Iraqi Defector Admits To Lying, Iraq Liberated By Mistake

[Thanas]

It is also a truth of international politics that Nuremberg Law only applies to non-Americans. Guess why they tend to shy away from international courts of law? Because they might apply laws against them.

[Serafina]

It is also a truth of international politics that Nuremberg Law only applies to non-Americans. Guess why they tend to shy away from international courts of law? Because they might apply laws against them.

I am aware of that, i was just asking whether there is any actual law that says that the Iraw war was legal. Just ignore american arrogance for a second.

[Thanas]

No, by all standards (except by the standards of lawyers of the White House) the war was an illegal war of aggression.

[Sea Skimmer]

However there was never going to be a coalition like that in Iraq, they hated eachother too much, so Skimmer's point is still valid.

Yup, Saddam was an expert and keeping the factions turned against each other and he simply had a far larger and more deeply entrenched and diverse internal security service. You look at Egypt; Mubarak had a Republican Guard sure, but it was a single division which was still formally part of the regular army. Saddam meanwhile had his Republican Guard as a completely separate armed service styled after the Waffen SS and with the numbers (nine divisions plus various brigades at the peak) to suppress a nation wide rebellion, which is exactly what they did in 1991-94. The Republican Guard only got bigger afterwards. Saddam ruled through naked force his entire career, which frankly just made things easier for him then leadership in Egypt or Tunisia which had a pretext of exercising political power.

One can also easily point out that the Army in Tunisia and Egypt had being trained by the US for so long that virtually the entire officer corps was a product of said training. Amazingly said commanders then refused to fire on demonstrators. But I’m sure the US deserves zero credit for that just like everything else it ever possibly can do is pure evil. Especially military assistance programs.

[Sea Skimmer]

No, by all standards (except by the standards of lawyers of the White House) the war was an illegal war of aggression.

The war was going on from 1998 onward, the US simply choose to do something about it. But lawyers just love to argue over what constitutes a war anyway. Now meanwhile sanctions were killing 50,000 people a year (hey that’s only 350,000 dead in the last seven years, vast improvement!) and Iraq was effectively banned from providing basic services like clean water… but none of that matters. Clearly the free world should have just kept killing those helpless people until Saddam died in his bed. This would have been immensely more just and right because the LETTER OF THE LAW says all that death is okay, but even one death trying to resolve the situation is not.

Nuremberg was a farce of a fair legal process; and the same standard was never applied to Japan at the exact same time… not much of a basis to judge future actions on as far as I'm concerned.

[Thanas]

One can also easily point out that the Army in Tunisia and Egypt had being trained by the US for so long that virtually the entire officer corps was a product of said training. Amazingly said commanders then refused to fire on demonstrators. But I’m sure the US deserves zero credit for that

If the training was a factor, the USA definitely deserves credit for that.

just like everything else it ever possibly can do is pure evil. Especially military assistance programs.

Some US policies can and have done good and continue to do so. Some US policies also are used for blatant self-interest without regards for international law. I fail to see why the two are mutually exclusive.

And I would think of the Iraq War as evil, yes.

The war was going on from 1998 onward, the US simply choose to do something about it. But lawyers just love to argue over what constitutes a war anyway. Now meanwhile sanctions were killing 50,000 people a year (hey that’s only 350,000 dead in the last seven years, vast improvement!) and Iraq was effectively banned from providing basic services like clean water… but none of that matters. Clearly the free world should have just kept killing those helpless people until Saddam died in his bed.

It is not as if it was an either or choice.

[Sea Skimmer]

It is not as if it was an either or choice.

I have said many times before on SDN that I am open to ideas for other solutions, but no I've never seen one given that had a remotely realistic chance of either removing Saddam from power, or keeping him military crippled without keeping Iraq economically crippled. Just saying another choice existed isn’t good enough. What was it and how long would it take? Its not like we didn't try to kill him personally a few dozen times right up until the day before the invasion began.

[Thanas]

I have said many times before on SDN that I am open to ideas for other solutions, but no I've never seen one given that had a remotely realistic chance of either removing Saddam from power, or keeping him military crippled without keeping Iraq economically crippled. Just saying another choice existed isn’t good enough. What was it and how long would it take? Its not like we didn't try to kill him personally a few dozen times right up until the day before the invasion began.

The USA should have bolstered the defences of its allies and abandoned the sanctions IMO. It is not as if Saddam was in any condition to invade anybody and if necessary, the sanctions could be reinstated. If possible, try to secure a closer partnership of sorts with Iran and bolster Iran against Iraq. Though I am sure there is a problem with it somewhere for the USA never tried it.

[Serafina]

Now meanwhile sanctions were killing 50,000 people a year (hey that’s only 350,000 dead in the last seven years, vast improvement!) and Iraq was effectively banned from providing basic services like clean water… but none of that matters.

If your sanctions are doing that, fix your sanctions. As in, no longer ban them from providing basic services. That doesn't even impact your ability to control their weapon imports or production. And even if it does, you are still more than strong enough to fight them if necessary. Which would then actually be legal and not a war crime.

I have said many times before on SDN that I am open to ideas for other solutions, but no I've never seen one given that had a remotely realistic chance of either removing Saddam from power, or keeping him military crippled without keeping Iraq economically crippled.

Why would you need to do either?
Please don't talk about the morality of tolerating a dictatorship, because the USA installed such dictators all the time. And while it's certainly not a good thing to have a dictatorship, that doesn't give you the moral right to forcibly "liberate" a country.
As for keeping their military crippled - are you certain that such harsh sanctions were a necessity? Even if they were, what gives you the right to pre-emptively kill people (via the sanctions) because they MIGHT do something bad? Morally (if not legally), it seems to be identical to saying "we have the right to attack anyone who might do something we do not want", which is one of the major problems with US foreign politics.

[The Spartan]

Look - let's be honest. How much "convincing" did the Bush administration really need to go kill brown people? ESPECIALLY one that tried to kill his dad.

The Bush Administration? None. tWat already wanted to go back into Iraq, he just needed the political capital and the right pretext to do so. Along comes 9/11 and phantom WMDs and BAM! the American people are sold and off we go.

Osama Bin Laden? Who?

[The Kernel]

Why would you need to do either?
Please don't talk about the morality of tolerating a dictatorship, because the USA installed such dictators all the time. And while it's certainly not a good thing to have a dictatorship, that doesn't give you the moral right to forcibly "liberate" a country.

That's not the reason that the US was committed to containing the Hussain regime. Saddam was a destabalizing force across the Middle East and we didn't want to allow him to conduct another "expedition" into Kuwait or start another conflict with Iran.

As for keeping their military crippled - are you certain that such harsh sanctions were a necessity? Even if they were, what gives you the right to pre-emptively kill people (via the sanctions) because they MIGHT do something bad? Morally (if not legally), it seems to be identical to saying "we have the right to attack anyone who might do something we do not want", which is one of the major problems with US foreign politics.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about do you? The US didn't unilaterally pass sanctions against Iraq (as if we could even pass meaningful sanctions without a blockade) those sanctions were passed and approved by the UN Security Council. The world collectively decided to contain Saddam because he had invaded his neighbors and was killing his own people.

[The Kernel]

The USA should have bolstered the defences of its allies

You want us to foot the bill for arming all of Iraq's neighbors? And even with the best equipment, Kuwait doesn't have near the amount of people to mount a defense against and Iraqi incursion, how do you propose we protect them? Put a massive US military presence there indefinitely a la South Korea? Are you insane?

and abandoned the sanctions IMO. It is not as if Saddam was in any condition to invade anybody and if necessary, the sanctions could be reinstated.

Reinstating sanctions against Iraq would have been a tough sell after dropping them and letting them rearm, you need the entire UN Security Council to agree. Didn't we learn that lesson with Nazi Germany?

If possible, try to secure a closer partnership of sorts with Iran and bolster Iran against Iraq.

Ha, yeah great idea. Let's arm an even crazier regime.

Though I am sure there is a problem with it somewhere for the USA never tried it.

Arming a theocracy IS a major problem yes.

[The Kernel]

I have said many times before on SDN that I am open to ideas for other solutions, but no I've never seen one given that had a remotely realistic chance of either removing Saddam from power, or keeping him military crippled without keeping Iraq economically crippled. Just saying another choice existed isn’t good enough. What was it and how long would it take? Its not like we didn't try to kill him personally a few dozen times right up until the day before the invasion began.

As far as I can see, the only other option might have been to find some kind of diplomatic solution to the problem. It's obvious that economic sanctions weren't working and that letting Iraq rearm certainly wasn't going to help anyone.

I do wonder if the US might have been able to broker a truce if we were willing to use the carrot more instead of the stick.

[Thanas]

The USA should have bolstered the defences of its allies

You want us to foot the bill for arming all of Iraq's neighbors? And even with the best equipment, Kuwait doesn't have near the amount of people to mount a defense against and Iraqi incursion, how do you propose we protect them? Put a massive US military presence there indefinitely a la South Korea? Are you insane?

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could have protected each other. And Saudi Arabia can be quite a potent adversary. Besides, it is not as if you would have needed a massive military US presence to deal with the Iraqi army.

Reinstating sanctions against Iraq would have been a tough sell after dropping them and letting them rearm, you need the entire UN Security Council to agree. Didn't we learn that lesson with Nazi Germany?

WTF are you smoking? There were no sanctions against Germany due to the UN not existing back then.

Ha, yeah great idea. Let's arm an even crazier regime.

If you freely admit that Iran was an even crazier regime and did not pose such a large threat without such sanctions and restrictions, what makes you think this would have been any different in Iraq's case?

[Sea Skimmer]

If your sanctions are doing that, fix your sanctions. As in, no longer ban them from providing basic services. That doesn't even impact your ability to control their weapon imports or production. And even if it does, you are still more than strong enough to fight them if necessary. Which would then actually be legal and not a war crime.

They did modify sanctions. That was what the oil for food program was. Corrupt UN officials then allowed Saddam Hussine to make billions off of it, including the head of the program Benon Vahe Sevan who is currently hiding from arrest back in Cyprus. The UN also reported cases of the Iraqi government keeping imported medical supplies in warehouses until they became useless, rather then using them. Anyone think Saddam didn't really do that, and wouldn't keep doing it? That was almost certainly part of his campaign to keep the Shia suppressed and generally strengthen his rule. Sanctions were also undermined by oil smuggling and Syria and Iran pretty much allowing anything to be trucked across the boarder for a price.

Iraq had a chemical industry that could make a whole lot of things including VX and nuclear material, and a military heavy industry that could make complete tanks and artillery. If Saddam had all the oil money he could pump and raw materials he could buy flowing in his ability to build a mass army was already established. It could have turned into something a lot more formidable then what we saw in 1991 very quickly too, think about all that surplus USSR hardware that was and still is available.

Denying them the imports they needed to run those industries meant crippling the economy. The UN at least also alleged on several occasions that Saddam was simply hiding medical supplies in warehouses to keep disease rates high, and generally aid his oppression of the Shia population.

Why would you need to do either?

Because the guy did nothing but go to war with people the entire time he was in power up until the US started keeping massive forces in the Persian Gulf Full time and routinely bombing him? No one seems to have much idea on just how many tens of thousands of Iraqis died in the Gulf War, but we do know the Iran Iraq War was upwards of a million casualties.

Please don't talk about the morality of tolerating a dictatorship, because the USA installed such dictators all the time. And while it's certainly not a good thing to have a dictatorship, that doesn't give you the moral right to forcibly "liberate" a country.

Yes, that would be the ‘once you’ve done harm no good is possible’ argument. Pretty dumb argument to make considering how many nations on earth had slavery until only two hundred fifty years ago, and well less then that in the case of the US and several others. I don’t think other dictators matter in this case one bit because the US was not already engaged in a mass and continuing war with those people. If we already had a shooting pretext for overthrowing someone else I think we would have well taken it. What is moral and what is not is a matter of opinion.

As for keeping their military crippled - are you certain that such harsh sanctions were a necessity?

Yes, because Iraq had already developed enough to sustain indigenous armaments given access to material and finance. Most dictatorships are a lot weaker then that which makes them far easier to control.

Even if they were, what gives you the right to pre-emptively kill people (via the sanctions) because they MIGHT do something bad? Morally (if not legally), it seems to be identical to saying "we have the right to attack anyone who might do something we do not want", which is one of the major problems with US foreign politics.

No, its saying we have the right to attack anyone who fights a mass war with us, looses after we prematurely grant them a cease fire specifically to avoid unnecessary human losses, and then doesn’t do what we want. If the US has driven right to Baghdad in 1991 and overthrown Saddam then, would that have been morally justified to you? Honest question. Most people don’t question the moral right of the US and allied cause in overthrowing the government of Japan and Germany in WW2 after all, even though that extended the conflict and killed perhaps several million or more people in the process.

Anyway, since then the world supposedly vests its moral and legal guidance in the UN, and the sanctions on Iraq were from the UN and its force of law. Ignoring the UK lap dog, France, Russia, China and the US all agreed on this sanctions policy for twelve years on the Security Council. If you don’t agree with that system morally, fine by me because I don’t like it either, but that’s how it was supposed to work. The UN said okay to killing people one way, people argue it did not say okay to killing them another way at that specific time (even though the US WAS killing people with air strikes already) but frankly you had to be stupid to think ‘serious consequences’ was meant to mean anything but an invasion when it was written.

The real answer as far as I’m concerned is that the UN based system is fucked, and the world should go back to a system of direct relations. But that wouldn’t really change the problem with Saddam being an incredibly brutal man with a regime based on feudal lines and morality (might is right, period) with a huge pile of wealth and a developed military focused economy.

The biggest moral mistake of the US as far as I’m concerned was not just ending the whole Saddam thing in 1991 when one more hard push would have brought him down. But that wouldn’t have been legal because the Saudis would have told us no and then made our logistic situation hell unless we attacked the Saudis too. Unquestionably invading in such a half assed manner as we did in 2003 was a mistake, though how much of one compared to what a proper invasion would have accomplished we’ll never know unless Al Sadr and a few other people write memoirs. 1991 would have been easy given our half million man force.

[Sea Skimmer]

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could have protected each other. And Saudi Arabia can be quite a potent adversary. Besides, it is not as if you would have needed a massive military US presence to deal with the Iraqi army.

The Iraqi military was not entirely worthless, Saddam never used his very best divisions at all and only one Republican Guard mechanized division, plus a fair portion of a second one were ever actually engaged on the ground with coalition forces. Those that did engage plus the 11th armored division of the regular Iraqi military were competent fighters. They were just totally outmatched technologically; but if you give Saddam the 1990s to buy a hundred billion dollars worth of surplus Soviet hardware and those troops would be transformed into a far far larger threat. The quality of Saudi and Kuwaiti personal isn’t the best either. If you put an atomic bomb behind them, so much the worse.

[Thanas]

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could have protected each other. And Saudi Arabia can be quite a potent adversary. Besides, it is not as if you would have needed a massive military US presence to deal with the Iraqi army.

The Iraqi military was not entirely worthless, Saddam never used his very best divisions at all and only one Republican Guard mechanized division, plus a fair portion of a second one were ever actually engaged on the ground with coalition forces. Those that did engage plus the 11th armored division of the regular Iraqi military were competent fighters. They were just totally outmatched technologically; but if you give Saddam the 1990s to buy a hundred billion dollars worth of surplus Soviet hardware and those troops would be transformed into a far far larger threat. The quality of Saudi and Kuwaiti personal isn’t the best either. If you put an atomic bomb behind them, so much the worse.

However, there was a reason why these forces were not risked. Internal security. I doubt they would have been used in another war. And that assumes Saddam would attack once more, after already getting curbstomped that one time.

What rationale is there for an attack?

[Sea Skimmer]

However, there was a reason why these forces were not risked. Internal security.

Exactly, and so after the Gulf War Saddam kept expanding the Republican Guard more and more so it could do more things at once. He also ramped up the Fedayeen Saddam militia to bring even more warm bodies into play. But because of sanctions the total pool of Iraqi military hardware was restricted and units could only be shuffled around so much. Without sanctions nothing is really stopping Saddam from having a much greater force. Remember they did so poorly in 1991 in part because a lot of the troops were pure leg infantry. Saddam had not yet had time to even buy them trucks. If suddenly those guys are riding in BMP-2 surplus from the Ukraine life would not be so easy.

I doubt they would have been used in another war. And that assumes Saddam would attack once more, after already getting curbstomped that one time.

He didn't stop after invading Iran completely failed and cost him twenty times the losses. Several trillion dollars worth of oil and other wealth lies within one tank travel of gas of the Iraqi boarder and the man used nothing but naked force his whole career. Why should we expect him to change? We'd already tried bribing him directly prewar but Saddam was not a man who would stay appeased. Several times in the 1990s Saddam did mass forces near Kuwait to threaten an invasion. It was during that period that the US was ironically weakest in the Gulf as we had false delusions that he was going to topple internally.

If you freely admit that Iran was an even crazier regime and did not pose such a large threat without such sanctions and restrictions, what makes you think this would have been any different in Iraq's case?

The thing about Iran is; Iran has never really been a dictatorship since 1979. Power is vested in a relatively few people, none the less its more then one nut job who has to agree to give orders. Militarily, the conventional Iranian military has also been deliberately structured not to be offensive in nature. They have far more infantry then massed mechanized forces, and have shown little interest in reversing the ratio. That means they have no serious plans for offensive ground operations like overrunning the Gulf Oil fields, something that Shah certainly had in mind. We now see one other reason why Iran hasn’t armored up is its simply spending all its money on nuclear weapons and delivery systems but that’s its whole own world of trouble and a more recent one.

[Serafina]

That's not the reason that the US was committed to containing the Hussain regime. Saddam was a destabalizing force across the Middle East and we didn't want to allow him to conduct another "expedition" into Kuwait or start another conflict with Iran.

And this is a legitimate reason for war how exactly? And how exactly is the Middle East now more stable?

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about do you? The US didn't unilaterally pass sanctions against Iraq (as if we could even pass meaningful sanctions without a blockade) those sanctions were passed and approved by the UN Security Council. The world collectively decided to contain Saddam because he had invaded his neighbors and was killing his own people.

So i suppose the USA had no way to change those sanctions? When did they stop being members of the UN Security Council?

They did modify sanctions. That was what the oil for food program was. Corrupt UN officials then allowed Saddam Hussine to make billions off of it, including the head of the program Benon Vahe Sevan who is currently hiding from arrest back in Cyprus. The UN also reported cases of the Iraqi government keeping imported medical supplies in warehouses until they became useless, rather then using them. Anyone think Saddam didn't really do that, and wouldn't keep doing it? That was almost certainly part of his campaign to keep the Shia suppressed and generally strengthen his rule. Sanctions were also undermined by oil smuggling and Syria and Iran pretty much allowing anything to be trucked across the boarder for a price.

Yes, i know that it was massively screwed up, and you have a good point here. Still not a legitimate reason for war.

Iraq had a chemical industry that could make a whole lot of things including VX and nuclear material, and a military heavy industry that could make complete tanks and artillery. If Saddam had all the oil money he could pump and raw materials he could buy flowing in his ability to build a mass army was already established. It could have turned into something a lot more formidable then what we saw in 1991 very quickly too, think about all that surplus USSR hardware that was and still is available.

Into anything even remotely capable of changing the allies of the US-allies, much less with intervention by the USA?
Besides, that just a repetition of the "they could have done something bad, so violence was justified"-argument. Someone being a theoretical future thread is no justification for war.

No, its saying we have the right to attack anyone who fights a mass war with us, looses after we prematurely grant them a cease fire specifically to avoid unnecessary human losses, and then doesn’t do what we want.

So by your logic, you would have a right to attack Germany if we don't do what you want?
This just looks like a "might makes right"-argument to me.

f the US has driven right to Baghdad in 1991 and overthrown Saddam then, would that have been morally justified to you? Honest question.

Yes, because they had a legitimate reason for the war back then. However, just because you had a casus belli in the past doesn't mean you have one in the present - and "they did not do what we want" is NOT a legitimate casus belli.

The real answer as far as I’m concerned is that the UN based system is fucked, and the world should go back to a system of direct relations. But that wouldn’t really change the problem with Saddam being an incredibly brutal man with a regime based on feudal lines and morality (might is right, period) with a huge pile of wealth and a developed military focused economy.

Apparently, you don't get this, so let me repeat it:
Someone being a potential threat is not a legitimate cause for war. Otherwise, Nazi Germanies attack on Poland, the Allies and the Soviet Union would have been a legitimate cause for war as well, all of them were legitimate military threats, much more than Iraq ever was.
Someone not doing what you want is also not a legitimate cause for war. Otherwise, the attack on Pearl Harbor would also have been justied, since the USA clearly threatened japanese interests - in fact, if this logic was applied, virtually every war could be declared completely legitimate.

The fact remains that there was absolutely no legitimate reason for the Iraq war. It was a purely illegal war of aggression, unilatterally initiated by the United States of America. It was therefore a crime against peace, punishable according to the Nuremberg principles - set by the USA themselves.

[Thanas]

Exactly, and so after the Gulf War Saddam kept expanding the Republican Guard more and more so it could do more things at once. He also ramped up the Fedayeen Saddam militia to bring even more warm bodies into play. But because of sanctions the total pool of Iraqi military hardware was restricted and units could only be shuffled around so much. Without sanctions nothing is really stopping Saddam from having a much greater force. Remember they did so poorly in 1991 in part because a lot of the troops were pure leg infantry. Saddam had not yet had time to even buy them trucks. If suddenly those guys are riding in BMP-2 surplus from the Ukraine life would not be so easy.

I doubt it would have made much difference, especially given that there is nothing that does prevent the USA from employing massive airpower.

He didn't stop after invading Iran completely failed and cost him twenty times the losses. Several trillion dollars worth of oil and other wealth lies within one tank travel of gas of the Iraqi boarder and the man used nothing but naked force his whole career. Why should we expect him to change? We'd already tried bribing him directly prewar but Saddam was not a man who would stay appeased. Several times in the 1990s Saddam did mass forces near Kuwait to threaten an invasion. It was during that period that the US was ironically weakest in the Gulf as we had false delusions that he was going to topple internally.

However, Iran never got as close to destroying him as the USA did in 1991. The situations are not the same and I think one has to assume that Saddam would be completely mad to try the same thing again. Especially if the USA does not essentially give him the choice of "state bankruptcy" or "desperate gamble" like it did in 1990.

[D.Turtle]

Maybe someone could explain this to me: In what way was Iraq a bigger threat in 2003 than in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, etc.?

What changed that he was suddenly a threat to the entire region that could only be stopped by preemptively attacking the regime?

[Block]

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could have protected each other. And Saudi Arabia can be quite a potent adversary. Besides, it is not as if you would have needed a massive military US presence to deal with the Iraqi army.

The Iraqi military was not entirely worthless, Saddam never used his very best divisions at all and only one Republican Guard mechanized division, plus a fair portion of a second one were ever actually engaged on the ground with coalition forces. Those that did engage plus the 11th armored division of the regular Iraqi military were competent fighters. They were just totally outmatched technologically; but if you give Saddam the 1990s to buy a hundred billion dollars worth of surplus Soviet hardware and those troops would be transformed into a far far larger threat. The quality of Saudi and Kuwaiti personal isn’t the best either. If you put an atomic bomb behind them, so much the worse.

However, there was a reason why these forces were not risked. Internal security. I doubt they would have been used in another war. And that assumes Saddam would attack once more, after already getting curbstomped that one time.

What rationale is there for an attack?

The character of the person? I mean what in his nature suggests he wouldn't have? What'd he do after getting his ass kicked in the Gulf War? Massacred hundreds of thousands. What in that suggests that he's rational? I'm not supporting the war in 2003, it was wasteful and ruined our chances to do real good in Afghanistan, but seriously, it's not like Saddam wasn't a threat to the region if left unchecked.

[Thanas]

[The character of the person? I mean what in his nature suggests he wouldn't have? What'd he do after getting his ass kicked in the Gulf War? Massacred hundreds of thousands. What in that suggests that he's rational?

Killing hundreds of thousands is not irrational per se. It is cold, calculating, inhumane, ruthless and absolutely abhorrent, but not irrational by itself.

I'm not supporting the war in 2003, it was wasteful and ruined our chances to do real good in Afghanistan, but seriously, it's not like Saddam wasn't a threat to the region if left unchecked.

Not sanctioning him does not equal leaving him unchecked.

[K. A. Pital]

It is pretty much certain that Iraq was for a long time subjugated by America, and even as there was no territorial gain, Iraq's oil fields were essentially taken over by Western corporations, even remaining de-jure in the hands of the Iraqi government (which, for quite a few years, lacked not only legitimacy, but also any semblance of independency).

It is obvious Iraq, just like East Timor, is an exemplar Nuremberg case.

[Sea Skimmer]

I doubt it would have made much difference, especially given that there is nothing that does prevent the USA from employing massive airpower.

Iraq would have been able to buy up a huge amount of surplus communist block air defense gear two generations newer then 90% of what he had.

However, Iran never got as close to destroying him as the USA did in 1991.

That really underestimates the Iran Iraq war. The entire Iraqi front nearly cracked wide open on numerous occasions, and the nation’s second largest city Basra was flattened. That's a big part of the reason why Iraq first used poison gas. The front line with Iran was just too long for Saddam to hold in the necessary depth until he had massively expanded his army. Anyway from what I've read the very worst time for Saddam was around 1993-94 as this was the height of internal dissident within the military and security services. But Saddam was able to crush that with some very effective terror tactics and going all out on exploiting tribal loyalties. After that he only got stronger until near the end when we know the US convinced a number of his top officials to defect. That was with the murder-sanctions in effect draining the life out of the country.

The situations are not the same and I think one has to assume that Saddam would be completely mad to try the same thing again. Especially if the USA does not essentially give him the choice of "state bankruptcy" or "desperate gamble" like it did in 1990.

I think one has to assume that once he had nuclear weapons; and a modern air defense system and regained his strength of seven thousand modern tanks with modern ammo he’d have rolled right back over Kuwait and the rest of the gulf. That’d take maybe ten years to be optimistic, the first Iraqi nuclear program was on track to take less time then that to first bomb.