What would have happened had we not freed Iraq from Saddam?

Question

Would Saddam have continued to pursue WMD? Would we have suffered another attack on our soil by now? Instead of fighting in Iraq, would the terrorists have moved in on the US?

Answer 1

Would Saddam have pursued WMD...certainly. As he would have pursued other military advantages. Iraq ia in a very unstable section of the world without the natural defenses of many more stable countries and without the economic control to exert its influence. Would Saddam have posed a large threat to the United States had we not ousted him...not likely but it very much depends on your view of "large" and the timeline your considering. WMD was a selling point for taking military action against Iraq but not neccisarily the cause. There are several what you would commonly hear reffered to as "rogue nations" that pose an indirect threat to the united states and it's interests. Most developed nations avoid conflict like the plague as even economic and non-militray sanctions and restrictions could devestate their nations. Many more developing nations fall into line with the powers-that-be in an attempt to reach the economic prosperity of the developed nations. There remains a group though of undeveloped nations, generally highly unstable ones, that right or wrong buck most developed governments. This is ussually out of need. Most of these countries feed off of the larger economic powers in various parisitic ways. For example Afghanistan's leading export is opium (the main ingredient in heroine). Many south american nations are also large drug suppliers. Most ignore all intellectual property laws, and use copywrite and patent infringement as a way to "catch up" with other nations. But the ugly side of these rogue nations is that since they are generally unable to field an economic or military power able to help influence world politics they instead fund non-affiliated militant groups. (think terrorists) This allows them to influence world politics through public oppinion and without repercusion. For example an embassy blows up somewhere, or a revolution, they need not fear reprisal because although they support the action of said militant group they are not technically affiliated with them. Saddam huessien use to offer a bounty of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Nations like Korea are not likely to nuke us any more then Iraq would have (if they could even develp a rocket to get it here) but they could sell or give the material to a militant group tha could. The oust of Saddam was a reminder to rogue nations in general that the US is willing to go to the effort of military action in order to protect itself from what they may have seen as minor threats to us. Did the atack on iraq help, well... take this into consideration. Iran took american hostages in 1979. This was a few years after we left vietnam, not after military defeat but after a defeat of public oppinion. An event that showed many in the world that you don't need to win any battles to win the war. Those hostages were embassy workers, for all intesnse purposes primarily civilians; and they were held for over a year with no fear of the military of the US. Just recently a handful of British soldiers were taken by Iran, and although they said they would release no one without a formal apology, they none the less released all the hostages after 2 weeks with no apology given. Many of the leaders of rogue nations still have to apear defiant for the benifit of their people and supporters (remember these are politically unstable nations). However behind closed doors they now wonder that if the money, goods, etc they provide to militant groups is traced to them they could be the next to be ousted. Several of these nations (quietly mind you) have even begun distancing themselves from many of these militant groups physically while at the same time still shouting the same rhetoric. In the short term we have reduced threats to the US posed by rogue nations, while simultanously increasing the risk to US citizens and interests abroad to up and coming militant groups trying to get a foothold in a competive feild. In the long term this effect is less certain. The short attention span syndrome has Americans, particulary Democrats, hands raised denouncing an action that they hands raised jumped into. That kind of wishy washy ness doesnt play well, however well learned international leaders undoubtably pay less attention to media politicking and instead remember how quickly America jumped into military action. Sorry for the length, hope that helps.

Answer 2

The courts would have never found Saddam not guilty. Because the courts are setup by America, and the judges are American puppets. Bush had finished his fathers job. Taking over Iraq, overthrowing Saddam and most importantly controlling the oil fields and most importantly setting up the pipeline for the extraction of gas. And guess where the gas is ending up in the company of which Bushs administartion controls. So my answer is, Saddam was sentenced by America even before he was found. And the whole trial is just a media stunt, To make the world believe that a fair trial was what convicted Saddam. If the courts had found Saddam not guilty America would lose its superpower status and Bush together with Blair would be in Saddams chair. I believe If Saddam is sentenced to death well then so should Bush!

Answer 3

Q1. 3,000+ American soldiers, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis would still be alive today, billions of dollars would have been saved, and nothing would have happened to us because it has been PROVEN that terrorists were not working out of Iraq. Even Bush and Cheney have admitted this. You wouldn't question their own words, would you? Only when it suits your argument, I'm sure.

Q2. Apparently he stopped pursuing WMDs after the first war. In case you have forgotten, no evidence of further WMD production or research was ever found. It didn't exist. Had we let the weapons inspectors finish their jobs, then we would have known that without wasting all this time, money, and life.

Q3. Probably not. In fact, we'd be better protected from terrorism because all our troops would not be wasting their time in a country where they don't belong. In case you forgot (apparently you have a short memory), the terrorists that attacked us were mostly Saudi Arabian and were based in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden? In case you didn't realize, we never finished our business there. Too busy in Iraq. Hmm...

Q4. Nothing would be different regarding terrorists had we not been in Iraq. If we were not there, who knows where they'd be? It is no more likely they'd be here. Our security has not been effected by Iraq. To insinuate that they'd attack here instead is pure conjecture; a weak argument. What is stopping them from doing it regardless of Iraq? If they really wanted to try, they would. In fact, they have. We've just been good at stopping them. Numerous plots have been foiled. The war has not been any help in this area at all.

You know what is funny? I might have supported this war whole-heartedly had we simply finished business in Afghanistan first and let the inspectors finish their job, and had the current administration not lied about the reasons for going into Iraq in the first place with no plan. Everything that is happening there was predicted by experts that the President ignored. It is a disgrace. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves and blinding themselves by politics and blind loyalty.

Answer 4

I figure Saddam's reign in Iraq would of ended sooner or later, whether it be insurrection or natural causes. However, the primary difference is the US would not have been involved, therefore holding some level of responsibility. Hell, even a covert insurrection would of been less burdensome on the US.

If we had approached Saddam with an open mind (which never would of happened with jr. in office) we could of been very persuasive economically and politically towards a secular warlord with an iron grip on his country. Giving the proper impetus (cash, weapons, etc..) he could of eliminated whoever we chose to call a terrorist within his borders...

And, for those who say, he was a bad man, and had to go. We constantly deal with "bad men" in our foriegn policy. And, besides, are we any better, we attack soveriegn nations without provocation.

Answer 5

Saddam could have been contained through sanctions. Or the CIA could have just put a bullet in his head without this whole war thing.

I can guarantee this: the terrorists WOULD NOT have moved on to the US. That is the most ridiculously repeated neocon statement I have heard. It is just sickening...a scare tactic, and some people fall for it.

Answer 6

Eventually the Iraqis would have gotten rid of them on their own. Or just killed one another until Saddam had no one else to torture. And Saddam was not behind 9-11.

Answer 7

we should have continued the economic breakdown of Iraq, it was almost ready to happen, and it would have if the damn liberals would have stopped crying about starving them out and not supplying them with medical services, what we were doing was a prelude to war which they all new was coming,the Iraqi people were going to rid themselves of Saddam soon enough, as you all know, he had to hide from his own people after he lost power, they all wanted to kill him, what we also should have done was stay focused on Afghanistan, and move on Pakistan and take over that country too, then we might have had a chance at capturing or killing osama bin laden.

Answer 8

Saddam was not pursuing WMD. He had nothing to do with attacks on America. Why don't you pay attention to what is going on?

Answer 9

3,000 plus US service men and women dearly loved and so profoundly missed by their families would be alive today, not forgetting the thousands wounded i.e. maimed and crippled for the rest of their lives. No forgetting the US Allies who have also lost their military personnel and the sufferings of their wounded and crippled. Nor would we know of the US and UK atrocious medical treatment of its wounded, the disgraceful accommodation in which rank and file are housed.

For what? Christian and its civilized peoples lied to by its Politicians / Governments to protect unelected fanatical Muslim rulers who brook no room or allow democracy to enter their countries.

The entire Muslim World ruled by less than a dozen independent Sheikdoms who have so cleverly (and been allowed to do so) thru their billions of oil dollars muster forth the evils of Islam upon its own peoples and the Western World, with the US and UK bent politicians rushing in to support them with the blood and lives of our soldiers!

How throughout Islam, the Clerics must be splitting their sides in glee - while we pay the price, and they loose nothing, only gain by continuing demands in whatever non Muslim countries they are continuously allowed to enter and settle in.

Theres only death to Muslims and clearance of their scumm out of the entire European land mass.

Ethnic cleansing - Milosevic had the right attitude and answer to it - but the Bits arrested him and took him to the Hague to stand trial. Pity he died.

Even more to the point, Look at the disgraceful mess of the UK today brought about by the millions of scumm allowed to settle there.

All achieved, allowed to happen, by Blair and his equally scumm labor Govt. The UK cemented and held together for centuries, even Hiler couldn't break its spirit or peoples! And, now what, in 10 short years Blair has totally destroyed centuries of tradition and standing.

Him and all his assoles should be hung, drawn and quartered for what they have done ti the UK!

Answer 10

there would be another oppressed country, with peoples rights being violated everywhere, such as saddams sons raping whoever they chose. the country would continue helping the chaos in the mid east.

basically it was a miracle to the iraqis that we came, they are happy we are there, dont let the media fool you

Answer 11

Nothing more than what was happening before we invaded. Saddam would have gone on suppressing millions of his own people, but 3,000+ U.S. soldiers would still be alive. Bush's ratings would also be much higher. Afghanistan would be given the attention it should have.