Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No.
|
I'm only reiterating the question above. In refusing, you're admitting that you have no reason to think that we our our allies would have been in any danger from Saddam. If you believed otherwise, I suspect you'd say something.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If Saddam had no intent to develop WMD why was he being so defiant relative to inspections?
|
The UN inspectors had been coming in for years and he was livid about them coming in when they pleased. Even though He was stomped in Desert Storm, Saddam still had the god complex common in royalty and individuals with great power. He wanted to run his country the way he saw fit, and didn't like one bit he had to submit to the UN at their whim. He begrudgingly allowed the UN inspectors in often, but it built up and he finally said no.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What were his plans for the oil for food money he was diverting?
|
Judging by his dwindling personal fortune and lifestyle he was accustomed to, I suspect that instead of weapons, he was going to invest in both infrastructure and his own personal possessions and homes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Would he have continued his practice of paying families of suicide bombers, if so why?
|
Hard to say. It's possible, but I suspect that someone would have shut off his ability to pay the families. Iraq would have backed down had Israel made any real threats.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Do you think he still had interest in Kuwait?
|
Everyone had and has interest in Kuwait. They have oil. He wouldn't have invaded again, though, if that's what you're asking. He lost very hard during desert storm.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Had he and Iran settled their differences?
|
Not likely. Saddam hated the Iranians almost as much as he hated Osama.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Would he have attacked Israel?
|
Saddam didn't have the military capability to attack Israel. I suspect that even if Iraq and Iran and Syria and Jordan and Lebanon were to combine forces, they still wouldn't stand a chance. Iraq's military was still in shambles in 2002. Iran has the second strongest military in the ME, but they would never attack Israel outright because Israel would nuke Tehran without breaking a sweat. Israel is terrorist state with nuclear weapons, after all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What would have been the world response to an attack of Kuwait, Israel or Iran?
|
Iraq would have been defeated yet again, and Saddam wouldn't have been able to stay in power. Sectarian violence would have erupted and you'd end up in a situation not dissimilar from what we have today, minus US troops. The UN would move in with peacekeeping forces and Iraq would be occupied by a huge, multinational force. Not sure what would happen next. I suspect benchmarks for an Iraqi government would be set, and when they weren't met, the UN would start to pull out.