If Saddam was good to his people, would the US have invaded?

[Darth Wong]

Well? Just a hypothetical question: suppose Saddam treated his citizens well, but every other complaint (claims of WMD programs, a history of invading Iran and Kuwait, etc.) remained in force. Would the US have invaded? If they did, would you have supported them?

[Montcalm]

To get their hands on the oil,i say yes they would invade Iraq.

[Mr. B]

This would make them an even bigger threat to Israel so the invasion would still have happened and the US would do everything in its power to take the oil but let the mueseums burn.

[Joe]

I don't think so; it would be unprecedented for the U.S. to invade a country like a peaceful Iraq. World opinion would be FURIOUSLY against us.

[Ted]

I don't think so; it would be unprecedented for the U.S. to invade a country like a peaceful Iraq. World opinion would be FURIOUSLY against us.

Wrong.

Many precedents for the US to invade peaceful nations.

Iran, peaceful, democratic country, they invaded, put the Shah in power, who then went and terrorized his people, made Saddam look like an amateur in comparison.

[Joe]

This would make them an even bigger threat to Israel so the invasion would still have happened and the US would do everything in its power to take the oil but let the mueseums burn.

Oil & People > Artifacts with zero utility

[Joe]

I don't think so; it would be unprecedented for the U.S. to invade a country like a peaceful Iraq. World opinion would be FURIOUSLY against us.

Wrong.

Many precedents for the US to invade peaceful nations.

Iran, peaceful, democratic country, they invaded, put the Shah in power, who then went and terrorized his people, made Saddam look like an amateur in comparison.

OK, I take back "unprecedented." Even so, that was during the Cold War, when the non-Soviet world was much more willing to go along with our foreign policy. I don't think the same thing could be done today.

[Durandal]

Well? Just a hypothetical question: suppose Saddam treated his citizens well, but every other complaint (claims of WMD programs, a history of invading Iran and Kuwait, etc.) remained in force. Would the US have invaded? If they did, would you have supported them?

Bush was hopping around for reasons to invade Iraq until he finally landed on "Saddam's a bad man." First, it was because they allegedly supported terror (not a shred of proof has been presented supporting this allegation), then it was because he had weapons of mass destruction (we haven't found any), and then he finally landed on something he could support: Saddam was treating his people badly (and Bush has said that's been the reason all along).

However, he needed the first two accusations simply to start training our guns on him in the first place. Given that, I'm not too sure that Bush could have launched an invasion with the kind of support he has now. He might have done it anyway, though, considering thar be oil over there and Saddam tried to kill his old man, but it's really a difficult call.

[Queeb Salaron]

Bush was hopping around for reasons to invade Iraq until he finally landed on "Saddam's a bad man." First, it was because they allegedly supported terror (not a shred of proof has been presented supporting this allegation), then it was because he had weapons of mass destruction (we haven't found any), and then he finally landed on something he could support: Saddam was treating his people badly (and Bush has said that's been the reason all along).

You missed the "Well he started it!" justification.

And I think there was a connection made to him supporting Palestinian suicide bombers... But you could also argue that they're in a state of "war" so it doesn't count. Hell, I'D support suicide bombers if I weren't a pacifist and if they didn't kill civilians. But let's not talk about I&P. Back on topic.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The reasons for invasion were a smokescreen for the real reason: Control of Iraq's oil by a friendly regime weakens the stranglehold of Saudi Arabia and OPEC on America. It's nothing but heartless realpolitik bullshit, very difficult to get people to go along with.

[Joe]

The reasons for invasion were a smokescreen for the real reason: Control of Iraq's oil by a friendly regime weakens the stranglehold of Saudi Arabia and OPEC on America. It's nothing but heartless realpolitik bullshit, very difficult to get people to go along with.

What stranglehold? America has never had all that much of a problem with OPEC beyond occasional squabbles; both have an interest in maintaining stable prices for oil (OPEC to maximize its profits, the US to keep the American oil industry from going belly-up).

Also, why didn't we seize oil fields when we had the chance twelve years ago if this is the case?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

What stranglehold? America has never had all that much of a problem with OPEC beyond occasional squabbles; both have an interest in maintaining stable prices for oil (OPEC to maximize its profits, the US to keep the American oil industry from going belly-up).

They've chosen not to use their stranglehold because it would hurt their profits in the long run, but they could run our economy into the ground if they felt like it. If that's not a stranglehold, I don't know what is.

Also, why didn't we seize oil fields when we had the chance twelve years ago if this is the case?

I never said we wanted to seize the oil fields, just make sure they're in an ally's hands. Kuwait was an ally, and if we play our cards right, Iraq will be too. Then you've got access to the oil without having to seize and militarily control it.

[Joe]

They've chosen not to use their stranglehold because it would hurt their profits in the long run, but they could run our economy into the ground if they felt like it. If that's not a stranglehold, I don't know what is.

But it is in their interest not to use their stranglehold. They stand to lose from it just as much as we do. So why bother taking such an unlikely possibility seriously?

I never said we wanted to seize the oil fields, just make sure they're in an ally's hands. Kuwait was an ally, and if we play our cards right, Iraq will be too. Then you've got access to the oil without having to seize and militarily control it.

Then why not just pressure the UN to drop the embargo? Iraq certainly would not have hesitated to release its oil to the open market if it had been allowed to do so.

[TheDarkling]

If the US wants to actually put a dent into terrorism then they need to lean on Saudi Arabia however they can't do that at the moment because Saudi Arabia has far to much control over the oil which means the US has zero chance of getting support from the rest of the west if they take them on (not invasion style) because Europe knows which side its bread is buttered on, not to mention the US's own stake in keeping the oil flowing.

The question really is - Is the US having the ability to put extra pressure on Saudi Arabia a bad thing? my personal opinion is no since dealing with the situation down there is a task which should have been carried out long ago.

On the issue of supporting the war - no I wouldn't have supported it without the liberation angle because as Bush came to realise it was the only legitimate reason for war.

[Wicked Pilot]

Well? Just a hypothetical question: suppose Saddam treated his citizens well, but every other complaint (claims of WMD programs, a history of invading Iran and Kuwait, etc.) remained in force. Would the US have invaded? If they did, would you have supported them?

No. After the Gulf War, Saddam would have complied with the UN weapons inspectors in order to lift the sanctions that were hurting his people. He would have abandoned his WMD program, and would have destroyed his stockpiles. He really wouldn't need the weapons anyway because he is nice to his people and has little fear of a popular uprising. The US would have been like "we forgive you, bring on the oil", and the situation would have ended.

[paladin]

Actually, I think the US would have used much more diplomatic pressure if Saddam treated his people well. It would have been nearly impossible to convince the American public about an invasion.

[Axis Kast]

We'd have rehashed the air strikes; an unpopular - if limited - campaign to hit whatever looked remotely like a research-and-development facility.

[Queeb Salaron]

Also, why didn't we seize oil fields when we had the chance twelve years ago if this is the case?

We didn't need to. IIRC, 12 years ago, a gallon of unleaded cost about $0.65 or $0.70. That was about five times lower than France's oil prices, and about three times lower than most of Europe. Essentially, we already HAD control over Iraqi and Saudi oil fields.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I do not think he would invade if Sadam was a fairly decent ruler to his people but had a tendancy to build WMD. It would be just too hard to come up with a threat. Assuming the peaceful Sadam does not openly threaten us.

[0.1]

I never said we wanted to seize the oil fields, just make sure they're in an ally's hands. Kuwait was an ally, and if we play our cards right, Iraq will be too. Then you've got access to the oil without having to seize and militarily control it.

What pure bullshit. Up until that invasion, the relations between the U.S. and Iraq was fairly cordial, and the U.S. was an Iraqi/Saddam ally, using it as a bulwark against Iran. By your very argument, ideally, the U.S. should've done is to not impede Iraq at all in 1990. Because then, Iraq would've given access to the oil without the trouble of going through a military effort. In fact, UN condemnation aside, the Iraqis would've held on to provience 19, and you aren't seriously stupid enough to think that economic sanction would've dislodged him, would you?

And let's face it, in 1990, the only country that could've credibly deployed enough forces to throw out Iraq was the U.S., you could argue that the Russians might have been able to do something, but given the state of the Soviet Union at that point, it'd have been doubtful. And besides, the Soviets wouldn't have bothered trying to go up against it's own client state, neither would the French. Who does that leave? The Brits? The Chinese?

So, if the point was the control of oil with no hinderance to access, there was much better ways to do it than forcing Saddam out of Kuwait or spending 12 years containing him or getting rid of him directly.

[Sam Or I]

To answer the question........NO the US would not have invade. But it would have nothing to do with oil, or if Saddam himself was good or bad.

If Saddams people loved him, the victory would not have been easy, and it would have been another Vietnam. The average citizen would have put up resistance, making it much more dangerious than it is. It would have been a politcal disaster, and the administration in power would have got the boot next election. If more people loved Saddam, he would have stood a greater chance.

[Peregrin Toker]

To get their hands on the oil,i say yes they would invade Iraq.

I'm getting tired of the oil explanation. If USA wanted oil, they'd invade Venezuela or Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq.

[Stormbringer]

If the US really wanted oil at any cost then we simply could have could gone else where or simply lifted the oil embargo and told Saddam to get pumping. Believe me, if we needed/wanted that oil so badly we would have gotten it without a war.

We had plenty of oppurtunities to lift the sanctions if we were really after oil that desperately.

[Joe]

The cheap oil that we're going to get from Iraq is an externality of the war, nothing more. There are much more monetarily efficient ways of getting oil than an expensive war.