I’m a little confused. You* then * echoed Shodan’s remarks, as in after you apologized?
I responded to Shodan as well. What is it you think I overlooked?
I’m familiar with Der Trihs style. My own response is to not take his more outrageous claims seriously and rarely respond. Of course YMMV.
I have no interest in a heated exchange. You’ve expressed your opinion and I’ve expressed mine. No more need be said.
Some of the comments here make some sense in regards to what Saddam was thinking, or not thinking. He just didn’t think we would, or even could, send in the troops.
Which is actualy even more strange when you consider we had just done in a short few months in Afghanstan. In a very short time the American forces overthrew the government there, installed a new one, and sent alot of the rebels to the hills. We accomplished there what the Soviets couldn’t in a decade of fighting. You would have thought that might give Saddam some pause.
Add that piece in, and it makes me think that you just cant tell what a madman (president or dictator) will ever do.
I think one point being made is that there wasn’t anything he could do to deter Bush and cronies. Even as a brutal dictator he was still the leader of a nation. My understanding of why he was left in power after desert storm was that chaos would ensue when there was no clear group to assume leadership. Evidently that was still true. That’s exactly what has happened.
Saddam was a lot of bluster and postering but he wasn’t an idiot in regards to going to war with us. He didn’t want that and I think him allowing the inspectors back in demonstrated that. Once Bush and cronies decided they were going in there was nothing he could do to avoid it.
He couldn’t go tom the UN and say “Hey don’t do this I’m willing to cooperate” because Bush didn’t care what the UN thought.
Well, i wil retract that statement form the OP. There may have been some opportunity for Saddam to avoid war, I suppose, but I do realize the administration had a real desire to go to war and nothing short of inviting in the U.S himself to arrest him and his sons and handing over the keys to the Presidential restroom would have done the trick.
I very much appreciate the responses. One thing that is not clear is how much of Saddam’s thining was simply, “There is no WMDs and there is no Al Queda connection, so seriously they wouldn’t attack, when in reality we aren’t doing anything wrong? Right?” which I think is a shade different than simply, “They haven’t got the guts to invade.”
That could have been his thinking. But, on the other hand, it could have been a more fatalistic, “Well, they are determined to attack anyway. So, what can I do?” or it could have been neither. It is hard to know…but since we haven’t been able to really identify anything he could have done that would have likely stopped the invasion, it is sort of moot.
By the way, I suppose one could still ask the question of why Saddam gambled over the many years leading up to the invasion. I.e., while it may be true that he couldn’t have prevented it once Congress passed the resolution in the fall of 2002, he probably could have done things to prevent it over the scale of years before. And, some of the arguments that posters have given might be applicable to that issue. Of course, part of the problem is that he presumably didn’t anticipate a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 happening and without 9/11 it is doubtful that the American people would have had any appetite for such foreign adventures.
[And, even in the years before, there was some potential for misreading the motivations of what he did. For example, the fact that he had become uncooperative with the inspections in the late 90s, leading to the withdrawal of the inspectors and subsequent bombing of some of his military sites by the Clinton Administration is often taken as evidence that he was going to rebuild his WMD capabilities or that he at least wanted his neighbors to believe he was. And, while there may be some truth to this, I believe it is also now pretty widely acknowledged that his stated reason for not cooperating…that some of the inspectors were spying for the U.S. and Britain…was in fact true (see, for example, here…Hans Blix also made reference to this spying allegation as a known fact in an interview that he gave on NPR’s Fresh Air two or three years ago). So, there was a pretty good reason for him to be uncooperative without having to come up with all these other motivations.]
:dubious: If Saddam had left peacefully then there would have been a huge power vaccume. Or do you believe that there would have been a peaceful and orderly transition?? Lets be realistic here ok?
Thats not exactly what I said…nor was it known at the time (hindsight and all that). What I SAID was, the Iraqi ARMY wouldn’t fight the US (to expand in a coherent fasion, as you imply) without Saddam there to make them do so. What may or may not have come later is speculation…and certainly wasn’t know AT THE TIME. So, what you are saying is that its ‘crazy’ in light of what we now know…and wasn’t all that ‘crazy’ in fact, because we wouldn’t have had to face the actual Iraqi Army. And its possible that if there had been a peaceful transition things might not have gone the way they eventually did wrt the insurgency…we’ll never know.
Your automatic assumption that had Saddam fled the Iraqi’s would have fought, and would have had an insurgency is just speculation on your part…and its speculation informed by the history we’ve witnessed in the last 3-4 years. It wasn’t something commonly acknowledged BEFORE the invasion…ken?
-XT
It’s an assumption based on human nature, and thousands of years of history. People tend to fight against invaders. I would expect any country to fight.
It depends on the circumstances. Certainly under SOME circumstances people will fight for their country…or their homes. When the Germans initially invaded Russia, many people greeted the Germans as liberators…not because they loved the Nazi’s, but because they hated Stalin and the Communist government in Moscow worse. The same could have been true in Iraq had Saddam AND his government (i.e. the Ba’athist regime) fled when given the chance. Not because they would have loved the US, but because they hated Saddam and his government worse.
Again, you are making some assumptions based on what we now know to be the case…and even then, we can’t be sure the exact same things would have happened had there been a more peaceful transition and Saddam opted to bolt with him billions. Personally, I DON’T think things would have worked out the same…because I don’t think there would have been as long a power vaccume had Saddam opted to leave. Also, I think we could have reasonably enlisted other countries, especially arab countries, in assisting in the transition had it been a peaceful one. Certainly I could see some of the Euro powers who weren’t in our coalition of the coerced hopping on the bandwagon had there been no forced entry invasion required.
All that is speculation however…my point was, it wasn’t anywhere near a ‘crazy’ idea IF Saddam had bolted to expect things would be relatively peaceful. You claiming it is is based on 20/20 hindsight and also your own views…which weren’t universally shared AT THE TIME. Ken?
-XT
IIRC, Saddam’s aides lied to him about the state of WMDs, and the nuclear program. (Like they told him there was one.) So what Saddam thought about the state of his military readiness might not have matched reality.
In any case, after Kuwait, the invasion did not occur until there was UN approval. That didn’t happen this time. I don’t think you can say he totally ignored the US threat, since he accepted inspectors and let them into places where they had never been before. I think he could be excused for thinking, since they didn’t find anything, that the threat of an invasion was not imminent.
If Saddamn had left, power would have devolved to a military leader. Would this person let US troops in without a fight? Not at all clear, since doing so without a strong power base might get him shot in a hurry. I doubt the end game would have been any different, and Saddam probably would have wound up in front of a war crimes tribunal anyway. Do you think Bush would have allowed a Baathist general to stay in power?
Saddam’s big mistake was Kuwait. For GWII, even if he had figured out that Bush was as big a psycho as him, I doubt it would have made much of a difference.
I don’t know, Qadafi did a pretty good job of switching sides.
If immediately after 9/11 Saddam had come out strongly against Al Qaeda, then it could have made people think.
He could also have made a pretty powerful case of condemning terrorism based on religion and of condemning theocracies in general.
He could also have quietly negotiated a mutual defence pact with his neighbours, while it would not have protected him from the USA, it would have got the Saudis and Kuwait quite interested.
Saddam wasn´t playing chicken, Bush was deliverately steering for a collision.
Before the invasion Iraq was fully cooperating, the USA said it´ll invade anyway, what was to be done?
It does seem easy to forget that it was the ‘murderous dictator’ who was telling the truth and trying to avoid war while it was the ‘Leader of the Free World’ that was lying and out for innocent blood.
Der Trish, I don’t recall the exact quote you speak of, but I clearly remembered that in Bush’s last (or second to last) speech prior to the invasion, he gave Saddam yet another or his patented John Waynesque ‘ultimatums’ – here’s the exact quote:
Of course, the always too willing mainstream media made that the thrust of their headlines the following day.
Took me a couple of minutes to find what else Bush said in that speech:
So there you have it, folks. The US was GOING IN regardless of whether Saddam acquiesced or not to The Bully In Thief.
Of course, that wasn’t the part of the speech that made the headlines…
Trust that’s of some help in buttressing your claims against the armchair-warriors calling you a “liar.”
Source for The Usual Suspects? How about The White House itself?
Enjoy.
Do you have any cites for this ? Maybe you’re thinking of Soviet-occupied nations, like Lithuania which took advantage of the chaos to try to set up an independent State. The defense of Russia was pretty ‘tooth and nail’ without any doubt about who the real enemy was.
But you raise an interesting question - are there any historical precedents for a nation welcoming a foreign army ‘liberating’ them from a home-grown despot ? I suspect the flowers and kisses ‘liberation’ scenario was pure fantasy (or propaganda), but I’m open to being convinced otherwise.
And let’s not forget. The plan was not to free the Iraqis under Saddam and eliminate a threat. The plan was and is to occupy an Arab country and maintain a military presence there under the guise of protecting our new trophy democracy.
What the fuck were they thinking other than, no matter what I and my friends will get rich, rich, and richer? How do you expect the people of that region to react to a foreign occupying power? You’re literally asking for continued war and military confrontation, not to mention years of guerrilla action.
The Soviets did this in Afghanistan in short order.
It was just everything after that that screwed them - like trying to run a country while its hills were full of rebels.
Der Trihs In light of the above link I withdraw my allegation of liar which I earlier directed at you.
Well, I suppose it would depend on one’s definition of what was and was not ‘Soviet-occupied’…as the entire Soviet Union was part of a vast empire. However, I found this on Wiki FWIW:
Obviously this greeting of the Germans as liberators didn’t last long with the way the Nazi chose to conduct themselves…but I seem to recall that several Russia divisions, after capture, ALSO chose (voluntarily IIRC) to join the Germans in the over throw of the Soviets. I could prolly dig up somemore if its necessary…though I don’t want to hijack things. The point is, if the regime is repressive enough there will be many who not only won’t fight for it but will hold their noses and greet the ‘invaders’…if not with open arms then at least without shooting at them. For further examples look at some of what happened during the Korean war with North Korean refugees and some of the captured armed forces, especially after Inchon while the US was driving through North Korea (and before the Chinese jumped in).
-XT
Well, we’re coming at this from opposing views. To my way of thinking, human nature is such that however bad the home-grown despot is, he’s our home-grown despot, and we see him as a lesser evil than a foreign invader. And once the home-grown despot is gone, how good or how bad he was is no longer an issue. The WWII Baltic States example is somewhat analogous to the situation with the Kurds in Iraq. It’s a big stretch to say the invaders were welcomed or even tolerated by Russia or by Iraq. Even there, I think you’ll find that the number of actual active “collaborators” is fairly small.
On the other hand, your Korea example may be food for thought. As best as I can recall, there was a civil war going on with foreign troops on both sides, which muddies the picture somewhat, not to mention the Japanese occupation. I’ll have to try to learn more about it. Do you think this may have been the precedent which led the Bush Administration to believe that Iraq wouldn’t struggle ?
There’s a scene in the movie Gandhi in which the Brits tells Gandhi that India is not ready to govern herself. He responds that people would rather have their own bad government than the government of a foreign occupying power.
Plenty of Iraqi’s were glad and hopeful when Saddam lost power. I remember an Iraqi intellectual hired by the US on TV encouraging his fellow citizens to take advantage of the moment and work to establish a true representative democracy. While doing this he also criticized the US for actions that stood in the way of Iraqi’s governing themselves. IMO the problem was that a true representative democracy was never what this admin wanted. They wanted something that resembled a democracy on the outside while they pulled the strings. How can you help establish a democracy when you’re not really interested in the will of the people either in your own country or in the two you occupy. Looking at a history of the middle east how could you realistically expect anything but the mess we have once the citizens of that country realize that you have no intention of letting them govern themselves.
An ongoing military action only lines the pockets of the chosen few while they get to sit back and play “king of destiny”