If the US never attacked Saddam?

Question

Don't you think George Bush would be in twice as much trouble if he decided not to secure Iraq, and then Hussien decided to cut off oil suppolies, or screwed things up enough to mess up oil supplies, and the world went itno mass recession, riots and civil wars? Does anyone understand the importance of oil security?

Answer 1

Oil security was not dependent on invading Iraq. In fact, most of the oil that the US receives comes from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, not from Iraq. I think you are overreacting if you believe that Saddam would have destroyed his own oil fields to try to hurt the rest of the world. It would have hurt him far more. Where would he get his money from? Without his money, how would he continue the extravagant lifestyle he led? It is unlikely that any major problems would have arisen had Saddam been left in power, at least as far as oil is concerned. Saddam didn't have as much power over the oil as one would think.

I agree that Saddam should have been removed as the leader of Iraq because he abused his power and committed atrocities against his own people. But I don't believe he could have or would have had any effect on the oil supplies to the US. The scenario you outlined would have harmed him just as much as it would have the US, and probably would have hurt him more. He was a ruthless leader, but he knew that doing something like that would not have been in his best interest.

Answer 2

Yes you are right. He would be a huge problem, and he certainly wouldn't sit by and watch Iran get nuclear weapons without redoubling his own efforts to get nukes. I'm very pleased that he is dead.