Just a thought about Saddam Hussein and his WMD program ..... what if ?

[tank_monkey]

This is NOT an argument about the Iraq War and whether or not we should have invaded in the first place. Just was thinking about something that a lot of folks don't think about.


I remember the rationale was not only that we 'thought' that Iraq had WMDs, but even in his build up speech, GWB stated that by the time he HAD acquired one, it would be too late. Now fair minded folks can argue that it's a BAD idea for either Iraq of the Saddam Era or IRAN now to be nuclear powers.

But I ran across some old articles (print) where liberals and Democrats were already second guessing the Iraq War in 2005. They claimed that Saddam's Nuclear Weapons program was a full 10 YEARS away from active working nuclear weapons. And remember Saddam was still working on his program DESPITE international sanctions.

So, okay. What if we NEVER invaded Iraq?

It's been TEN YEARS now. 2015

Per the predictions of DEMOCRATS, Saddam Hussein would be alive and well and have NUKES by now. Right?

How is that an acceptable situation in anyone's eyes?

And there is no guarantee that Saddam would NOT be overthrown internally by an ISIS style extremist group in the first place, like in Syria. So the players might have different names in this 'alternate reality', but essentially terrorists would have nuclear weapons.

Thoughts? Or am I off the mark?

[Helen Keller]

Saddams' policies would have squashed shitbirds like isis at day one.

if they had nukes so what, they would be pointed at Iran ,kuwait, saudi arabia and syria.



Sunni oppression would have continued with more and more folks leaving to join al-queda.

[tank_monkey]

Saddams' policies would have squashed shitbirds like isis at day one.

if they had nukes so what, they would be pointed at Iran ,kuwait, saudi arabia and syria.



Sunni oppression would have continued with more and more folks leaving to join al-queda.

Not agreeing that them having Nukes is NOT a threat to us though. I don't think that Nukes would JUST be pointed at other players in the M.E. And they would be rogue nukes eventually. With more and more Al Qaeda crazies wanting one, they will hit a Western target eventually.

[studmuffin]

In fairness, the Saudis warned Bush 1 not to enter bagdad and take out Saddam. They warned that the power vacuum and chaos would be far worse.




They were right!

[Helen Keller]

you forget.. a lot of the brutality in iraq was to control shitheads like al-queda/isis .


want to be in a "group" they shot you in the head or beat your mother to death with ball bats in front of you. biggest loss in the arab world was the Hussein familys' iron grip. They knew how to control fanatical islam.

[imanaknut]

Hussein not only was working on "the bomb" but ask the Kurds about the gas he didn't have. I believe they called it "yellow rain" and it proved quite deadly.

One of the big problems I see in that cesspool is that there is no Hussein like dictator who knows how to control the marauding hords.

[tank_monkey]

want to be in a "group" they shot you in the head or beat your mother to death with ball bats in front of you. biggest loss in the arab world was the Hussein familys' iron grip. They knew how to control fanatical islam.

Interesting point, but I must remind folks that (a) Al Qaeda DID have a training facility at Salman Pak outside Bagdad up until 1998.
(b) It was in 1998 that Hussein KICKED out ALL the U.N. Weapons inspectors who were there to make sure that he didn't continue with a program he swore he would NOT pursue after Gulf War One. (c) With no foreign inspectors on the ground in Iraq, the U.S. were never SURE of the connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein between 1998 and 2001. (d) It's 20/20 Hindsight to claim that we SHOULD have known that Al Qaeda moved completely OUT Of Iraq and 100% into Afghanistan due to the Taliban having the Welcome mat out for them there. We could NOT have known for sure. (e) In the months after 9/11 there was palpable fear of another attack. Hussein himself did Iraq NO FAVORS by stonewalling inspectors and heavily implying that he did have nuclear weapons (when he didn't). But thinking that keeping a rogue like Hussein in power is 100% a good thing is wrong, IMHO.

I still say it's not a good idea to have had Hussein still in there. We had NO control over what he would do and there was NO guarantee that he would not have given nukes to Al Qaeda at the time. To make Hussein into some sort of 'better of two evils' is the narrative of the Liberal Anti Bush Democrats (IMHO).

Ultimately, I think that our biggest mistake was (a) not to secure the country completely AFTER we took it. (b) Not to separate the warring factions and immediately work with the tribes (remember that's what Petraeus successfully did to turn things around, only after Iraq became a 'hip spot' for foreign Jihadi lunatics to 'earn their street cred'.

I developed my opinion because of all of the people I knew who were in Iraq. My contacts said that most Iraqis hated the insurgents (they weren't even Iraqis, those were foreign fighters who were bombing and killing the locals) and lots of Iraqis supported the Americans, but were too afraid to say anything lest they be targeted by the Jihad.

Also our intel was CRIPPLED by Clinton regarding Al Qaeda so yes, we had BAD intel but people blame Bush while Clinton gets a pass.

Interesting discussion though. Thanks for the opinions guys

[Helen Keller]

in the end, the war profiteers win again.

[daemon734]

Interesting point, but I must remind folks that (a) Al Qaeda DID have a training facility at Salman Pak outside Bagdad up until 1998.

I spent a lot of time in Salman Pak, and yes they did, and thats where his bio weapons program was located. Its conveniently located ten minutes away from the Tuwaitha nuclear facility the Israelis bombed in 1983, where they found all the yellowcake Uranium he smuggled in from Africa.

He also had a significant legacy chemical weapons stockpile that is <cough cough mumble> still there....


Iraq needed to go. Saddam was on the same track as Qadaffi, yet even Qadaffi was willing to play ball. Saddam was not. It was inevitable that he would eventually put us into a bad spot where we were forced to take action.

Our hubris from 2003-2005 is what lead to such a shitstorm there, it didn't have to get as bad as it did. Had we walked into 2003 with the same plan as in 2007 Iraq would have been a much different war. Had we let the success in 2007 grow past 2009 it would be a much better place now as well, but I digress.....

[NAPOTS]

I have read that keeping up the appearance of having an active weapons program was a check against Iran and that Sadam believed any response from the us would be limited and that he considered this an acceptable risk. The Iranians obviously have quite an interest in Iraq