If Saddam fell in 1991 would Bush Junior have gone into Iran instead?

If Saddam fell in 1991 would Bush have gone into Iran instead?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 14.0%
  • No

    Votes: 86 86.0%

  • Total voters
    100
The Mojahedin e-Khalq (People's Mojahedin) would play a major role in this gamble. The problem is that Saddam was pretty much "their" man, as they fled to Iraq to fight the Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq war. Still, considering that they later even got the endorsement of the likes of Rudy Giuliani, I guess the US government wouldn't consider them terrorist group by the mid-1990s already.
 
The Mojahedin e-Khalq (People's Mojahedin) would play a major role in this gamble. The problem is that Saddam was pretty much "their" man, as they fled to Iraq to fight the Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq war. Still, considering that they later even got the endorsement of the likes of Rudy Giuliani, I guess the US government wouldn't consider them terrorist group by the mid-1990s already.

I guess if they survive the fall of Saddam they could possibly play any role is Bush decided to invade.
 

BooNZ

Banned
In Syria there regime hasn't actually changed the civil war is still on going and the West has done very little for the rebels and in Libya a lack of willings to help get agreements between the rebels led to whats happing there now. Plus Gaddafi was connected to the lockerbie bombing so I think the NATO intervening there was reasonable.

Neither regime resembles what they were five years ago, prior to Western intervention (or were those spontaneous armed revolutions, against paranoid regimes that had prepared for the same over decades?).

What exactly was Gaddafi's involvement in the Lockerbie bombing? Did NATO lose his address over the intervening 25 years? He may not have provided a forwarding address after the US bombed his compound in 1986? Do western leaders expect similar justice for events in Iraq, Syria, Libya in the next decade or so? The leadership in those dictatorships has definitely been dire, but the outcome of interventions have been consistently disappointing - imho
 
Neither regime resembles what they were five years ago, prior to Western intervention (or were those spontaneous armed revolutions, against paranoid regimes that had prepared for the same over decades?).

What exactly was Gaddafi's involvement in the Lockerbie bombing? Did NATO lose his address over the intervening 25 years? He may not have provided a forwarding address after the US bombed his compound in 1986? Do western leaders expect similar justice for events in Iraq, Syria, Libya in the next decade or so? The leadership in those dictatorships has definitely been dire, but the outcome of interventions have been consistently disappointing - imho

Gaddifi's regime is gone and what do you mean by Western intervention in Syria as literally until Daesh emerged. And just today 80 were killed in a market place bombing by the Syrian air force
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...unches-an-attack-on-market-killing-80/6701394

Syrian government warplanes attack rebel-held market, killing 80, injuring hundreds: activists
By Middle East correspondent Sophie McNeill and wires
Updated earlier today at 4:04am

Douma market attack
PHOTO: Warplanes are believed to have fired at least four rockets into the market. (AFP: Sameer Al-Doumy)
RELATED STORY: At least 31 dead after Syrian fighter jet crash into marketplace: monitorRELATED STORY: Syria regime air raids, rebel fire on Damascus kill 50: monitor
MAP: Syrian Arab Republic
Activists say at least 80 people have died and more than 200 injured after Syrian government warplanes attacked a busy market in a rebel-held area, just 11 kilometres from the centre of the capital Damascus.

It is believed to be one of the deadliest single incidents involving government airstrikes since the war in Syria began nearly five years ago.

Photos and video posted on social media showed rescuers picking through destroyed market stalls and blown out buildings as dozens of dead bodies, including children, lay on the ground.

Injured people were seen being crammed in ambulances, with the numbers of injured reported to be in the hundreds.

Monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) and rescue workers on the ground put the number injured in the attack at over 200.


Syrian government warplanes are believed to have fired at least four rockets into the market in the rebel-held area of Douma.

"This is an official massacre that was carried out deliberately," SOHR head Rami Abdelrahman said.

He said warplanes fired the first missile and minutes later when people gathered in the aftermath, another missile hit the same area.

Mr Abdelrahman, whose group has a network of activists around the country, said a total of four missiles were fired on the market, killing 82 and wounding more than 200.

Syria market attack
PHOTO: Syrian men stand amid the rubble following air strikes by Syrian government forces. (AFP: Sameer Al-Doumy)
He said the death toll was expected to rise because many of the wounded were in critical condition.

A Syrian military source confirmed the air force had carried out air strikes in Douma, claiming they had targeted headquarters of the rebel group Islam Army.

Douma-based activists told news agencies the situation in the town was "catastrophic", adding that clinics in the area were full and many of the injured were being rushed in civilian cars to other medical facilities since ambulances were overwhelmed.

Syrian government warplanes have been regularly attacking rebel-held Douma and its surrounding areas in recent months by air raids and helicopter barrel bomb attacks.

Hundreds of civilians have been killed alongside opposition fighters.

More than a quarter of a million people have been killed in Syria's civil war since it began in 2011, while more than 10 million people have fled the country.

ABC/wires

And it is carrying out executions as it retreats so it is the same regime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-2uvKfYGQ4

For Lockerbie read here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, arrest warrants were issued for two Libyan nationals in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions. In 2001, Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for life after being found guilty of 270 counts of murder in connection with the bombing. In August 2009, he was released by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. He died in May 2012, remaining the only person to be convicted for the attack. He had continually protested his innocence.

In 2003, Gaddafi accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid compensation to the families of the victims, although he maintained that he had never given the order for the attack.[4] During the Libyan Civil War, in 2011, a former government official claimed that the Libyan leader had personally ordered the bombing.[4] Numerous conspiracy theories have developed regarding responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103.

I highly doubt he would have had no role in the bombing unless Libyan intelligence was like Pakistani intelligence. And Libya went bad because we abandoned them after helping them overthrow Gaddafi (not helping make a unity government and set up democratic institutions).

For the gap there was the issues that the cold war was still going on, then Iraq distracted the West for bait, then is showed us democracy needs to come from within and when a internal revolution happened it seemed like a good opportunity.
 
Last edited:
in Libya a lack of willings to help get agreements between the rebels led to whats happing there now.

Hey, let's be fair, Western nations are helping talks take place and talking about maybe at some point doing trafficking raids, now that immigrants coming through Libya is a major issue affecting the domestic politics of Important Countries. Now there's an inconvenience for us, we're starting to half-arse instead of quarter-arse!

(That's as fair as I get. The world's "yeah whatever" response to post-war Libya - and especially Britain and France, who pushed so much for intervention & backed rebellion so strongly and ourselves have been post-war states that had to beg for cash - is an embarrassment at best and a black mark on our bloody souls at worst.)
 
Hey, let's be fair, Western nations are helping talks take place and talking about maybe at some point doing trafficking raids, now that immigrants coming through Libya is a major issue affecting the domestic politics of Important Countries. Now there's an inconvenience for us, we're starting to half-arse instead of quarter-arse!

(That's as fair as I get. The world's "yeah whatever" response to post-war Libya - and especially Britain and France, who pushed so much for intervention & backed rebellion so strongly and ourselves have been post-war states that had to beg for cash - is an embarrassment at best and a black mark on our bloody souls at worst.)

Thats my feeling as well. If they were more committed to helping they would have tried to invest and advice more.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
I doubt it, and really, while Bush on a moral level deplored the Iranian regime and everything it stood for, the truth was that they were not nearly far enough along in their nuke program to warrant any second look, and more than that, a Saddam-less Iraq is likely an Iranian puppet that develops through years of bloody sectarian fighting in the 90s with Muqtada al-Sadr playing a large role in how things go.

Iran would be involved in a proxy war in Iraq in such a scenario.

As for Bush, I don't buy the notion that he was some deranged blood crazed war monger who wanted to bomb the shit out of random countries for no reason. I think he genuinely would only go to war with Iran if they did something that directly threatened the world, like for example, backing Hezbollah if Hezbollah wanted to get into the business of bombing the United States and Europe, or if they got really crazy under Ahmadinejad and tried to close the Straits of Hormuz.

And occupying Iran is an impossibility for anyone. The terrain is too ridiculous.
 
And occupying Iran is an impossibility for anyone. The terrain is too ridiculous.

That hasn't historically been true, Persian empires have fallen plenty of times in History, wether anyone would want to shed the blood is another matter, it would at least be on the level of Vietnam, but where would Iranian rebels get support from? No Guerrilla movement has ever succeeded without outside support. My concern would be the blood and money needed to control the place and the massive population.
 
Top