Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if... The United States Greenlighted Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if... The United States Greenlighted Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait?

    George H.W. Bush stood firmly behind "President" Saddam Hussein annexation of Kuwait. The effects of this of this on(the United States, Iraq, the World) would be...?

  • #2
    Saddam claimed we did...

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      Osama would of had to think of a different reason to hate the US. It also becomes possible that Iraq gets enough money to arm it army a bit better and Iran v Iraq round 2 starts ten years latter.

      Comment


      • #4
        This one is a bit of a stretch - but as a what if I'll play a bit. US really loses credibility with the Gulf States, the US had just been re-flagging Kuwaiti and other tankers to protect them and conducted a few offensive naval operations in the late 80s, then to abandon them.. bad juju.. OPEC creates another 1970s level oil crisis.

        There is no decisive American victory exhibiting capabilities of American technology and capability, and vulnerabilities of Soviet export equipments.

        Lots of US systems in development are canceled. The 90s are not as "peaceful' as there are not hours upon hours of footage of US smart bombs hitting targets and the results of the war to deter other countries from doing similar things.

        After the impending break up of the Soviet Union occurs, they could have a bit better economy due to probable better sales of military equipment maybe even to Iraq.

        Really though the political landscape of the 1990s would be majorly changed.
        Кто там?
        Это я - Почтальон Печкин!
        Tunis is a Carthigenian city!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stryker 19K30 View Post
          This one is a bit of a stretch - but as a what if I'll play a bit. US really loses credibility with the Gulf States, the US had just been re-flagging Kuwaiti and other tankers to protect them and conducted a few offensive naval operations in the late 80s, then to abandon them.. bad juju.. OPEC creates another 1970s level oil crisis.

          There is no decisive American victory exhibiting capabilities of American technology and capability, and vulnerabilities of Soviet export equipments.

          Lots of US systems in development are canceled. The 90s are not as "peaceful' as there are not hours upon hours of footage of US smart bombs hitting targets and the results of the war to deter other countries from doing similar things.

          After the impending break up of the Soviet Union occurs, they could have a bit better economy due to probable better sales of military equipment maybe even to Iraq.

          Really though the political landscape of the 1990s would be majorly changed.
          Didnt the UK have a defence treaty with Kuwait? Pretty sure we sent in the Commandos some time in the fifties or sixties, to warn off Iraq.

          Dont know if it had lapsed by the ninties though. Raises the vison of the UK trying to do it on its own though. Which I am pretty sure we coudnt have done.
          "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

          Comment


          • #6
            Then the US ends up having to fight Iraq in Saudi Arabia, or the US allows Iraq to take over Saudi, resulting in a Sunni Super-state that then turns around and burns itself out fighting resurgent Iran, again.
            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

            Comment


            • #7
              Tac,

              You do realize the Sunnis would be a distinct minority among the Kurds, Shiites and Wahhabis in this state, don't you?

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                The Wahabbis are a sect within Sunni Islam, not a separate sect. All of Islam splits first into Shia and Sunni Sects, then into other parts of those sects. Shia Islam has fewer splits within itself than Sunni Islam, but all of Islam divides along Shiite and Sunni lines first.

                Also, with no US involvement, you have no No Fly Zones, allowing the Iraqis more freedom to suppress both Shia and Kurds within their regions. And with no US condemnation of Iraqi policy, Turkey would probably be willing to team up to help eliminate the "Kurdish Problem" on their side of the border.

                Saddam was a meglomaniacal dictator, very similar to a tinpot version of Hitler (he was relatively unimportant and could not seriously threaten the major powers, but he had ambition and vision outside his borders). Given time and opportunity, Saddam could very well have been able to control a portion of the world spanning from the Arabian Penn. to the Iranian border. From what we know, even with modern Western equipment, the non-Western armies were either unable to effectively combat the Iraqis, or had a rough go of it. Saddam had a large Republican Guard of veteran troops, and IMHO they were better than any formation fielded by a non-western, non-Persian army in the region.
                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                Comment


                • #9
                  If anyone would be interesting in gaming it out, I would be willing to operate as game-master for it.

                  We would need a Kuwaiti Commander, a Saudi Commander, an Iraqi Commander, and I would decide the policy of Jordan, Syria, and Iran based on the flow of the war itself.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    The Wahabbis are a sect within Sunni Islam, not a separate sect. All of Islam splits first into Shia and Sunni Sects, then into other parts of those sects. Shia Islam has fewer splits within itself than Sunni Islam, but all of Islam divides along Shiite and Sunni lines first.

                    Also, with no US involvement, you have no No Fly Zones, allowing the Iraqis more freedom to suppress both Shia and Kurds within their regions. And with no US condemnation of Iraqi policy, Turkey would probably be willing to team up to help eliminate the "Kurdish Problem" on their side of the border.

                    Saddam was a meglomaniacal dictator, very similar to a tinpot version of Hitler (he was relatively unimportant and could not seriously threaten the major powers, but he had ambition and vision outside his borders). Given time and opportunity, Saddam could very well have been able to control a portion of the world spanning from the Arabian Penn. to the Iranian border. From what we know, even with modern Western equipment, the non-Western armies were either unable to effectively combat the Iraqis, or had a rough go of it. Saddam had a large Republican Guard of veteran troops, and IMHO they were better than any formation fielded by a non-western, non-Persian army in the region.

                    wahabai or salafi are no sects , sect is only one twelver ithna ashari or commonly called "shias"
                    all others hanafis , salafis shafais etc follow different fiqahs or schools of thought but they are not seperate sects.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      if we back saddam we lose UAE, qatar , KSA as allies.
                      These states are prone to fall to fundamentalism due to insecurity and some like bahrain under the influence of iran.

                      Furthermore saddam is not a trustworthy dictator even by middle eastern standard, he could have easily turned against Israeli or US interests even after gobbling kuwait.

                      last not least , u have any idea how the american jews would have reacted to this ? esp since saddam wanted to be seen as the new nebuchadnezzar

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        resulting in a Sunni Super-state that then turns around and burns itself out fighting resurgent Iran, again.
                        super arab baathist state not super-sunni ...
                        sunni extremists were a grave threat to baathists inclusing saddam.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                          We would need a Kuwaiti Commander, a Saudi Commander, an Iraqi Commander, and I would decide the policy of Jordan, Syria, and Iran based on the flow of the war itself.
                          Now who the heck would want to be the Kuwaiti Commander?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I dunno, if you want to play this twisted little scenario out, give the Iraqis the option of invading Saudi and all the Gulf states as well. That first week of August, there was nothing to stop them but bluster and weekend warriors.
                            "Why is the Rum gone?"

                            -Captain Jack

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Was not the 82 on the ground in the first week. I was stuck out in BFE on a fire so all I remeber of the start was getting back into town and the price of Gas being sky high.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X