Iraq complied with his expectations and the resolutions of the UN, that no I don't believe Kerry would have abandon the policy of containment.

I don't believe the Kerry administration would have manufactured reasons to go to work, "cooked" the intelligence books, lied about the justifications for war, or made up their minds they were invading the moment after Kerry was inaugurated.

However, if Saddam became more aggressive, or there was more clear and obvious evidence of clear threat, I believe he would have worked hard in the international community to justify the unavoidable necessity of war and build a real coalition of support - not going it alone and working with other countries to plan for peace not just for invasion.

I should have made that more clear.

I voted NO, however, in this poll.

I think Kerry would have went along with the UN and waited longer for them to complete their investigation.

I think after they completed their inspections, he might've went if they proved without a doubt that Saddam was a threat.

If they didn't prove it, I don't think we would've went.

Under Shrub, they didn't prove it and we still went.

If any democrat had been in office, the invasion of Iraq would not had occured. A democrat would had continued the inspections and confirmed that there were no WMD. This was a war to get the man who tried to kill his poppy.