Saddam Hussein is overthrown in 1991

Mar 2019
1,244
Kansas
#21
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.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,741
SoCal
#22
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
33,712
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#23
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

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,933
Dispargum
#24
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:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,741
SoCal
#28
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.
 

Similar History Discussions