Exactly how strong was Saddam and his military?

[W00lygimp]

Once again im tired of all these [censored] ass mother [censored] ClHiIbeCrKaElNs who think they know [censored] to post [censored] about how he is not comparable to [censored] hitler because they think the size of Saddams army is [censored] comparable to some goat [censored] country out in the middle of [censored] nowhere. However, this is not the [censored] case as Saddam had an extremely formidable force that was a danger to all the [censored] independent states in the Middle East.

I bet you didn't [censored] know this.
Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had the FOURTH Largest army in the World.
His army was deteriorating by the second Gulf War but with million of active troops, it was still one of the largest armies in the world.

Before you make half assed [censored] posts how about you idiots do some [censored] research and don't post [censored] shitstick responses.

Saddam could have easily taken any of his surrounding neighbors such as Hitler did, Now just because the United States defeated him with minimal casulties don't assume that he didn't have an army. Do you idiots remember Kuwait?
Do you idiots remember Iran?

Sorry i'm a bit pissed, theres too much [censored] mis-information floating around on this board.

[W00lygimp]

Wow woolygimp, you hit the nail on the head with that one...
I concur.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry i'm a bit pissed, theres too much [censored] mis-information floating around on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I wish you could rate users to help you keep track of all the idiots and all of the smart people. Even if the information is just for your eyes only and not a collective rating system.

[Bez]

Germany's army in 1939 was the best trained in the world and was taking on a number of the most powerful armies in the world, defeating France's huge army in an embarressingly short time. Saddam could not seriously think about expanding as he knew he'd get his ass kicked by the US or a combination of other Arab states, depending on who he took on. Seriously who would he take on?

The Iraq/Iran War bankrupted Iraq, one of her reasons for attacking Kuwait for her oil in the first place. There was no chance that Saddam would attack Iran in the foreseeable future. No other obvious enemies to take on, and don't even dream of saying Israel; Saddam knew what would happen in this situation.

Saddam's only real goal was to stay in power. To start a War himself with a neighbouring country would seriously affect his chances of being overthrown one way or another. For all his flaws, Saddam was/is not stupid. Do not compare him to Hitler, there is simply no comparison.

[wacki]

Then why do all this articles say differently?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/01/sprj.irq.blair/
http://www.dailycampus.com/news/2003/02/25/Commentary/Letter.History.Of.Hitler.Should.Not.Be.Repeated.Wi th.Hussein-378528.shtml
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles165.htm

I'll agree Germany was in a much better position than Iraq, but if we let them take Kuwait and control things would of become very very bad.

France could of easily crushed Hitler if they had just attacked. They had much larger forces. The reason Saddam isn't Hitler now is because we recognized the warning signs and stopped him before he became a Hitler!


Germany was bankrupt too, that didn't stop Hitler.

[Bez]

I've only read the Blair link as it's late and I'm going to bed. I'm afraid Blair comparing the 2 doesn't convince me as Blair has lied about so many things on the domestic scene that you won't of heard about in the US that I completely loath him. I'm still on the fence over the Iraq War - I honestly don't think I could give a good answer one way or another without at least 50 years hindsight as to whether it was good or bad, but I certainly don't think it is clear cut. I just don't think he's the same threat Hitler was, though I agree, had France and Britain taken a harder line over Czechoslovkia maybe Hitler wouldn't have got as far as he did. Nev Chamberlain = joke.

Good night, Bez.

[tolbiny]

"Do you idiots remember Iran?"

Yeah, i've read a couple of things about the Iraq/Iran conflict. I recall reading that it was a nearly decade long war with no clear winner. This was even with Iraq buying nearly state of the art weaponry from the US (and Iran reportedly recieving help from the Soviets). But if Iraq couldn't defeat Iran after 10 years of war, how would you expect him to exert his influence over three continents the way Hitler did?

[wacki]

Hitlers threat was different. He wasn't afraid to use WMD's. If he had Kuwait he would control (correct me if I'm wrong) 50% of the worlds oil. I will stop there, but there are plenty of other reasons why Saddam had to be stopped. If you go to kerryoniraq.com you can watch Kerry talk about the most important ones. I haven't even mentioned those yet.

[W00lygimp]

I've written 3 college research papers on Saddam Hussein. The Iran/Iraq War took place when Saddam Hussein was in the 'infancy' of his power. Immediately after Saddam saw the need for a larger military, bought hundreds of Soviet tanks and began building an extremely large military. After Saddam had over 1 million active soldiers, he turned to Kuwait. 1990-2000 Iraq would easily defeat Iran; the immense improvement in Iraq's military in the post Iran/Iraq war was tremendous.

[tolbiny]

I fully agree that Saddam needed to be pushed out of Kuwait during the first Gulf war. You can make a strong case for removing him from power at that point as well. However- (without getting into the justness of the Iraq war) he wasnt close to Hitler in potential.
1. Hitler had an opportunity to cripple the most powerful army in the world (France) and controlled all of mainland Europe meaning an attack had to be one by sea and air which is much more difficult. Saddam would have had to attack and controll both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to deprive us off a staging ground.

"If he had Kuwait he would control (correct me if I'm wrong) 50% of the worlds oil"

This is misleading- Saudi Arabia has nearly half of the worlds Surplus capabilities. Even if Saddam had cut off Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil from the rest of the world it would not have been devestating for several years.

Also Saddam didn't have any allies. Hitler didn't do it alone, having Italy was important in the beggining of the war and Japan later was very important.
Saddam as a despicable human being is probably as bad as Hitler, but his capabilities just weren't there.

[tolbiny]

Remembering that I am only comparing Hitler to Saddam in thier ability to wage war-

The soviet tanks that Saddam bought were outdated when compared to US military might.
The tanks that Hitler used were the most advanced the world had ever seen, and he still had the most advanced tank weaponry at the end of the war. Hitler also had the most advanced airforce, and a navy that at least deserved ranking.
Saddam had a 1 million man army and weaponry which was dangerous to several of his immediate neighbors. Yes, if he had been allowed to stay in Kuwait and then had taken over Saudi Arabia he would have been difficult to dislodge. 4 years 20 million dead difficult? No.

[Victor]

the Fisk article certainly does not support your claim. maybe you should reread it; this time with an emphasis on comprehension.

[MMMMMM]

Just a tangential point: there is no reason for confidence that if Saddam had taken Kuwait he would not have rolled across the sand to grab the Saudi oil as well. The Saudis could have put up no meaningful resistance.

[Cyrus]

I accept your claim that you're pissed. I think you're pissed out of your mind actually!.. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had the FOURTH Largest army in the World."

Hmmm, let's see, this is coming from the same poster who said that "ALL polls are sh*t", so he must be on to something! "Fourth largest", huh?

Well, I get the United States, Russia, China, India and Turkey right up in front -- and that's without any research. Which makes Iraq the fifth "largest army" right away. It may get lower if we try. Wanna go back and reconsider, baby?

(In case you wanna talk military expenditure as a percentage of the total national budget, then Israel, Greece and Turkey, for instance, would also be way in front of Saddam's Iraq.

"Before you make half assed [censored] posts, how about you idiots do some [censored] research and don't post [censored] shitstick responses."

It looks like that particular admonition fits you mighty perfectly, buddy. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Do you idiots remember Kuwait? Do you idiots remember Iran?"

Sure we do. I remember Kuwait taken over like a walk in the park. Kuwait was so defenseless that the Lichtenstein army could've taken it just as easily.

And sure we remember the Iraq-Iran war! Why it seems like only yesterday that Donald Rumsfled and assorted power brokers were shuttling back and forth to Baghdad, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and all his honchos, trying to convince the Iraqis to "buy American". And to assure them that they had the full backing of the United States in their foolish (and attacking) war against the Iranians.

...All this is not meant to claim that the Iraqi army was not strong. Far from it. It was quite strong. But the strength of any army is irrelevant when compared with the might of the United States. What's the strength of the Iraqi army got to do with anything? We have about 100,000 Iraqis getting killed (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=6&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_toll_4) as a result of the US invasion. That their army was once "strong" is small consolation to the thousands of Iraqis who lost their lives and to those who lost their kin.

[Cyrus]

"I've written 3 college research papers on Saddam Hussein."

Maybe a fourth is needed?

Never never quit, as they say.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

Please define 'FOURTH largest army in the world'.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[nicky g]

"If he had Kuwait he would control (correct me if I'm wrong) 50% of the worlds oil."

Actually around 20%.

"Having rolled over Kuwait, Saddam already controlled over 20 percent of the world's oil reserves."
In Depth Info (http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/interests.shtml)
(Another article said 19% so 20% seems about right).
Something I read recently, I don;t know if it's true: if American cars had the same fuel efficiency as European cars, you could be completely oil self-sufficient for decades. No relying on Saudi Arabia etc, paying hundreds of billions of dollars to patrol the Gulf, go to war etc. Not if you drove less, had fewer cars, etc, but just European level efficient (and no doubt smaller) cars. If anyone could shed any light on how accurate that is I'd be interested.

[nicky g]

Actually I think it was that they wouldn't have to import oil from the Middle East (ie they ccould rely on their own reserves plaus Venezuela, Canada and a few other major suppliers) - that is, an amount equal to or bigger than the amount of oil currently imported from the Middle East would be cut from total consumption. That isn't to say that they wouldn't still choose to import it from there.

[elwoodblues]

All great reasons to be in favor of the Gulf war. Things have changed a lot for Iraq since then.