SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RMF who wrote (49299)7/31/2013 11:30:06 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 85487
 
As i-node said - "We didn't go totally alone. There were more than 40 countries involved."

Despite that fact the coalition in 2003 had fewer (non-American) members, providing fewer resources. The US effort did have less support in 2003 than in the early nineties. But its reasonably likely that the US would have had less support in the early nineties had the attack continued Stopped a day or several days later and get more of the Republican guard? There could have been enough support for that. Drive on to Badhdad? Not as much.

OTOH you do have a point that there may have been less resistance then. There wouldn't have been much conventional resistance left (not that there was effective conventional resistance in 2003), and in the short run there likely wouldn't have been much guerrilla and terrorist efforts either. But over time it might have gotten just as bad as it when the US actually took out Saddam's regime. Its hard to say.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News