What would the World be like had Saddam Hussein never been toppled?

With the recent ISIS execution video being released and after discussion about it, a thought struck me and I wanted to share it. If you're able to go into a third person perspective with ease and entertain hypothetical scenarios then follow me here.

Take yourselves back to the Bush administration, the year 2000. Seems like yesterday, fifteen years sure go by fast. What's that.. fifteen year old Islamic Extremist/Tribal children soldiers in Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, and Iraq? They hadn't even been born yet.

So the United States invades Iraq, the second time in a decade, but this time it's for keeps. The premise is, laughably, "weapons of mass destruction". Not even nukes, not even 'dirty uranium' for bombs like ISIS currently has, stolen from Mosul university. Weapons of a biological and chemical nature. The same kind President Bashar al-Assad of Syria currently has in his supposed arsenal at this very moment.

We bring the Democracy in the spirit of the U.S. revolution, throwing U.S. flags over the face of the statue of the dictator that all of those people have known since birth. We kill the bad guys, we put them on playing cards with bounties and hunt them down one by one, including Saddam Hussein himself. We captured him, sentenced him to death, and televised it. Everyone got to see.. especially the Iraqi's and those in the Muslim world.

We created prisons where Muslim prisoners were tortured and/or humiliated (depending on where you stand). Pictures were taken and televised for the world to see. Especially Iraqi's and those in the Muslim world. (Abu-Ghraib)

The current generation of the Sunni Muslim world (especially Iraqi's) has been influenced by these events. Many of these ISIS terrorists are younger than I am (and I'm in my lower 30's). They've been subject to all of the events that I have (regarding World events) and more-so simply because they may have been younger than I, and subject to more influences, some extreme.

With all of this said, how can people claim that ISIS is an intentionally created entity by the United States, other than to say the Bush administration foresaw all/most of this and toppled Saddam Hussein with the intent of ISIS to form? This would mean that Abu Ghraib depravities were done and televised on purpose, that Saddam may have been overthrown, then executed on TV to influence this outcome. I don't see how they could have intentionally influenced such outcomes as ISIS eventually forming because most of the U.S and Coalition soldiers didn't even want to be there and were just trying to stay alive.

That would mean the only other possibilities are that the U.S. unintentionally caused this eventuality, which I agree with, or the Obama administration is literally using Bush's intentional/unintentional outcome to create/influence this new entity into creation called ISIS. Obama should be out of office in a year, so why would he be creating this for the next administration and so on, especially if those administrations might be from the opposing party? One could say he's trying to cause problems for the next President to deal with because it may be a Republican, but how does he know that for sure?

It'd be much more logical and realistic, less insane and psychotic perhaps, to simply say that this was an unintentional outcome.. that the prevailing idea of thought in the early 2000's was that this wasn't going to end up happening, that Al-Qaeda was going to be weakened over time and defeated, mitigated at least.

We've seen with Charlie Hebdo that this isn't that case in 2015.

What's it going to take to completely destroy this ideology, or is it unstoppable over time? If so, the eventualities are frightening.

He would have died of old age and Iraq would have decended into a civil war amoung his generals and son.
And a extreme group like ISIS would have appeared.

Big diffrence is without blair and bush crying wolf the west would not be war weary and fed up with the ME and be willing to put boots on the ground.

a reply to: crazyewok

I really don't fancy any kind of scenario that involved Uday Hussein replacing his father. There was monster/psychopath if ever there was one.

originally posted by: r0xor
It'd be much more logical and realistic, less insane and psychotic perhaps, to simply say that this was an unintentional outcome.. that the prevailing idea of thought in the early 2000's was that this wasn't going to end up happening, that Al-Qaeda was going to be weakened over time and defeated, mitigated at least.

It's hard to argue that the prevailing opinion in the 2000's was that this wasn't going to happen. Every leader involved in the first Gulf War including Cheney predicted exactly what would happen if we took out Saddam.

A quote from DIck Cheney in 1994:

LINK.

Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but Saddams execution wasn't televised. I seem to remember that the scene was filmed and smuggled out on a cell phone camera....

Nice Post btw.
S&F

I personally think we would have been better off if he stayed in power. So would the people in Iraq. He was not much of a threat to America and us protecting Kuwait would have been a lot cheaper.

But evidently, some people in charge of America figured we would do better with trillions of dollars more debt and richer defense contractors.

The Middle East would undoubtedly have been much more stable. They wanted to make Hussein out like a madman, a mass-murderer, when he understood what was needed to maintain stability in the country. He did some bad things, sure, but so has the US. Need I remind everyone that the US allied itself with the worst mass-murderer in recent memory, possibly ever, during a time when the US was much more innocent? Need I remind everyone of the multiple illegal operations conducted by the US? The US wants to act as if they are on the moral high ground, and want to act as if they have the right to police the world, when this is all just a ploy. Those pulling the strings are the ones in a position to financially benefit from the actions they push for.

Iraq invaded Kuwait and Hussein was allowed to stay in power. Why? Because of common sense. Unfortunately Bush did not use common sense, and instead singlehandedly turned a somewhat stable Middle East into sheer chaos. Hussein realized what many people throughout history have realized...that the ONLY way to fight fanatics is to use brute force. You cannot reason with someone who has already made up their mind. Hussein was no saint, and was definitely persecuting innocent people, but again I ask what country hasn't done this? If the US feels they have the right to invade a country over atrocities committed, why haven't we invaded the numerous other countries where a brutal regime is in power? Could it be because I'm right, and the Iraq War was NOT about right or wrong, but instead about money and power? Anyone who doesn't realize the truth by this point probably never will.

a reply to: r0xor

Good reasoning.

I believe you've omitted an important factor in the scenario, IMO. I'm convinced that if Saddam was still in power, Iraq would now be in possession of nuclear weapons. ( I'm assuming Gulf War I still occurs but Gulf War II does not)

If memory serves, Saddam was in possession of 100s of millions of U.S. dollars that he received from the Oil for food program. He had more than enough to purchase those weapons from either N.Korea or Pakistan. Fortunately for us, both of those nations were at the beginning stages of their programs and had very few weapons of their own.

However, again if I recall correctly, Pakistan's lead nuclear scientist was in direct communication/contact with the Saddam regime. (The British swear to this day that Saddam did, in fact, make inquires in Africa for uranium.)

In any event, does anyone doubt that Saddam WOULDN'T do everything he could to obtain nukes? Considering the mere possession of them is an almost automatic 'get out of jail free' card, internationally?

A resounding no.

That possibility, even if less than I give it, is more than enough reason for Gulf War II even with the stupidities shown by the U.S. in it's 'nation building'.

I feel it's those stupidities that have largely lead to our current mess with ISIS rather than taking out Saddam. A spitting up of Iraq into it's three ethnicities with a near permanent military presence- not unlike post-WWII Europe- would have ensured far less internal chaos than has resulted in keeping them in an enforced, artificial nation created by the agenda-driven Brits.

One fact has always stuck in my head about Hussein and his downfall....

Prior to the period of the Gulf War and subsequent economic sanctions, the country had one of the best performing education systems in the region. During the country’s difficult years, UNESCO supporte d the national effort to ensure the continuity of the education system and ma intain the high quality of the education programmes.

Taken from Forward of "Iraq Education in Transition Needs and Challenges 2004" -- UNESCO official report


Yepp, he gassed the Kurds. Yepp, he hurt his own people.

Nahhh, let's not mention things like Tuskegee, the treatment of those here before us, the Japanese containment camps during WWII......BUT....hey....Saddam...who we helped....he hurt his own people! He had weapons of mass destruction! Who cares about the fact that his presence brought stabilization to the region, after all.....He was gonna kill Papa Bush!

Let's bring his ass down, destroy the society of his country and it's infrastructure, and utterly destroy a civilization from what it might have once been.

AND...let's put it on CNN.


Good times.

Is the ultimate goal of "peace" really to have a good ol'boys club of who should and shouldn't have nukes?


Maybe it should be far more about working together and coming to a mutual understanding.


But, hey... Without all this, we would never have had great soundbites and [staged] video of a US tank toppling a statue of Saddam while "his people" cheered....


Where's the damned popcorn ?

a reply to: r0xor

Awesome thread.



Thank you!

a reply to: nullafides
It doesn't take the good 'ol boy network to figure out that if you use WMD on your own people there's a fairly good chance you'd use 'em on your neighbors.

It doesn't take a good 'ol boy network to watch him set oil wells on fire just to for revenge on being booted out of Kuwait that you might not be a safe bet with nukes.

Even I can figure that one out....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: nullafides
It doesn't take the good 'ol boy network to figure out that if you use WMD on your own people there's a fairly good chance you'd use 'em on your neighbors.

It doesn't take a good 'ol boy network to watch him set oil wells on fire just to for revenge on being booted out of Kuwait that you might not be a safe bet with nukes.

Even I can figure that one out....

OK...I'm going to read into this that you are looking to insult me, right ?


Let me know when you're ready, and we'll spar, how's about that ?

there would be a pile of isis bodies simmering in a pools of toxic chemicals all over iraq and they wouldn't be the threat that they are now.

a reply to: nullafides

??? Insult you? The thought never crossed.

I'm pointing out that even if it's a good old boy network decision or not. I agree with the decision...as I do with Iran. I do counter points- if I feel it's merited-that I do not agree with.

Isn't one of the purposes of ATS?

I'd be glad to read your points and perhaps learn something new...even change my mind on points.

Besides, many of my points are for those that perhaps hadn't considered things from form a different perspective. Rest assured I'm not always right, they're just opinions...

I read a quote by Saddam in which he actually wanted women to learn how to read. I was shocked.

I knew he gassed his own people with weapons we provided...but I never thought of him as a stabilizing force in the region.

What happened? Why did we intentionally screw up the ME and cause chaos? What's in it for the USA and the elite here? You can only buy so much with money, and eventually money becomes useless. I suppose you can swim in it like Scrooge McDuck:



I have to believe this is what the rich elite are doing, as I can't see what they possibly need the levels of wealth they have.

They have to be doing this right? They can't just be staring at numbers on a computer screen...right?

a reply to: nullafides

P.S. Just re-read my post. It does look a bit patronizing. I apologize.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: nullafides

??? Insult you? The thought never crossed.

I'm pointing out that even if it's a good old boy network decision or not. I agree with the decision...as I do with Iran. I do counter points- if I feel it's merited-that I do not agree with.

Isn't one of the purposes of ATS?

I'd be glad to read your points and perhaps learn something new...even change my mind on points.

Besides, many of my points are for those that perhaps hadn't considered things from form a different perspective. Rest assured I'm not always right, they're just opinions...

It's all good.... I was entirely kidding in what I said as a weak and wet noodle slap suggesting a sparring match

Honestly though, I just don't see the justification for doing what we did in the name of "he had WMD's" [cough, which we never found, cough] and "you just know he would have gotten NUKES!!!"


Suddenly I see the CIA and Pentagon returning to the use of Psychics

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
there would be a pile of isis bodies simmering in a pools of toxic chemicals all over iraq and they wouldn't be the threat that they are now.

I know that somewhere, Neil Peart is crying.



Just sayin.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: nullafides

P.S. Just re-read my post. It does look a bit patronizing. I apologize.

Hey man, really....no worries