Alternate history: What if Saddam never invades Kuwait?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-06-2006, 04:46 AM

What if Saddam had never invaded Kuwait?

Assuming 9/11 would've still happened, wouldn't Saddam have been the perfect ally in the Middle East? He was the most secular leader there and was already a natural enemy of Bin Laden. We also have a history of allying with him, with the exact same Secretary of Defense, so it's not like it'd be a strange thing. We've also allied with questionable autocracies after 9/11 like the Saudis, Egyptians, etc., so it's not as if Saddam being a dictator necessarily would've precluded us from working with him.

But would 9/11 have even happened if not for the Kuwait invasion? Bin Laden is said to have been most angered by US planes based in Saudi Arabia, which, of course, would never have happened but for the invasion of Kuwait.

So the way I see it, if Saddam had never invaded Kuwait, it's quite likely either 9/11 would've never happened or if it did, we'd have allied with Saddam after 9/11 instead of invaded him because of it.

Thoughts?

Donkey® · 11-06-2006, 04:55 AM

Better yet, how about the Saudis say "no" to us using the Holy Land as yet ANOTHER American base in the world and then they say "yes" to Bin Laden asking to attack Saddam? I think that would have worked out just fine.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-06-2006, 05:03 AM

Also, didn't Saddam have like the 4th largest army in the world before his military got raped in Gulf War I? So if he never invaded, you can also assume the above questions I raised would include Saddam being a large military power. With all the tension with Iran, we'd probably love to Iraq as our ally there, which would've been deja vu of the previous Iran/Iraq war and our propping up Saddam. But then again, would Iran even be misbehaving now if we never invaded Iraq? And if Saddam never invaded Kuwait, would 9/11 have happened, and therefore would we have ever invaded Iraq?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-06-2006, 05:05 AM

And we don't even know the far-reaching consequences that our invasion/occupation of Iraq will cause. Maybe history will view Saddam's invasion of Kuwait as the butterfly who flapped its wings in China and caused a hurricane in America.

Donkey® · 11-06-2006, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Also, didn't Saddam have like the 4th largest army in the world before his military got raped in Gulf War I? So if he never invaded, you can also assume the above questions I raised would include Saddam being a large military power. With all the tension with Iran, we'd probably love to Iraq as our ally there, which would've been deja vu of the previous Iran/Iraq war and our propping up Saddam. But then again, would Iran even be misbehaving now if we never invaded Iraq? And if Saddam never invaded Kuwait, would 9/11 have happened, and therefore would we have ever invaded Iraq?

9/11 wouldn't have happened because you would have to assume we wouldn't have half our military in Saudi Arabia...which was Bin Laden's biggest issue with us. I think even if Saddam never invaded, someone else would have taken him out because he just wasn't well liked amongst the muslim community...radical or not. I don't see Iran as "misbehaving" either. They saw our total and complete failure in Iraq and when we try to demand shit out of them, they just look at us and laugh.

Diesel66 · 11-06-2006, 07:39 AM

Invasion of Kuwait was primarily because of the Iran-Iraq war though. Iraq was broke and Kuwait (and opec) were screwing them out of billions.

WickedLou9 · 11-06-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Invasion of Kuwait was primarily because of the Iran-Iraq war though. Iraq was broke and Kuwait (and opec) were screwing them out of billions.

:eek: So let's go back even further. What would have happened without Reagan providing arms to both Iran and Iraq?

DosEquis · 11-07-2006, 02:42 PM

We can take this back all the way to Eisenhower... it is when screwing around in the middle east began.

infinite loop · 11-08-2006, 02:41 PM

9/11 wouldn't have happened if saddam didn't go into kuwait.

saddam leaves kuwait alone, we leave him alone.
we leave him alone, we don't establish bases in saudi arabia
we don't establishes bases in saudi arabia, obl is still our buddy
obl is still our buddy, 9/11 doesn't happen.

who knows what would have happened with NK and Iran, though. i'd imagine iraq/iran might get into an arms race if one or the other tried to develop nukes.

Diesel66 · 11-08-2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by infinite loop

i'd imagine iraq/iran might get into an arms race if one or the other tried to develop nukes.

Iraq was developing nukes in the early 90s and they were only a few years away from having one

Donkey® · 11-08-2006, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Iraq was developing nukes in the early 90s and they were only a few years away from having one

Bullshit. Iran has always been closer than Iraq has. You have any proof of this statement?

Diesel66 · 11-08-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Bullshit. Iran has always been closer than Iraq has. You have any proof of this statement?

overview
Iraqi Nuclear Weapons - Iraq Special Weapons

IEA was very clear that Iraq was a short time away from having nukes and they didnt know about it.

Donkey® · 11-08-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

overview
Iraqi Nuclear Weapons - Iraq Special Weapons

IEA was very clear that Iraq was a short time away from having nukes and they didnt know about it.

I think it's FAR from certain what the deal was.

IAEA Iraq Action Team- nwp2

RMNIXON · 11-08-2006, 11:23 PM

I think he would still be killing Kurds and causing trouble with Iran. He is the master of "miscalculation." He thought he could take Kuwait with no more than some saber rattling and UN sanctions. Then he thought he could play off a WMD bluff and look tough in the neiborhood and get nothing more than frustrated UN inspectors and $$$ for Oil under the table. 9/11 changed the picture and he did not see it coming! TOO BAD, SO SAD! GOODBYE!

Diamond Cross · 11-09-2006, 03:47 AM

I think he would destabilise the region. He once crossed the border of Iran to gas 50,000 Kurds. That shows he has no respect for borders when he was pursuing his own agends. During the original Gulf War he was firing Scuds into Israel in order to draw Israel into the conflict because he felt that if Israel entered the war the entire Middle East would unite against Israel and you'd have a much larger war erupt. Perhaps he would've violated Israel's borders by now and the same thing might happen.

DosEquis · 11-09-2006, 11:56 AM

Just think of how many kurds he wouldn't have killed if we didn't install him there in the first place?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-09-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Then he thought he could play off a WMD bluff

I don't really think that was a miscalcuation on his part. How could he have known Bush would really invade Iraq? Looking back, that was fucking crazy on Bush's part. It's like when a good poker player sits down at the fish table. The skilled poker player assumes the fish is making rational decisions, but really the fish is doing all sorts of crazy shit which could hurt the skilled player. Same thing. I'm not saying Saddam was generally a skilled tactician, but as far as the WMD bluff goes, it was a good bet...he just bet against a total fish (Bush) who was acting crazy and miscalcuating worse than he was.