• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(511)

Sergeant
Dec 3, 2000
76
0
Visit site
I just thought of making a debate of how and what would have happened if Iraq had won the Iraq-Iran war... Start postin´ with your opionions.


P.S Don´t get the wrong idea... I´m not a Saddam supporter, I actually hate his guts.... It´s personal. (No Joke) D.S
 
Originally posted by Saladin
Don´t get the wrong idea... I´m not a Saddam supporter, I actually hate his guts.... It´s personal. (No Joke) D.S

Well, I won't shed a tear either if I hear of the bastard's demise. But how is it personal, Saladin?
 
Re: Re: A What-If

Originally posted by Bylandt


Well, I won't shed a tear either if I hear of the bastard's demise. But how is it personal, Saladin?

Well he´s responsible for the relocation of all my mothers relatives... He forced my father out of Iraq because he was in a opposition party...

So lets get back to the subject: The Iraqi-Irani war was a very bloddy stalemate that led to circa a million deaths all in all. The main Iraqi objective was to conquer the oil-rich province Khuzestan with a large arab minority.
 
It could go many different ways depending on how decisive the victory was: Here are a couple of thoughts;

Assuming that the war ended with just the aquisition of the disputed area, and that Iraq does not invade Kuwait. Iraq remains a favorite of the west and he is free to kill as many of his own population as possible.

Assuming a devastating victory, perhaps one where a new government is set up in Iran, a pro west Iraqi puppet. The Saddam becomes a hero in the eyes of the west, and probably receives a steady flow of arms and money to stengthen the Iraqi hold over the area.

Assuming either victory, and an invasion of Kuwait at the historical time, do western attitudes change? Would the invasion of Kuwait be enough to undo the investment made by the west in Saddam?
 
Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
no

I suspect it might have done-it's not in Europe or America's interest to have too much of the Middle East's oil controlled by one country. And in this scenario why would he stop at Kuwait, we could have a local Empire-builder here.
 
If Saddam destabilizes the Iranian government to the point where a less strictly fundamentalist regime takes over there, and he carries out his schemes in Kuwait with a degree of circumspection, I think he could have taken over Kuwait with just token protest from the West.

What SH needed was a fig leaf to justify the invasion of Kuwait under this scenario. If he could fake up some fundamentalist Islamic influenec in Kuwait (or better yet, spend a couple of years creating the conditions in Kuwait where the Kuwaiti government has to turn more religious to counter "unrest") then he stands as a symbol of secular Arabia against the religious zealots.

I think he could have done it, if he weren't Saddam Hussein. Of course, being the man he is, circumspection is as possible as flapping his arms and flying! :)
 
Originally posted by grumbler
I think he could have done it, if he weren't Saddam Hussein. Of course, being the man he is, circumspection is as possible as flapping his arms and flying! :)

The problem with many "What Ifs"-to be realistic we have to often ignore the characters of the main protagonists, or ahistorically replace them.

To the West, the Persian Gulf is in much the same position vis-a-vis foreign policy as the Low Countries occupied in British thought in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth centuries.
 
Originally posted by Saladin
I actually hate his guts.... It´s personal. (No Joke) D.S

That is an odd comment, even after reading your reasons, for someone who's quote is MLK's "I have a dream"!
 
Re: Re: Re: A What-If

Originally posted by Saladin



Sometimes I am a man of condradiction.... :)

I read recently that there was a Japanese saying: "The greater the contradiction, the greater the man" ;)

I guess this isn't the right environment to go off about how no matter how oppresive the Iraqis might be, that they have more civil liberties (sufferage) than Kuwaitis?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: A What-If

Originally posted by Blade!
I guess this isn't the right environment to go off about how no matter how oppresive the Iraqis might be, that they have more civil liberties (sufferage) than Kuwaitis?

Probably not-besides, although technically accurate, one has to weigh the influence of Saddam and his family/associates in the balance.
 
Saddam, mad bad and dangerous to know? or just misunderstood?

Hannibal
 
sure he's just a missunderstood little boy who needs our attention. Especially GB and USA seem to give them a lot of attention, sometimes on hospitals and sometimes on military sites.

Anyway, he's an adult, so he should know what he's doing.
 
I think he does know what he is doing... he is still in power, right? :(