What would Iraq be today?
With Saddam still in power, would he have just chilled out, or continued to be a threat?
Saddam violated every aspect of the resolutions set forth by the UN.
Or would be balance of power between all parties (entire middle east), still be in check?
2006-12-05 06:14:44 · 14 answers · asked by Diadem 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
just to clarify , I salute my troops who may be in harms way...stay safe.
2006-12-05 06:17:58 · update #1
we will never know what would have happened. Maybe he would have been removed from power by his own people. MAybe we would have had some help and not had to do so much of it ourselves. We will never know.
2006-12-05 06:17:45 · answer #1 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I doubt the world would have done much of anything. The oil for food game that benefited only Saddam and the French would still be in high gear. The UN would be blindly looking the other way. More Kurds and Shiites would have been slaughtered but we probaly would never have known about it. His sons and their thugs would still be torturing men and raping women. Many children would still not be receiving proper nutrition because Saddam and his sons would be stickpiling the humanitarian aid that was being sent to the country. Saddam probably would have made contacts with Al-Queda to help finance terrorist activities worldwide.
The truth is, nobody knows what would have happened.
What we do know is Saddam would not have had a change of heart and he would not have backed down from his tyranical ways.
The balance of power between all parties in the MiddleEast were never in check. Ask the Kurds and the Shiites and the Israeli's.
2006-12-05 14:39:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In short the world would have done nothing.
Examples - Europe during WWII, Bosnia, Most of Africa since WWII
At the start of the second Iraq war Saddam was not in a position to harass his neighbors, but by now he certainly would have. Why else would he be building a military and acquiring WMDs while under the " watchful eyes of the UN" and scrutiny of the US.
2006-12-05 14:33:51 · answer #3 · answered by Albert F 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
People are quick to forget what the situation was like. People have forgotten that the US had to send the 1st Cav to Kuwait to counter one of Saddam's post-Desert Storm cat and mouse games. The Kuwaiti's would still be living under the threat of attack and Mutla Ridge would still be heavily defended.
People also forget that one of the things that brought about 9/11 was that the USA had troops in Saudi Arabia. Those troops were there as a deterent to Saddam.
2006-12-05 14:52:05 · answer #4 · answered by k3s793 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Iraq wasn't a threat. No WMDs, remember? It was stable. It would probably still be stable today.
As far as violating UN resolutions, if that were the criteria for invasion, we should have bombed Israel a long time ago. And Turkey. And India. And Sudan. And Russia. And Morocco. And Israel again, since they do it so frequently. And Croatia. And Cyprus. And Pakistan. And Indonesia. And Syria. And--hey Israel did it again! And North Korea. And...
K3s793--so, your argument is that in order to secure Kuwait and the rest of the region we had to utterly destabilise Iraq and make it a hotbed of religious extremists and a terrorist base? See, I would so suck at being a military strategist! That makes absolutely no sense to me!
2006-12-05 14:42:05 · answer #5 · answered by functionary01 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Iraq would be a much more peaceful place. Saddam would have his hands full just staying in power as the economy in Iraq was crippled by the sanctions any way it turns out he was complying with the UN as he had no WMD's. It was just no one believed him. As for being a threat he never really was just a nuisance who got too big for his britches and was slapped back in his place in the 1st war. Saddam would just by existing would have been a big check on Iran and it's wishes to be the big shot in the gulf. In time we probably would have propped up Saddam to keep Iran in check.
2006-12-05 14:27:57 · answer #6 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Saddam was bankrupt and couldn't have been a threat if the Americans did not invade. The WMD's were out when there were inspections in the '90s. But Iraqis would've been still in chains with him around.
The balance of power would be there. Iran hates him right?
2006-12-05 14:21:00 · answer #7 · answered by Mark M 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Invaded Iran, which is what France wanted to do. Iran gave more aid and comfort to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and Osama ;girly-man' bin-laden had made several trips to Iran, prior to 9-11. Oh, ad one more thing; us liberal democrats would not have been able to get a majority in the house and senate. For that, we will be eternally grateful to President George Walker Bush.
2006-12-05 14:28:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Saddam would most likely still be in power and by now he would have tried to kill US citizens. He did try to assassinate Big Bush and he would have tried to hit JR too.
2006-12-05 14:22:04 · answer #9 · answered by joevette 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq and Saddam would still have been a huge threat. When we attacked, it showed them we will not be attacked without consequences.
There was no balance of power before we attacked. The entire area has been unstable since the beginning of time.
2006-12-05 14:19:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Kept him contained in Iraq with the no fly zones with no wmd where he was no threat to the US -- no air force, weak army. In March 2003, inspectors were on the ground doing their jobs, his missles (which could not reach the US) were being destroyed. We should have let inspectors fininsh their job.
2006-12-05 14:22:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋