What if the 2003 American invasion of Iraq doesn't occur?

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,094
#31
Saddam was secular? What about his Faith Campaign, when he reversed his previous secular policies and started pushing for more Sunni Islam laws? How is it the leaders of DAESH were students at Saddam University? Is Salafist education secular? And isn't it weird that DAESH was formed by numerous Ba'athist former Saddam cronies? Coincidence?
Arab Nationalists are Fascists basically. Yes he did try to play the religion-card at one point. And did it so badly he ended up disgusting the Salafists. His campaign was effectively blasphemy.

(Having the Quran copied out using his own blood as ink might have seemed cool to the kind of irreligious brutes Saddam hung with, but somehow made Islam out to be about Saddam, i.e. blasphemy. The man did not know or understand his nominal religion. Americans not overly concerned with it either might be forgiven for mistaking the outer form of Saddam's religious brain-farts for the real thing. It had more to do with posturing lifted from Fascist blood-mystique than religion really.)

So no, Saddam wasn't religious, didn't have the first clue. It's kind of impressive considering the Sunni Salafists have ALSO made up their religion. And Saddam was STILL even more rubbish at it than them.
 
Likes: Swamp Booger
Jul 2016
8,711
USA
#32
Arab Nationalists are Fascists basically. Yes he did try to play the religion-card at one point. And did it so badly he ended up disgusting the Salafists. His campaign was effectively blasphemy.

(Having the Quran copied out using his own blood as ink might have seemed cool to the kind of irreligious brutes Saddam hung with, but somehow made Islam out to be about Saddam, i.e. blasphemy. The man did not know or understand his nominal religion. Americans not overly concerned with it either might be forgiven for mistaking the outer form of Saddam's religious brain-farts for the real thing. It had more to do with posturing lifted from Fascist blood-mystique than religion really.)

So no, Saddam wasn't religious, didn't have the first clue. It's kind of impressive considering the Sunni Salafists have ALSO made up their religion. And Saddam was STILL even more rubbish at it than them.
I don't believe Saddam himself was religious but he dropped the early Ba'athist secularism, especially anything about religious freedom and women's rights, in the early 90s when he started the Faith Campaign. He did it because a growing Sunni revival was ongoing and the only way he could maintain support of the Sunni tribes, his base, was to embrace Sunni Islam, even though a lot of his gestures were laughable.

But some weren't. He did promote Ealafist religious training at Saddam University. His intelligence agency did have contacts with numerous known international terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda. He was paying off families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He did have elder Grand Ayatollah Al Sadr murdered. Nothing secular about any of that.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,948
Connecticut
#33
The sanctions regime against Iraq would have failed. Because the sanctions regime WAS failing in 2003 and that was one of the proximate causes of the US invasion of Iraq.
The other cause was that after 9/11, Saudi Arabia expelled American troops from it's soil. Iraq was designed to be an alternative to Saudi Arabia and a way of keeping the Saudis in line when it came to oil prices and the pricing of oil in US dollars.
People do not realize just how important the petrodollar has been to the US since the Vietnam War. It is the fact that oil is priced in US dollars (whatever the price oil happens to be) that has kept the US dollar as the world's reserve currency --and therefore enabled the US government to run huge deficits and for the US to run a serious balance of payments deficit without increasing taxes or insisting on major austerity.
What American policymakers did not realize at the time was that maintaining this status quo required maintaining Saddam Hussein in power and keeping him "on side" with the US. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein can probably best be described as a case of "victory disease". The United States found chasing Saddam out of Kuwait so easy that overthrowing Saddam and restructuring Iraq as a democratic nation appeared feasible. Unfortunately, Saddam's last words "Without me there is no Iraq" which he spoke at his hanging proved prophetic.
One shouldn’t overlook the key force behind the blunder of 2003–neocons like Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle. They envisaged toppling Saddam and creating a democratic Iraq which would be emulated throughout the region, thereby supposedly “taming” the Arabs and making their real number one —Israel—safer.

Saddam could have remained in power and kept Iraq together for another few years, I suppose. Would Saddam in power prevented or delayed the Arab Spring? Was the Arab Spring a reaction to Saddam's ouster? Hard to say. If the Arab Spring did arrive on schedule, Saddam would have had his hands full with revolt just as Assad has in Syria. But would probably still be able to rule a rump Iraq in the north and west until the present.
History suggests Saddam could’ve dealt with any uprising. Remarkably, even after the destruction of most of his military in 1991, he was still able to crush the Shiite revolt.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,094
#34
His intelligence agency did have contacts with numerous known international terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda.
No that one was made up to support the US invasion in 2003. Surprised it's still kicking around like this.

The US determination to STILL somehow try to justify the 2003 war as a means of confronting the al-Q is that strong, huh? It's bunk.

The money sent to the Palestinians was a very obvious ploy to curry favour with Arabs generally. Why you think it has ANY connection to religions is beyond me. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not religious anyway. (Not more than the Israelis have put in overtime to try to MAKE it so. They supported Hamas initially, as a means of doing a bit of divide-et-impera, except it turned around and bit them – after messing up the Palestinians horribly – and confusing the HELL out of the Americans – and here we all are now...)
 
Jun 2018
210
New Hampshire
#35
Saddam was secular? What about his Faith Campaign, when he reversed his previous secular policies and started pushing for more Sunni Islam laws? How is it the leaders of DAESH were students at Saddam University? Is Salafist education secular? And isn't it weird that DAESH was formed by numerous Ba'athist former Saddam cronies? Coincidence?
Saddam was a political opportunist, not a radical Moslem. His "Faith Campaign" was intended to increase his own popularity, and was not an effort to promote a radical Islamist agenda.

The fact is, the American led invasion of Iraq was not only in violation of international law, it was among the dumbest foreign policy decisions ever made by a U.S. president. I challenge you to name just one positive effect of the Iraq invasion? Just one?

And no, "liberating" an allegedly "oppressed" people does not count. If you compare the level of violence and mass murder within Iraq during Saddam's reign and after, you will understand just how much of a blunder the invasion actually was.
 
Jul 2016
8,711
USA
#36
Saddam was a political opportunist, not a radical Moslem. His "Faith Campaign" was intended to increase his own popularity, and was not an effort to promote a radical Islamist agenda.
The Faith Campaign was a defensive strategy by Saddam to remove the fear of losing the support of his Sunni Arabs that were being carried away in a growing religious revival that was being pushed primarily by Saudi money and aimed at the Wahhabist/Salafist sects of the Sunni faith. You're going to want to google them before responding since you don't know what they are. ;)

The fact is, the American led invasion of Iraq was not only in violation of international law, it was among the dumbest foreign policy decisions ever made by a U.S. president. I challenge you to name just one positive effect of the Iraq invasion? Just one?
Positive Benefit: Saddam isn't in charge. Iraq is run by a democratically elected govt that is answerable to more than just ~20% of the population, themselves kept under the thumb of a brutal tyrant who had violated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement as well as numerous UN Sanctions, who had planned to assassinate a former US President in vengeance for 1991, and who was known to have used chemical weapons on enemies and his own people, who had at one point absolutely positively been working on building nukes.

Saddam's govt was to Iraq what the Apartheid govt was to South Africa. Worse, because Apartheid South Africa never actually tried mass slaughter in the millions of their people, they just stuck to run of the mill oppression. Saddam pulled out all stops. And his sons, his successors, were worse than he was.

And no, liberating an allegedly "oppressed" people does not count.
Says you. You ever been to Iraq? I have. Know who the Shi'a are? You think they were allegedly oppressed? Who are the Marsh Arabs? Who are the Kurds.

Nevermind, Booger, I don't want or care what your response will be, because it will be founded entirely on ignorance. You have nothing to teach me or anyone else about Iraq's "allegedly" oppressed people or "Moslems."
 
Jul 2016
8,711
USA
#37
No that one was made up to support the US invasion in 2003. Surprised it's still kicking around like this.

The US determination to STILL somehow try to justify the 2003 war as a means of confronting the al-Q is that strong, huh? It's bunk.

The money sent to the Palestinians was a very obvious ploy to curry favour with Arabs generally. Why you think it has ANY connection to religions is beyond me. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not religious anyway. (Not more than the Israelis have put in overtime to try to MAKE it so. They supported Hamas initially, as a means of doing a bit of divide-et-impera, except it turned around and bit them – after messing up the Palestinians horribly – and confusing the HELL out of the Americans – and here we all are now...)
The support for various international terrorists that had received safe haven in Iraq previous to 2003 was one small facet of why his rule was overthrown. There were numerous reasons.

The Israeli Palestinian conflict isn't religious? LOLOLOLOLOL Right, Jews vs Muslims. Not religious at all.
 
Jun 2018
210
New Hampshire
#38
The Faith Campaign was a defensive strategy by Saddam to remove the fear of losing the support of his Sunni Arabs that were being carried away in a growing religious revival that was being pushed primarily by Saudi money and aimed at the Wahhabist/Salafist sects of the Sunni faith. You're going to want to google them before responding since you don't know what they are. ;)



Positive Benefit: Saddam isn't in charge. Iraq is run by a democratically elected govt that is answerable to more than just ~20% of the population, themselves kept under the thumb of a brutal tyrant who had violated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement as well as numerous UN Sanctions, who had planned to assassinate a former US President in vengeance for 1991, and who was known to have used chemical weapons on enemies and his own people, who had at one point absolutely positively been working on building nukes.

Saddam's govt was to Iraq what the Apartheid govt was to South Africa. Worse, because Apartheid South Africa never actually tried mass slaughter in the millions of their people, they just stuck to run of the mill oppression. Saddam pulled out all stops. And his sons, his successors, were worse than he was.



Says you. You ever been to Iraq? I have. Know who the Shi'a are? You think they were allegedly oppressed? Who are the Marsh Arabs? Who are the Kurds.

Nevermind, Booger, I don't want or care what your response will be, because it will be founded entirely on ignorance. You have nothing to teach me or anyone else about Iraq's "allegedly" oppressed people or "Moslems."
Sir, with all do respect, it is not the responsibility of the United States to conduct itself as the world's policeman. When the American people elect a president, they elect someone who will fulfill their responsibility as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and defender of American national security. What a Middle Eastern dictator does in his own country has no bearing whatsoever upon American national security. If the Iraqi people did not wish to live under Saddam Hussein's rule, then it was their responsibility to revolt.

And need I remind you of the extent of the anti-American insurgency in Iraq? The vast majority of Iraqis did not want Americans or any other foreign soldiers occupying their country. American troops were hardly hailed as "liberators."
 
Likes: starman
Jun 2018
210
New Hampshire
#39
The support for various international terrorists that had received safe haven in Iraq previous to 2003 was one small facet of why his rule was overthrown. There were numerous reasons.

The Israeli Palestinian conflict isn't religious? LOLOLOLOLOL Right, Jews vs Muslims. Not religious at all.
Saddam Hussein did not provide support for Islamic terrorist organizations. That was simply Bush administration/neocon propaganda for the purpose of selling the entire debacle to the American people. Think of it this way, if the Bush administration couldn't convince Americans that Saddam was somehow connected with Al Qaeda, then support for their war would have been in the single digit percentage.
 
Likes: starman
Jul 2016
8,711
USA
#40
Sir, with all do respect, it is not the responsibility of the United States to conduct itself as the world's policeman. When the American people elect a president, they elect someone who will fulfill their responsibility as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and defender of American national security. What a Middle Eastern dictator does in his own country has no bearing whatsoever upon American national security. If the Iraqi people did not wish to live under Saddam Hussein's rule, then it was their responsibility to revolt.
What a Middle Eastern dictator does in the region, especially one as strategical valuable as the Middle East (Oil and LNG), then yes, the US has every right to get involved as its in our interests to get involved. US national security is dependent on Gulf States selling oil in US Dollars. When Saddam threatens those partners, militarily invades them, continues to mess with them, violates the cease fire agreement that ended the 1991 war numerous times, and tries to assassinate a former US president (GHWB), then yep, the US has every reason to respond, especially after repeated UN orders were ignored. Whether you can find Iraq on a map or not, or know anything at all about the country or not is of no concern.

FYI, I think GWB sold the war to the public like an idiot. I think he overly focused on things like the WMDs and AQ, where it was there, but not strong enough to have pushed it as hard as he did. I would have gone a totally different route, and used covert ops and airstrikes to do it all.

Also, I notice you ignored everything else I typed about Saddam's Faith Campaign and reasoning behind it. And I'm going to take a shot in the dark (lol) and say you it was because you don't have a clue what the Wahhabi or Salafist sects of Sunni Islam are. But I will also bet you'll tell me I'm wrong in a few hours after you hit up Wikipedia.

And need I remind you of the extent of the anti-American insurgency in Iraq? The vast majority of Iraqis did not want Americans or any other foreign soldiers occupying their country. American troops were hardly hailed as "liberators."
It was never more than 30,000 at one time. And that included thousands of foreign fighters. Out of a country with a population of 38 million.

Did it ever dawn on you that you don't know what you're talking about? At what point does lack of knowledge stop you from posting?