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

a reply to: nullafides

I have a hard time sifting through the political B.S. as well. I do know we gave him the chemical weapons and the anthrax seeds during the Iraq-Iran war. He did use them.

Many of the Pentagon crowd were against both Gulf Wars. Colin Powell was against the first one, although, at a guess, it was as much due to opening the middle-East can of worms. Even Papa Bush advised against Gulf War II. ( Not broadly mentioned in the media..)

We screw up the peace...after winning the wars. I am unshakably convinced Saddam would have had multiple orgasms if he could have gotten hold of nukes.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I like the fact that where we don't entirely agree....we're actually able to be chummy throughout this discussion


But can I ask you one thing?

"unshakably convinced"

How can you say this? I guess we just come from two different places. Genuinely, I am unshakably convinced that I have no freaking clue what is going to happen in the next second. And I mean that in a "two dudes sitting in a pub after work with a beer talking crap" fashion....

a reply to: nullafides

i'm sure ol neil would've ran out and give all isis fighters and saddam a hug being that he was a ayn rand styled objectivist / pacifist at one point. but according to him when asked if he was still influnced by rand,or as the interviewer said do her words still speak to you in a rolling stone interview in back in 2012, he said " oh, no. that was 40 years ago."

although many see him as a conservative" and a republican through his work and support of different candidates, he himself says he is a left leaning libertarian or a bleeding-heart one.

all that being said, i dare say he is pretty much a realist to some point and would agree on what saddam would have done to isis.

a reply to: r0xor

1) Five years from 2001, Qusay Hussein would have quietly had both his brother and father murdered. he would use this as a pretext to purge the baath heads. Can't have a baath change of power without a good purge.

2) Likely would have reached out for rapport with the United States, basically taking the role his old man had in the reagan years as "our strongman."

3) Due to the economic and political instability of Iraq, it's absolutely certain that an insurgency would begin - and would only get stronger as Uday crushes and crushes.

4) Iraq civil war by 2009. barring US intervention (Unlikely) or Iranian intervention (slightly more likely, but not by much) Iraq woudl continue pretty much on the trajectory it's been on since 2004, only delayed by four years.

Scenario B - Uday stages a coup. immediately attacks Iran. Iraq gets its ass kicked, insurgency / civil war ensues on-schedule.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: nullafides


all that being said, i dare say he is pretty much a realist to some point and would agree on what saddam would have done to isis.

Well, I owe you an apology. I read something entirely different into your comment.

Somewhere, Neil Peart is crying because I lack reading comprehension today....

a reply to: nullafides

On what's gonna happen in the next second, I couldn't agree more. LOL.

On Saddam? That's tougher. I trust my instincts, generally. When I try to analyze this-for your interest- I'm not sure whether I'm merely justifying that view or whether it's based on the over-all picture I have of the man.

The first thing that comes to mind is his sons. Both, apparently hugely psychotic, sadistic dudes. ( A major reason taking out Saddam alone was a non-starter. They'd have taken over.) This reflects on Saddam, in my mind, as much or more than anything else, at least for me. If one wants a measure of someone, looking at their off-spring is a huge 'tell'.

His track record in using chemical weapons on his Kurdish population- not unlike Hitler's on Jews- another check mark on the ledger.

His breaking the cease fire agreement, even after having his ass thoroughly waxed.

His continued missile firings on coalition fighters patrolling the no-fly zone.

His refusal to allow unfettered access to U.N. inspectors.

The invasion/annexation of Kuwait.

The igniting of those oil wells during his retreat.

The sheer joy the Iraqis displayed pulling down Saddam's statue at the "end of major hostilities".

His refusal to accept the offer of an Island with all the money he'd ever need to wait for his 72 virgins.

This all adds up to a dude who's lost it. Concur? Nukes? No thanks.

Am I right ? Hell, I don't know for sure...but I'd bet on it...

a reply to: r0xor

Cheney called it in this 1994 interview, oh he will say 9/11 changed things, but in 2015 we know better.



He was right in 94, I guess they decided to roll the dice and lost post 9/11.