MovieChat Forums > Saddam Hussein Discussion > What would America be like today if Sadd...

What would America be like today if Saddam Hussein surrendered himself after the 9/11 attacks?

posted 6 years ago by csweetleaf2 (3696)
46 replies | jump to latest

I know that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11/01 attacks but I sometimes wonder what America would be like if Saddam Hussein felt sad over the 9/11/01 attacks and ended up donating all of his wealth to the 9/11 victims, their families & the firefighters who cleaned up the mess.

I also wonder what would America be like today if Saddam Hussein became a Born Again Christian right after the 9/11/01 and surrendered for all the bad things he has done.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

He'd have been murdered in both cases.

[–] csweetleaf2 (3696) 6 years ago

I also feel we would've never gone to war with Iraq if Saddam Hussein had surrendered right after the 9/11/01 attacks.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

We woulden't have gone to war if he had opened up to inspecters either. Saddam clearly thought he had weapons of mass destruction cause no one can see any other reason for him to commit political suicide by blocking inspectors from observing non weapons.

[–] brux (14730) 6 years ago

Why would Saddam have surrendered then ... it was not until March 20, 2003 that the US invaded Iraq related to 9/11 - nearly a year and a half later.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

America attacked Iraq for its oil. The military industrial complex like Blackwater and Cheney were enriched too.

I'm not sure why Hussein would donate his wealth to anyone especially when most of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Hussein was more secular than religious, but he pretended to be more religious later to appease the Muslim fundamentalists. They still didn't like him though.

Hussein was an American ally for a long time. Many bad things he did were supported by Americans especially his war with Iran.

I agree that he would've been killed and the oil taken with a puppet in place either way.

[–] scorp-945-748744 (152) 6 years ago

A better question would be: What would happen if Saddam did switch from trading oil from dollars to euros?

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

Khaddaffi talked about creating an African currency in which oil would be traded. There are people who believe that's the real reason he was killed. Saddam would have been killed too.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

I have to ask keelai but are you one of those people that believe thats why Khaddaffi was killed?

My my statement that saddam would have been killed was due to the likely event that sunni muslims would have killed him if saddam would have "given up"(A new leader of the bath part would have to rise up) after 9/11 and that in the other case "He became a born again christian" he'd have been killed by any other muslim faction at that point.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

Sadaam had two sons. He expected one of them to eventually run the country.

from Hillary's email:
"French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”"
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110402-France-client-gold-State-Dept.pdf

Are you aware that black people are being sold into slavery in Libya since Khaddaffi was killed? Not a peep from Clinton, France, Obama or Trump. All about oil or money - never human rights.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Nor a peep from the news media either. No I wasn't aware that black slaves are being sold in Libya. That sounds horrible. Do you think we should attack libya? Whats your suggestion?

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

NATOs attack on Libya caused the slave trade as well as genocide against dark-skinned blacks.

Since they are being sold to Saudis, perhaps we should convince Trump to attack them.

[–] Satan2016 (25577) 6 years ago

Lefties believe all sorts of bullshit! The industry was nationalized over 50 years ago. That means corrupt politicians got rich!

Undeveloped countries have never developed a petroleum industry on their own. That's why they let Big Oil do it, and keep part of the profits as government revenue. Like most of the world outside OPEC.

The US does NOT even count as a player today! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

You're to dimwitted to know when you're agreeing with me.

I suggests you take another look at your link since American companies Exxon and Occidental are major players with service contracts. The United States takes 1/6th of Iraqian oil which is significant.

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-10-29/turns-out-the-u-s-does-have-the-iraqi-oil-trump-wanted

It was common knowledge that Halliburton, Blackwater and Cheney made huge profits because of the Iraq war.

At the start of the second Gulf War, a significant percentage of oil was in countries controlled by dictators and unstable regimes which risked not only oil access but the global economy. I heard for years that an excuse to change regimes would happen. The war didn't surprise me.

Presently, we developed fracking and most of our oil comes from Canada. A significant percentage comes from Venezuela so their imploding government and the U.S. response to it should be interesting.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

America fought 6/6 of the war and we only got 1/6 of the oil? That requires explanation. Your article is a propaganda article that just wants to say Trump is wrong.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

Trump wasn't president at the time, genius. Read a book.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Really do you see a puppet in place now? Wheres all the oil we stole?

[–] AckbartheHutt (1370) 6 years ago

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

"Really do you see a puppet in place now?"
Of course, I do. Saddam was a dictator and now there is a "democratically" elected Federal parliamentary republic. Sadaam's Baathist party was removed from power. The president is a Kurd (ally of Americans) and the Prime Minister spent years in exile in England.

"Wheres all the oil we stole?"
The war became a quagmire so Bush's stupid idea to have the oil pay for the war (steal) failed. But, America gets 6% of their oil.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Whats the implication with the ""s around democratically elected?

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

Not a true democratically elected government when a political party is outlawed by an invading power to establish a regime change.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Yea I'm sure there was some other influence too to ensure regime change.

[–] AckbartheHutt (1370) 6 years ago

Gas is $2.60 a gallon, wheres my stolen oil?

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

I answered that question about oil in other posts. As for the price, it's not about the American consumer. It's about a bunch of rich oilmen making their profit. Now pay up! The Koch brothers thank you.

[–] AckbartheHutt (1370) 6 years ago

They should have at least bargained a little bit and got 15%.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

After the 1970s oil embargo, the U.S. preferred to get most oil from friendlier countries. The no. 1 importer used to be Saudi Arabia.

Canada - 40%
Saudi Arabia - 9%
Venezuela - 7%
Mexico - 7%
Columbia - 6%

Eventually, we're going to have to move to green energy or drown.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Yea it only makes sense to not want to depend on assholes for oil. And I agree I'd really like to get off fossil fuels too but really don't feel compelled to tie our hands behind our back given that I'm aware of the projections that China will keep growing their dependence on fossil fuels well into 2030. They will be given a pass to expand their economy while polluting the world while the US and other developed nations will be forced to handcuff their economies. Come up with a real solution if you want us to curb our oil use.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

To be fair you really didn't answer those questions. You instead implied that the war was so unpopular we left before we could steal the oil. Like if we wanted to steal oil which you claim was our motive woulden't we have carried on with that goal after the hard work was done. Its clear we wanted stability in the region rather then taking their oil. This was an expensive war afterall and we didn't grab for the oil like your pretending we were.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

"You instead implied that the war was so unpopular we left before we could steal the oil."

That's not what I wrote. The war was actually very popular with Republicans and their Dixie Chick record-burning freedom fries loving selves.

Bush was an incompetent who created a quagmire because he didn't expect Muslims to fight back. That idiot increased recruitment in Muslim terrorists organizations (at a time when they were losing people) and caused them to enter Iraq to fight Americans. Osama had said earlier Americans would find an excuse to attack Iraq in order to steal its oil and Bush proved him right. It also incensed Muslims when American soldiers were based in Saudi Arabia.

Expensive war? Maybe for the taxpayer who is irrelevant to politicians and big business. The military industrial complex, Cheney, Halliburton and Blackwater made billions. Very profitable for them!

There was stability in the country under Sadaam. No terrorism in Iraq. Jews, Sunnis and Shiite Muslims lived together peacefully.

"This was an expensive war afterall and we didn't grab for the oil like your pretending we were."
The West controls the oil through a puppet regime so you're incorrect.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Bush was an incompetent who created a quagmire because he didn't expect Muslims to fight back. That idiot increased recruitment in Muslim terrorists organizations (at a time when they were losing people) and caused them to enter Iraq to fight Americans. Osama had said earlier Americans would find an excuse to attack Iraq in order to steal its oil and Bush proved him right. It also incensed Muslims when American soldiers were based in Saudi Arabia.

Backing out of unfinished wars is what triggers islamic recruitment. During gulf war 1 Bush showed the Saudi's photographs of the Iraqi military accumulating on the border preparing for a saudi invasion. Well duh the of course the saudi's allowed us to set up bases. The mere fact that muslims won't tolerate westerners on their land even to defend them from invasion shows how racists they are and its a weak argument to defend this type of thinking as if its a fault of the US.

"There was stability in the country under Sadaam. No terrorism in Iraq."
Of course not. Saddam would crush the opposition which there was plenty of. Muslims of this region only respect the sword so if your want stability in the region then logically the US should have taken a more Strong fisted approach to crushing the sunni and radical population but we all know you would have faulted the US for that as well. Instead you fault the US for going soft which is what caused the instability.

"The West controls the oil through a puppet regime so you're incorrect."
Even if your premise is true and I reject that it is. Its still a far cry to call that stealing.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

Delete my post not working sorry

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

Your reading comprehension is horrible.

"Saddam would crush the opposition"
Of course.

"During gulf war 1 Bush showed the Saudi's photographs of the Iraqi military accumulating on the border preparing for a saudi invasion."
What nonsense! That must be from Fox "news".

Obviously, American troops would need to be based somewhere near Iraq for an invasion.
"The 1991 Gulf war 500,000 American troops were based in Saudi Arabia to liberate Kuwait and invade Iraq... (Gulf War 2): Thousands of American soldiers are pouring into Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of Iraq"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1423984/US-troops-pouring-into-Saudi-Arabia.html

I find it odd that you don't understand how the world works. It's as if you want to continue to believe in fairy tales.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Your reading comprehension is horrible.[/quote]
your grasp of reality is abysmal period.

[quote]What nonsense! That must be from Fox "news".

I lived through gulf war 1 idiot. There was no fox news back then. CNN was doing all the 24 hour coverage of the wars back then.

"I find it odd that you don't understand how the world works. It's as if you want to continue to believe in fairy tales."
I don't find it odd that you have no grasp of reality since you can't even grasp concepts like stealing. This is pretty typical for some one that actually tried to suggest that the DPRK North Korean economy is more free then the West. Your brand of lunacy doesn't shock me anymore.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

Your cult's leader Trump loves North Korea's Kim. You should too!

It's typical that you would advocate stealing like your cult leader and Bush before him. Pathetic!

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Thats not even an argument. A) Trumps not my leader and B) Not that it matters you are literally too stupid to know what stealing is or your pretending to not know the difference.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

"We woulden't have gone to war if he had opened up to inspecters either. Saddam clearly thought he had weapons of mass destruction cause no one can see any other reason for him to commit political suicide by blocking inspectors from observing non weapons."

He did open Iraq up to inspectors who found nothing. That's common knowledge.

"I lived through gulf war"
Play semantics by yourself. Your obvious deflection proves you don't know anything about it so either you're lying or wasn't paying attention at the time.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

How old are you Keelai? Thers been a dozen time UN inspectors were kicked out. Its how saddam was able to last so long as he did. He would let them in and throw them out in a cycle that bush Senior finally stopped. No inspectors certified him.

"Play semantics by yourself. Your obvious deflection proves you don't know anything about it so either you're lying or wasn't paying attention at the time."
At this point I'm pretty sure your suffering from some kind of mental illness if you don't remember the events of the gulf war. I won't even bother calling you a liar your just an imbecile at this point.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

What nonsense! Inspections were part of the Gulf War 1 agreement between the U.S. and Iran. They were ongoing. Only stupid people believed there were any WMDs. The same idiots who renamed their food freedom fries, smashed Dickie Chick records and called anyone smart enough to know the war would be a quagmire and its true purpose suspect as "unpatriotic".

No WMDs! You can finally stop looking for them. Just eat your freedom fries and go away.

BTW, Iraq is in full compliance with the nuclear deal agreement, but your Bozo the clown-looking cult leader wants to tear up the agreement anyway. Same old stupidity revisited.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

I'm talking about the 2nd gulf war jack ass.

BTW, Iraq is in full compliance with the nuclear deal agreement, but your Bozo the clown-looking cult leader wants to tear up the agreement anyway. Same old stupidity revisited.

Can't even tell the difference between Iraq and Iran. Look in the mirror next time you start talking about stupidity.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

"I'm talking about the 2nd gulf war"

So am I. You really are illiterate. Reread the post s-l-o-w-l-y in order to comprehend or have a grown-up family member explain it to you.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

I was referring to gulf war 1 when I mentioned the saudis allowing US soldiers on their soil based on the photos of the invading Iraq army. I was referencing that saddam hussein. Iran wasn't involved in any of the golf wars. Keelai I doubt you've even finished school. I acknowledge it's possible you finished school I just don't believe you have considering your issues with association of reality.

I shouldn't have to be convincing you that North Korea does not have a free enterprise economy. That alone tells me your perception of reality is horribly skewed such that its no surprise to me that you can't differentiate between gulf war 1 and 2 as well as differentiate between Iraq and Iran. This is an observation about you Keelai and not of your leftist ideology.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

You can't read and I have no interest in teaching you.
You can have the last word since I've grown bored with your lack of comprehension and have decided to move on.

Continue to support your cult leader who supports and defends a journalist being mutilated while alive and chopped up into pieces. Your cult leader LOVES N.Korean leader Jong-un and Putin as he does with all dictators.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Yea I get it all right. I win you lose. Ok bye lefty.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

You're not answering why we didn't get the oil.
You're not answering where the oil went instead.
And you're blaming the war on incompetence when it was planned out in advance by Jewish neocons.

[–] Keelai (34982) 6 years ago

I'm not sure why you believe by pretending to be ignorant is something you should do when you don't have a good reply. The anti-Semitic remark doesn't help your case re: your level of intelligence.

Perhaps you weren't alive during the war. I suggest you go to the library and get plenty of books about the Gulf War so you learn something. Reading more books would also help your reading comprehension which is clearly lacking.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

your not even pretending to be ignorant your just ignorant period you don't even know what stealing is.
And that's the second person you've claimed has reading comprehension problems. We can tell you were accused of this often in grade school considering its your go to insult now.

[–] TimMC (9143) 4 years ago

It would be about the same. The people who wanted war in the middle east did not care one little micro F about Saddam or Iraq. They want the region permanently destabilized. So either way, they would have marched on past Iraq, as they did in the actual time line in which we live.

Sucks. I know.