-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
What could happen if there is no war over Iraq??
- Thread starter manuelku
- Start date
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
He could start trouble, or he could just sit back where he is. He wants to live, and feel secure while he does it. That is why there is debate on this. No one knows for sure
Unlikely that he will attack outside of his region though.
Unlikely that he will attack outside of his region though.
If Saddam is smart, he will comply with the UN's inspectors. After the inspectors go home and sanctions are lifted, he can start his weapon programs again. I would say he will have a nuclear bomb within a decade. Saddam knows that even with a couple of low yield nuclear bombs, those weapons will ensure his dominance and survival in the region. Saddam knows how to survive.
UglyCasanova
Lifer
But that would ultimately lead to a massive war against him, not just the US but everyone, and there would be no way he could hold off. It would be suicide imo for him to attack anyone.
Who would want to start a war with Saddam if you know he has nukes, even if Saddam doesn't have a long range missile to deliver those warheads. I don't think Saddam will trade nuclear warheads with the Israelis, but he could start a war of conquest against his weaker neighbors, like Kuwait. Over the years, he had started 2 unsuccessful wars, resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and others, I don't think he's going to stop. His goal is to be the next Saladin and revival of Arab greatness.
We are not going to go to war with Iraq.. You probably thin I sound like a fool but I don't see it happening.. His own people will take him out so they will be able to stay in power and control the country. Everyone in Iraq knows that war with he US will mean total defeat so why would they do it? Even if whoever takes Saddam's place is as bad as he was the International community will back him and claim victory.. NO ONE wants a total regime change because that will mean uncertainty which will affect the oil supply..
Its to bad it will turn out like this because I thin the people of Iraq deserve much better but when there is this much money involved they don't matter. 🙁
Its to bad it will turn out like this because I thin the people of Iraq deserve much better but when there is this much money involved they don't matter. 🙁
I agree with letting the Iraqis taking care of Saddam, but it is a tricky thing. People have tried, the results were that they were tortured and killed, their relatives and friends were tortured and killed, their whole neighborhood destroyed. The Iraqis need to know that the US will help to ensure a successful coup. Personally, I think the US sucks bad at that kind of stuff.
The Iraqi people's best chance to take out Saddam was after the Gulf War. What makes you think they can do it now or even want to? Saddam has a rather bloody history of removing competition amongst the leadership and crushing dissent amongst the people just so there will be no popular uprising.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
And they might have if G.H Bush hadn't have gone back on his promises making the US look like massive liars. I'm not talking about sending troops to Bahgdad, I'm talking about giving them air cover and weapons. But no, Bush sat on his narrow ass and let Saddam gas the Kurds in the North and slaughter the Shiites in the south. The Iraqi Dissidents would have to be crazy to0 trust American again after we failed them so miserably that last time. If we want Sadam removed we are going to have to do it ourselves. Only whe the Iraqi opposition sees that we are putting ourseloves in harms way will they respond in kind and who could blame them?
Saddam would not have to use his bombs in an attack to make them successful. All he would have to do is secretly demonstrate that he has them and then state that he has smuggled a bomb into the centers of New York, London, etc. Then he invades Kuwait and says "if you oppose me the bombs go off".
I can see you're as pissed about what happened after the Gulf War as I was. I can understand some of the political thinking involved at the time but I also thought it was a big mistake to let that opportunity slip by, regardless of what the coalition wanted. And the propaganda that the US put forth for the people to oust Saddam and then backpedalling out of it was, in my opinion, the worst outcome of that war. Like you said, no reason for Iraqis to trust us again. Here we are 11 years later just exactly where I thought we'd be: Saddam still in power and the US having to finish what should have been taken care of long ago.
"What could happen if there is no war over Iraq??"
Saddam has thumbed his nose at the UN and the US for the past 11 years. Does anyone else think his continued defiance has emboldened the fundamentalist terrorists in their actions? If he continues to get away with that defiance it will only increase the likelihood of attacks on the West.
We are in a catch 22 situation. If we do nothing the attacks will increase, if we attack Iraq the chances are that attacks will increase. The only question now is what will in the long term have the best chance of reducing attacks in the future.
Saddam has thumbed his nose at the UN and the US for the past 11 years. Does anyone else think his continued defiance has emboldened the fundamentalist terrorists in their actions? If he continues to get away with that defiance it will only increase the likelihood of attacks on the West.
We are in a catch 22 situation. If we do nothing the attacks will increase, if we attack Iraq the chances are that attacks will increase. The only question now is what will in the long term have the best chance of reducing attacks in the future.
Mrburns2007
Platinum Member
I have develop Saddam fatigue....I wish he was gone and forgotten.
WinkOsmosis
Banned
What does "using nu, beloved patriot, and india" mean? If there is no war, maybe Saddam will actually be able to develop "weapons of mass destruction". If there is a war, whatever dictator we put in his place will develop "weapons of mass destruction".
Vic
Elite Member
We will attack Iraq by Feb '03. Count on it.
As for what would happen if we didn't attack, what has happened the last 11 years in Iraq?
We are not attacking Iraq because they represent a threat to the US or any other country.
We are attacking Iraq to gain control of their oil reserve. Recent negotiations with Russia were just to ensure that Russia would not get left out from the spoils. All the UN crap is just pomp and circus.
Sorry to burst bubbles. I'm just a realist with a good immunity to propaganda and brainwashing.
As for what would happen if we didn't attack, what has happened the last 11 years in Iraq?
We are not attacking Iraq because they represent a threat to the US or any other country.
We are attacking Iraq to gain control of their oil reserve. Recent negotiations with Russia were just to ensure that Russia would not get left out from the spoils. All the UN crap is just pomp and circus.
Sorry to burst bubbles. I'm just a realist with a good immunity to propaganda and brainwashing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
