War assured of no WMD and no war

[hobbes]

Where do you think we would be today?

Would regime change still be the final common pathway to giving Iraq a new beginning or do you think SAddam and his sons would have been allowed to lead Iraq into the future unchecked, and everyone is cool with that.

Mr. Jp Fugley:

I don't think your two options are the only ones. I think a lot of people would have been less than cool with it.

However I suspect they would still be in power and committing atrocities against their own people.

Had the USA not chosen to depose them then no-one else would have.



Hobbes replies:

Feel free to offer any scenario YOU see as most likely. I was just setting the ball in motion.

To me I guess it comes down to how much energy should the world waste on this one small country and this one leader.

Continue to moniter him until he and his sons are dead.

Tell him his penalty is over and he is free to pursue the future in his sovereign nation as he sees fit.

As Boab pointed out with Iran, why should he not be allowed to build nukes for himself. Who has the right to block him from importing and building what he desires.

We already know what he DID before, and my country, for certain, is on his shit list.

As I have said before, I doubt Iraq would ever shoot a nuke at the US, but he might give one to someone who might.


J2K4


Short-term likelihood would be that things would have continued at par...Oil-for-Food was lining Saddam's pockets, so the U.N. wasn't a concern; Russia, France, China, Germany, et.al., were satiated.

Had Saddam died naturally, his sons surely would have assumed control, and the situation vis a vis the Iraqi citizenry likely would have worsened, which wouldn't have bothered anyone but ex-pat Iraqis greatly; it is largely true that, apart from Israel, there is no overweening concern for any of the mid-eastern countries by outside entities, apart from the latent concern for their oil, and that has been the raw stabilizing influence over the entire region for the past what, 75 years or so?

Apart from the Israeli/Palestinian situation, which is somewhat static, things could have gone on as they were for another 40-50 years, while the region's various constituents honed their own brand of nuclear detente.

Terrorism would be the wild-card, and the only ingredient likely to have caused outside powers to weigh in, which is, of course, what happened, except sooner, rather than later.

How's that?

[j2k4]

Am I done, then? :huh:

[j2k4]

I think we both are :blink:

:cry1:

[j2k4]

http://www.slickdeals.net/forums/images/smilies/emot-wave.gif

:lol:

I await Hobbes' instructions; we run the risk of another hijack! :ohmy:

[vidcc]

Being of no threat to the world the only question would be if the sanctions imposed would continue to run?
If the answer is no and once again Iraq entered the world market i would assume that things for the Iraqi people would improve in regards to availability of everyday items such as medicine.
Then it comes to what should be done about persecution of Saddams opponents and unfortunately it often seems that barbaric actions are overlooked at a level that correspondes to the interests of the onlooker.
Iraq has oil which would have become freely available thus reducing the world market price (assuming cartel actions would not keep the price artificially high).
So my answer would be that Saddam would stay in power and the status quo would prevail

[hobbes]

Don't you think he would just restart his nuclear and chemical weapons programs. He has a history of this, right. Do you think people would feel free to let him just rebuild his forces, then sit atround and wait to see what he does?

Boab says we have no right to stop Iran from getting nukes, so the same would apply to Saddam. I have no problem envisioning him desiring a bit of revenge and letting someone removed from him have a WMD to use against the US.

I think regime change in Iraq was the only way Iraq would ever be returned to a country people did not want to keep inspecting or fear. Could have been done in 1990, was done in 2004, additional sanctions and inspections would just delay the envitable.

[Biggles]

There were a number of outstanding issues regarding the first GW. Not least in relation to mormalising relations between Iraq and Kuwait.

As the threat of conflict loomed, Saddam's grip loosened and it did look like he was considering stepping down he certainly moved enough cash to make his retirement comfortable. In my view we seemed to be in an unseemly haste to go to war.

The cost in terms of lives and reconstruction set against the cost of holding the army ready in Kuwait for a few more months does not bear comparison.

Whilst it is easy to be wise after the event, many people at the time felt that war was not the best solution - not for the Iraqi people or the war on terror. The recent vote was great for the Iraqis but it is only the first step on a long haul. A vote conducted without the backdrop of death, destruction and every militant nutter in the region setting up camp in their country might well have been worth a small wait (and may even have been conducted earlier).

[hobbes]

There were a number of outstanding issues regarding the first GW. Not least in relation to mormalising relations between Iraq and Kuwait.

As the threat of conflict loomed, Saddam's grip loosened and it did look like he was considering stepping down he certainly moved enough cash to make his retirement comfortable. In my view we seemed to be in an unseemly haste to go to war.

The cost in terms of lives and reconstruction set against the cost of holding the army ready in Kuwait for a few more months does not bear comparison.

Whilst it is easy to be wise after the event, many people at the time felt that war was not the best solution - not for the Iraqi people or the war on terror. The recent vote was great for the Iraqis but it is only the first step on a long haul. A vote conducted without the backdrop of death, destruction and every militant nutter in the region setting up camp in their country might well have been worth a small wait (and may even have been conducted earlier).

Thanks for the input Biggles, but didn't he have 2 sons waiting to take the throne. Based on Saddams personality, do you really think he would have stepped down. He held his own people hostage to the sanctions, where many died and he erected golds statues. He was hiding nothing, but he would rather let his people die than show that he was weak.

I really am not asking if people were for the war or not, just that if it was not undertaken, what road would have been travelled to reach a new stable Iraq.

[j2k4]

Being of no threat to the world the only question would be if the sanctions imposed would continue to run?
If the answer is no and once again Iraq entered the world market i would assume that things for the Iraqi people would improve in regards to availability of everyday items such as medicine.
Then it comes to what should be done about persecution of Saddams opponents and unfortunately it often seems that barbaric actions are overlooked at a level that correspondes to the interests of the onlooker.
Iraq has oil which would have become freely available thus reducing the world market price (assuming cartel actions would not keep the price artificially high).
So my answer would be that Saddam would stay in power and the status quo would prevail

I note you question the ongoing/continuing validity of U.N. sanctions in light of Saddam's being revealed as a sheep in wolf's clothing.

How do you propose this revelation takes place in the absence of the U.S.'s "Internationally Criminal Act Of Aggression"?

Remember: According to Hobbes' scenario, it hasn't happened...

Likely also would be a protracted discussion/argument/debate/holding action/rejection of any idea of retracting the resolutions, as there were a couple members of the "Big Five" Security Council roster who would certainly have been quite smugly satisfied to see things continue apace for a long, long, time.

Remember also that, absent the war, it is likely the Oil-for-Food scandal doesn't see serious light for, well.... probably forever.

I give you a do-over, vid. :D

[Biggles]

Thanks for the input Biggles, but didn't he have 2 sons waiting to take the throne. Based on Saddams personality, do you really think he would have stepped down. He held his own people hostage to the sanctions, where many died and he erected golds statues. He was hiding nothing, but he would rather let his people die than show that he was weak.

I really am not asking if people were for the war or not, just that if it was not undertaken, what road would have been travelled to reach a new stable Iraq.

One of the sons was psychotic and extremely dangerous. He was originally going to be the heir but Saddam sidelined him as too unstable. The other was probably the least nasty of the three (not necessarily saying much). Saddam was a charismatic figure - it is not clear how well the sons would have fared in taking up the reins.

I think the brief discussions before the war suggesting that Saddam step down included his family going too. Without their father it is unlikely they would have have had much support.

However, what might have been is hard to picture now. Indeed what is to come is not entirely clear. I saw the leading political cleric Hakim on TV the other day. He has that same ruthless religious look that the Iranian Aytollahs have. If, as suspected, his grouping have done well the new Parliament will be a lively place.

[hobbes]

Biggles,

Do you now anything about who would have replaced Saddam? Was someone selected and who was to make the selection.

Obviously all the candidates were anti-US (hence the need to invade) or the US would have been happy to let a new leader give it a shot. All the US would ever want from Iraq is a "user-friendly" leader.

[j2k4]

...a "user-friendly" leader.
Uber-clever, that. ;)

[vidcc]

I note you question the ongoing/continuing validity of U.N. sanctions in light of Saddam's being revealed as a sheep in wolf's clothing.

How do you propose this revelation takes place in the absence of the U.S.'s "Internationally Criminal Act Of Aggression"?

Remember: According to Hobbes' scenario, it hasn't happened...

Hobbes gave the scenario that Saddam was "clean" in the original thread, so i suggest you ask him how that came about. My post was based on that given scenario.


Likely also would be a protracted discussion/argument/debate/holding action/rejection of any idea of retracting the resolutions, as there were a couple members of the "Big Five" Security Council roster who would certainly have been quite smugly satisfied to see things continue apace for a long, long, time.

i said that in not so many words in the original

unfortunately it often seems that barbaric actions are overlooked at a level that correspondes to the interests of the onlooker.


Remember also that, absent the war, it is likely the Oil-for-Food scandal doesn't see serious light for, well.... probably forever.

what does that have to do with anything i posted?

I give you a do-over, vid. :D

i give you a read over

[j2k4]

Hobbes gave the scenario that Saddam was "clean" in the original thread, so i suggest you ask him how that came about. My post was based on that given scenario.

Okay, Hobbes-

What about it?

How is it that Saddam is determined to be "clean"?

[lynx]

All the US would ever want from Iraq is a "user-friendly" leader.By that I assume you mean one who can be controlled by the US/West.

There has been a lot said about this war being about oil. Personally I think that's only a minor part of the reason. The main thing was to have someone who could be controlled, particularly now that relations with the Saudi government are beginning to go sour.

Saddam knew he could always stir up trouble in the M.E. simply by pointing at the actions of the Israelis. The West, and in particular the US, needed another area which wouldn't strongly attack western policies relating to the M.E., especially Israel. Saddam fitted this slot very well until the late 80s. After sanctions, it was obvious that Saddam wasn't going to play ball, so he was going to be removed by one method or another.

Of course, the question then remains as to how it would have been done. Indeed, pretty much all the other Muslim governments in the M.E. had little appetite for getting involved since most of them are also repressive to some extent.

Although I don't much like the idea of them, perhaps a hit squad would have been better than the deaths of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of innocents. Although that would probably have left the Ba'ath party in power, they would realise that the action could be repeated. But since the objective was never humanitarian government I think that's what we would have been left with.

[hobbes]

Okay, Hobbes-

What about it?

How is it that Saddam is determined to be "clean"?

Hans Blix says so. He gives his word. Just depends on how much confidence you have in his word.

Vidcc may be right that the context was lost in thread transfer. I did not mean he was clean, just the UN declared him so.

[hobbes]

By that I assume you mean one who can be controlled by the US/West.

There has been a lot said about this war being about oil. Personally I think that's only a minor part of the reason. The main thing was to have someone who could be controlled, particularly now that relations with the Saudi government are beginning to go sour.

Saddam knew he could always stir up trouble in the M.E. simply by pointing at the actions of the Israelis. The West, and in particular the US, needed another area which wouldn't strongly attack western policies relating to the M.E., especially Israel. Saddam fitted this slot very well until the late 80s. After sanctions, it was obvious that Saddam wasn't going to play ball, so he was going to be removed by one method or another.

Of course, the question then remains as to how it would have been done. Indeed, pretty much all the other Muslim governments in the M.E. had little appetite for getting involved since most of them are also repressive to some extent.

Although I don't much like the idea of them, perhaps a hit squad would have been better than the deaths of tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of innocents. Although that would probably have left the Ba'ath party in power, they would realise that the action could be repeated. But since the objective was never humanitarian government I think that's what we would have been left with.

They don't have to be controlled by us, just willing to do business. The US would never ponder taking over Canada or Mexico, our biggest suppliers of oil, because we give them money and we get oil.

Just a friendly face in the Middle East, that is all we need.

I would personally like politicians out of the oil business and back into finding alternative energy sources. I fully blame oil company special interests for corrupting and squelching our "alternative energy commission" with their bribe money and influence. We have had 25 years to transform our society into a non-petroleum based system, but have not. Why? Oil money. You know American companies love high oil prices because it makes it profitable to drill here in America.

Imagine how trivial the Middle East would be if oil had no value. Had we fully applied ourselves in 1980 to become energy self-sufficient none of this would have ever been an issue.

Since I am ranting abit, how does one explain the "sky is falling, the Earth will be out of oil in 40 years" claim in 1980, to the explosive popularity of cars that get 6 mpg, today? Where did all those 50 mpg cars go? What happened to the energy crisis. Marketing and politics :sick:

It is really healthy for a country to be self-sufficient.

[j2k4]

Hans Blix says so. He gives his word. Just depends on how much confidence you have in his word.

Vidcc may be right that the context was lost in thread transfer. I did not mean he was clean, just the UN declared him so.

Then we are back to square one; Blix says Saddam was clean, ergo Saddam receives a clean bill-of-health from the U.N.?

Then what cause for continuing U.N. sanctions?

The France/Germany/Russia dynamic would surely need to continue, correct?

We have here a cart with horses 5 or 6 abreast, and rigged for all points of the political compass.

I hereby call for the requisite clarifications-I feel bad for complicating things, you know I do-but I'm afraid I must insist. ;)

[Biggles]

Biggles,

Do you now anything about who would have replaced Saddam? Was someone selected and who was to make the selection.

Obviously all the candidates were anti-US (hence the need to invade) or the US would have been happy to let a new leader give it a shot. All the US would ever want from Iraq is a "user-friendly" leader.

At the time fond hopes were nurtured regarding Chalabi. He was secular, Shi'ite and pro west (apparently). How much he would have found favour in Iraq is hard to determine.

The people that are coming to the fore now - Sistani and Hakim - probably would have done so if there had been a peaceful transition. These were not considered ideal and Rumsfeld made pointed remarks about Islamic Republics as I recall. Hakim's party is called the council for the Islamic revolution (or something of that ilk) - so I guess that position has been modified.

A picture of Hakim - apologies to those who are already familiar with him.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/beyond/art/hakimp.jpg

[hobbes]

If no WMD are found, Saddam steps down, Chalabi is instituted, then what possible reason could Bush have for going to war? Simply to arrest Saddam. Or did he really feel that Saddam was an imminent threat?

But then again, Saddam would NOT have stepped down, I believe, and that a US chosen Chalabi would have been rejected by the people of Iraq and placed them on the doorstep of inevitability- civil war.

Two different paths to the same destination.