Who was right?

in General Discussion edited January 2014
Every now and then I'm going to bring up a long rant I made in the week of the invasion of Iraq. This is so no-one can accuse those who were against the war or revisionist history.

If some of the pro-war people would like to link to what they said was going to happen (flowers in the streets etc.) I'm sure we'd all like to see it too.


The US will win. Saddam won't use any WOMD. Basra and Bagdad will fall in a couple of months in a good old fashioned war decided by people shooting at each other with guns and artillery, during which the city will get trashed and thousands of people will die. The people of Iraq remain remain utterly opposed to being invaded and will make the place an absolute hell for the occupying army at first -- and chill a bit when the water and electricity get reconnected (don't doubt but that they're going to get disconnected first). They'll tell of the hell of living under Saddam, which will be worse then we ever thought. Knowing when the war is over will be tricky, as suicide bombs and assassination of US officials will never end throughout Iraq during the period of occupation. They will chill a bit but they will always hate you.

Then, within months, while the US army keeps the peace, the UN will install a Muslim to lead a transitional government who will have the clamouring support of every Iraqi; the country will become a shining beacon of peace and civil wealth as the economy rebuilds itself with oil money flowing into local industrial companies who rebuild the country enriching ordinary citizens who feel, for the first time in decades, free. A proud, rich, democratic Arab state.

Oops, my mistake. A retired US general will turn up for an indefinite period (years) and Iraqi oil money will be used to rebuild the country by paying rich American companies. Iraqis will work for them resentfully and angrily, feeling that all their suspicions of a neo-colonial adventure were absolutely justified. The administration will make choices to the benefit of US interests and not Iraq (Will Jay Garner join Iraq up in OPEC, which is in its interest? Will Iraq join Afghanistan and get a nice new American CDMA mobile network incompatible with all its neighbours and 80% of the world?). Maybe the constant unrest sees the US administration promising to hand over to Iraqis "once there is peace in the land."

It goes on. The rest of my rant was in this thread. That's all true too (the bit about doing nothing to prevent WMD proliferation but avoidably pissing off Arabs and Muslims).

What I got wrong: Baghdad fell faster, and was less bloody. I also said "They'll chill a bit but they will always hate you;" and clearly I was wrong about them chilling.

The US admin hasn't used the phrase "once there is peace in the land," but I hear that Republican senators are talking about postponing the handover due to the security situation.

Once again, any pro-war people care to bring up previous posts about how this was going to go down?


  • Reply 1 of 2
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    You can do this in the context of other threads. I'm closing this one, but feel free to post a link to your rant and making a pertinent link or extension of it as needed in another thread now and then.

    Or just make a link in your sig.
Sign In or Register to comment.