Saddam Hussein is overthrown in 1991

MG1962a

Ad Honorem
Mar 2019
2,197
Kansas
He'd be much slower and much more cautious in this scenario, though. I mean, even Mr. Orange isn't openly advocating doing anything too blatant--like committing genocide.
Sure and to be fair to him (And I am certainly no fan) he is not even in the same ballpark when it comes to the evil of Hitler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Sure and to be fair to him (And I am certainly no fan) he is not even in the same ballpark when it comes to the evil of Hitler.
Agreed.

Also, @Chlodio: Do you think that a different US President in 1989-1993 would have advanced all of the way up to Baghdad in 1991? For instance, if Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Laxalt was selected as Reagan's VP pick instead of Bush Sr.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,486
T'Republic of Yorkshire
I think it would be decidedly quicker if he starts rounding up segments of the population and exterminating them all while saying the constitution is suspended lol
People didn't protest over the internment of Japanese Americans though.

You can also look to McCarthyism as a guide to how a POTUS Hitler could have proceeded.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,749
Dispargum
Also, @Chlodio: Do you think that a different US President in 1989-1993 would have advanced all of the way up to Baghdad in 1991? For instance, if Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Laxalt was selected as Reagan's VP pick instead of Bush Sr.
A different US president may have been tempted, but the international coalition would not have unanimously agreed to march on Baghdad. Many nations were only in it to liberate Kuwait and would go no further. The UN resolutions only called for the liberation of Kuwait. In 1991 the Soviet Union was still around. They did not veto a UN resolution for the liberation of Kuwait, but they probably would have vetoed a resolution of regime change in Baghdad.

I suspect a lot of the motivation to get Sadam in 2003 only grew out of the frustration with Sadam later in the 1990s as he repeatedly defied UN inspectors. The motivation wasn't there in 1991. In 1991 people were still asking, 'Without Sadam, who will oppose Iran?' The answer to that question in 2003 was a magical fairy tale - a democratic Iraq.
 
Last edited:

MG1962a

Ad Honorem
Mar 2019
2,197
Kansas
. The motivation wasn't there in 1991. In 1991 people were still asking, 'Without Sadam, who will oppose Iran?' The answer to that question in 2003 was a magical fairy tale - a democratic Iraq.
It actually scares me how accurate that statement is!
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
People didn't protest over the internment of Japanese Americans though.

You can also look to McCarthyism as a guide to how a POTUS Hitler could have proceeded.
Three SCOTUS Justices dissented over Japanese-American internment, no?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Also, @Chlodio: Do you think that a different US President in 1989-1993 would have advanced all of the way up to Baghdad in 1991? For instance, if Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Laxalt was selected as Reagan's VP pick instead of Bush Sr.
A different US president may have been tempted, but the international coalition would not have unanimously agreed to march on Baghdad. Many nations were only in it to liberate Kuwait and would go no further. The UN resolutions only called for the liberation of Kuwait. In 1991 the Soviet Union was still around. They did not veto a UN resolution for the liberation of Kuwait, but they probably would have vetoed a resolution of regime change in Baghdad.

I suspect a lot of the motivation to get Sadam in 2003 only grew out of the frustration with Sadam later in the 1990s as he repeatedly defied UN inspectors. The motivation wasn't there in 1991. In 1991 people were still asking, 'Without Sadam, who will oppose Iran?' The answer to that question in 2003 was a magical fairy tale - a democratic Iraq.
Technically they could act without UN authorization like in Grenada and Kosovo, but the point that you make in your last paragraph is certainly valid. The US simply got tired of the cat-and-mouse game that Saddam was forcing it to play and thus decided to eat the mouse to deal with this problem once and for all.