So why did'nt Saddam Step down?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
The US would still have gone in there under the premise that there are WMD's to be found; they'd probably say the UN inspectors need "help" or aren't doing their job adequately. We are all just hypotheizing here, of course, since that scenario didn't happen. But from all indications, and my gut instinct, that would have been the outcome...all those troops over there just couldn't turn-around and come home without doing SOMETHING.

I've no doubt that we'd have been a participant to the Iraqi changeover.. Under the UN. I think, however, the nature of the situation would have been very different than what we have now.. There would be a greater "Arab" involvement...
Saddam did not step down because he had no place to step to... he was personna non grata everywhere.. to my knowledge. What I don't understand is why he didn't use WMD in a final blaze of Glory... makes no sense..

Well you're assuming he had WMDs... Second even Hitler was'nt stupid enough to use them and the Germans had tons.. There's a theory basically goes along the lines if you do use WMD's all bets are off and you civilian population and certainly military is subject to total annihilation in kind by nukes. Then theres the treatment after a war which would be grim for all commaders and personel who used them... I never thought he would use them against a superior force even if he had them...which is why this war was a joke anyway. Saddam was never a threat to us other Arabs and his people yes.

 

[Zebo]

Remember even in GW1 Saddam did'nt shoot chemical laced scuds at Israel.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Even if Hussein stepped down, the U.S. mil would still have to go in there to secure the country.

Correction. Secure the oil fields.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Even if Hussein stepped down, the U.S. mil would still have to go in there to secure the country.

Correction. Secure the oil fields.

But from a Bush/Cheney perspective, the oil fields are the country.

 

[JellyBaby]

Saddum didn't step down because that action was insulting, he knew he would likely be challenged anyway and Iraq would be invaded nonetheless. So, there was nothing to be gained but everything to be lost.

Just as Clinton did with Milosovic, Bush backed Saddum into a corner and gave him no escape route. Persuading the target country's leadership to give up the fight before it begins may be a worthy goal on life saving grounds alone. Hard to pull off though.

 

[BarneyFife]

Sloba wasn't a dictator or harmful to his people. The Albanians in Kosovo wanted their own country and he said no. A war occured, Albanians got slaughtered and then they cried war crimes. Nobody has ever found all those alleged mass graves. It was a Bill Clinton blunder.

 

[LunarRay]

Well you're assuming he had WMDs... Second even Hitler was'nt stupid enough to use them and the Germans had tons.. There's a theory basically goes along the lines if you do use WMD's all bets are off and you civilian population and certainly military is subject to total annihilation in kind by nukes. Then theres the treatment after a war which would be grim for all commaders and personel who used them... I never thought he would use them against a superior force even if he had them...which is why this war was a joke anyway. Saddam was never a threat to us other Arabs and his people yes

I remember the ring round Baghdad thing that the military folks said once they went beyond that the Chem WMD would be used and all..
Hitler wanted Spear to destroy everything if you remember.. Not sure about the WMD ..I thought the V1, V2 etc were sorta WMD..
But Saddam might have had one out... to step down.. and that would be under a UN negotiated trip to Elba... with out prosecution.. he could have at least tried to negotiate this.. He, SH, must have thought he was safe... somehow... nutty as it seems..

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
I guess the words and actions of my grandfather, a Korean-War vet, gets to me; he says that our founders would turn over in their graves for all this, and that this isn't the America that he served and defended....with a few vulgarities which I'll do the respect of omitting here!

I would agree with your grandad. The country turning into a pre-emptive strike aggressor disregarding overwhelming international objection and substantial domestic dissent was probably their worst nightmare.

You mean like our first 2 pre-emptive strikes, the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? I believe that both wars had made up reasons, overwhelming international objection, and substantial domestic dissent, not to mention we were the aggressor. Our founding fathers must of hated themselves for setting such a bad example.

So why is bringing up the founding fathers is better than bringing up Clinton? I think both are retarded childish arguments.