How threatening was Sadam Hosein to the world?

[HIMBOB]

I agree with you in these considering the military power of the USA and its influence in global economy they could have fuck up more countries good thing most Americans are not blood thirsty war lords.

Look at what the chinese are doing in SEA they are not a super power yet they are already bullying neighboring countries and their people agree with that.

I can never be sure what the definition of irony is but surely this is it.

 

[ShinkanPo]

He wasn't a nice man but the place didn't get better once he was removed.

I actually supported the invasion on humanitarian grounds, I was a fool.



A bit over a decade before the war that took him from power.
His army lost its teeth after that war.

Although I did not agreed with the 2003 invasion of Iraq thinking it is just another geo political chess move of the USA and Britain after the fall of Baghadad and the people destroyed Sadam's statues, I started to think Iraq will be okay and be a much better place.

Its just frustrating how they even killed their own people Islamic fanaticism has no bounds.

 

[Final Rehab]

Kuwait wasn't entirely innocent.

Did you forget the part where they set up drills on Iraq's border and were drilling at an angle (slant-drilling) to extract Iraq's oil?

But yeah I don't think the US went after Saddam because we're all about helping oppressed Arabs.

 

[Lord Coke]

Did Kuwait really drilled diagonally or was that another Saddamism? I mean its Sadam bulshitting

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/23/opinion/its-time-to-think-straight-about-saddam.html

NY times seemed to think he was right back in 97.

 

[MicroBrew]

Saddam wasn't threatening to anyone outside Iraq. American supporters of Israel wanted to use Iraq to socially engineering a MidEast revolution. They assumed once they installed a pro US pseudo-democracy in Iraq, the rest of the MidEast would then change as well. It was all about making the MidEast safer for Israel. Iran or Syria was going to be next on the list.

 

[helltoupee]

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/23/opinion/its-time-to-think-straight-about-saddam.html

NY times seemed to think he was right back in 97.

Also this:

"Tensions were already high between the two countries because Kuwait was producing more oil than its agreed upon OPEC quota, they did this to keep prices low. This perturbed Sadaam; Iraq was financially indebted to Kuwait after procuring loans to pay for their war with Iran in the 1980s. Iraq believed the lower oil prices caused by Kuwait overproducing cost them an estimated, “$14 billion a year, or far more than Kuwait had lent Iraq during Iraq’s confrontation with Iran.” Sadaam added, “We cannot tolerate this type of economic warfare.” The lower prices of oil made it difficult, if almost impossible, for Iraq to repay Kuwait for their outstanding loan. In all probability, this was a calculated move on the Kuwaitis part to negotiate a better financial settlement with Iraq."

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Iraq was crippled by their war with Iran.
Then they invaded Kuwait -- I think maybe 1500 people died in that invasion? Mostly military. whatever the tally was it was relatively small.
Then we attacked with our coalition and killed like 5000 Iraqi and decimated their Revolutionary Guard.
THEN we stacked on crippling sanctions that wound up killing 500,000 children.
THEN we made up lies about their ties to AQ, their pursuit of yellow cake, and their chemical weapons program.
Wound up killing upwards of a 1,000,000 more Iraqis to the tune of several trillion dollars.
And then look at what has happened since...

 

[JohnMc]

He was good for the world. He kept his Muslims in check. Now look at it over there.

This. As much of a scumbag as Sadam and his sons were he did kill Terrorists and kept some form of stability in the region. So that should have bought him a temporary reprieve.

 

[Greoric]

Iraq was crippled by their war with Iran.
Then they invaded Kuwait -- I think maybe 1500 people died in that invasion? Mostly military. whatever the tally was it was relatively small.
Then we attacked with our coalition and killed like 5000 Iraqi and decimated their Revolutionary Guard.
THEN we stacked on crippling sanctions that wound up killing 500,000 children.
THEN we made up lies about their ties to AQ, their pursuit of yellow cake, and their chemical weapons program.
Wound up killing upwards of a 1,000,000 more Iraqis to the tune of several trillion dollars.
And then look at what has happened since...

/ Thread.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

Saddam created a kind of 1984 dictatorship and gassed his own people. Iraqi's used to say they could "feel him watching their dreams." Some pretty sick shit. He didn't have the weapons of mass destruction he said he did - but god help us if he ever managed to get them.

He also engaged in aggression against Iran which the United Nations was actually obligated to do something about and didn't. Invasion of Iran was a flagrant violation of international law. Saddam at that point was no longer a legitimate leader and ought to have been worked to be ousted by the international community from within.

Support for an internal uprising would have been the way to go. He was unpopular and there was a small resistance against him that could have been used - but he was Americas friend through the Iran war and almost right up until the invasion of Kuwait so he was protected. Then he was driven from Kuwait and once again instead of supporting the internal resistance his rule was strengthened through sanctions. If you look at the size of his palaces and his wealth you can tell the sanctions did virtually nothing to him, personally - but did destroy Iraqi society and made them more dependent on their government, virtually ensuring no proper large scale resistance could emerge to resist and oust him. Not unless it was led and controlled completely by the U.S.

Then came the invasion which ruined Iraq.

Eisenhower referred to middle east oil as "the greatest material prize in the history of the world." Since Esienhower's time in office the objective of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East was to "control the spigot" - to ensure middle eastern oil didn't flow to the wrong people and remained under U.S. control. Hence the 50's Iran coup. So long as the major oil producing states in the Middle East could be controlled, the U.S. would have leverage over the entire planet.

When Saddam got out of line they gave him a chance to come back to the table and become a U.S. ally again, but basically he had to submit to disarmament and total U.S. domination - he of course refused. The CIA attempted a coup, it failed, so his country was invaded when the mood in the U.S. was supportive (after 911) and he was killed.

All this to control the region and make sure Iraqi oil didn't flow to the wrong people.

I would argue Saddam was indeed a threat to the world but was more importantly a threat to his own people and to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

He held many meetings for foreign terror groups like the Abu Nadal Org, while supporting terrorist groups that fought against Turkey, and Iran, while supporting anti peace Palestinian terror groups like Mujahadeen E Khalq and Kurdistan Worker's Party. He made his nation a safe haven for numerous foreign wanted terror leaders.

Abu Nadal is only considered a problem by Israel. Mujjie E Khalq is only a problem for Iran. The Kurds are now the good guys. Supporting them dont make Saddam any more of threat to the world than the USA.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Abu Nadal is only considered a problem by Israel. Mujjie E Khalq is only a problem for Iran. The Kurds are now the good guys. Supporting them dont make Saddam any more of threat to the world than the USA.

Abu Nadal led numerous terror attacks, The PMO terrorized an entire nation killing doctors and scientists at a whim, and The KWP only routinely attacked a key ally in Turkey. No biggie.

And Saddam attempted to extinguish the Kurds.

And then there is the routine violence against it's neighbors, committing international war crimes for decades.

Nothing to see here. He was a great guy. He also treated his people well. And his sons? Great guys. I'm sure if we left him in power nothing bad would have happened.

 

[Trotsky]

He invaded Kuwait because they had been diagonally drilling from their side into Iraqi oil reserves. They were stealing his oil and he invaded to stop it.

edit tropodan beat me to it.

Thank you

There are enough actual reasons to oppose Saddam without gobbling up the American propaganda re Kuwait. LOL @ him invading to loot and bully them around.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

Abu Nadal led numerous terror attacks, The PMO terrorized an entire nation killing doctors and scientists at a whim, and The KWP only routinely attacked a key ally in Turkey. No biggie.

And Saddam attempted to extinguish the Kurds.

And then there is the routine violence against it's neighbors, committing international war crimes for decades.

Nothing to see here. He was a great guy. He also treated his people well. And his sons? Great guys. I'm sure if we left him in power nothing bad would have happened.

That makes him less of threat than even the USA.

 

[hillelslovak87]

That makes him less of threat than even the USA.

 

[vespasian]

He was a stabilizing force, just like Ghadaffi. Keeping the crazies in line with an iron fist.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Iraq was crippled by their war with Iran.
Then they invaded Kuwait -- I think maybe 1500 people died in that invasion? Mostly military. whatever the tally was it was relatively small.
Then we attacked with our coalition and killed like 5000 Iraqi and decimated their Revolutionary Guard.
THEN we stacked on crippling sanctions that wound up killing 500,000 children.
THEN we made up lies about their ties to AQ, their pursuit of yellow cake, and their chemical weapons program.
Wound up killing upwards of a 1,000,000 more Iraqis to the tune of several trillion dollars.
And then look at what has happened since...

Yeah I heard in 03 all the talk of the WMD by the Rumsfeld,Bush and Blair but in the end no weapons of the mass destructive caliber was found.

 

[King Joffery]

He was good for the world. He kept his Muslims in check. Now look at it over there.

Exactly, the only way to rule a region like that is with an iron fist. We cannot judge him by western democratic ideals because such a system would never work over there. The best you can hope for in a region like that is a non-fundamentalist strongman and we had that in Saddam, same reason I'm against removing Assad.

 

[El anciano]

On a global scale he was a lot less of a threat to the world than the USA

 

[jamel]

Well after seeing his military capabilities first hand, I have to say very low.

Dude couldnt even flee his own country, but was some how some way a threat to the world.

Stop it.

We got okey doked plain and simple.