• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would ISIS exist today if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

Would ISIS exist today if Saddam Hussein was still in power?


  • Total voters
    60
I try to keep my criticisms legitimate. Sometimes they are not legitimate, but that's usually related to me not understanding some specific aspect, of which I'm more than willing to learn. Yes, I do change my opinion / position when new information or considerations come to the fore. :)

That is good. Then it is possible to have a good, robust discussion. Like I said, although I have some disagreements, what you said was indeed legitimate criticism.
 
Yes but they wouldn't be in Iraq.
 
No
Yes
Other

The actual organization ISIS? No probably not. Something else? Entirely possible I suppose. The problem with positing a change so massive and taking place across such a gulf of time (its been more than a decade) is that its impossible to predict other things that might have happened given those circumstances. Though if you wanted I'm sure we could try and drum up some interesting hypothetical's.
 
Hindsight is 20/20. .During WWII no one knew that sticking up for the Chinese against the Japanese that China would bite us in the ass a decade or so later.

Has China bitten us in the ass? Btw, it's not hindsight for everybody. Those of us standing in protest of the invasion of Iraq had no delusions about the future.
 
The actual organization ISIS? No probably not. Something else? Entirely possible I suppose. The problem with positing a change so massive and taking place across such a gulf of time (its been more than a decade) is that its impossible to predict other things that might have happened given those circumstances. Though if you wanted I'm sure we could try and drum up some interesting hypothetical's.
It seems to me that ISIS got its start in the Syrian civil war. That is the result of the Arab Spring not the Iraq war.
 
The group (the Islamic State or ISIS) originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—when the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. As Jama'at and later AQI, the group participated since August 2003 in the Iraqi insurgency which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). ISI gained a significant presence in Al Anbar Governorate, Diyala Governorate and Baghdad Governorate.


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Has China bitten us in the ass? Btw, it's not hindsight for everybody.

1.China's support of the north Koreans in the Korean war.
2.China's support of the Vietcong in the Vietnam war.
3.China threatening our Japanese ally.

Those of us standing in protest of the invasion of Iraq had no delusions about the future.

Unless everyone on the anti-war side is Mistress Cleo then the anti-war side could only speculate.
 
No.

Terrorist didn't exist in Iraq while Saddam was in power. Extortion and outright brutality from Iraqi government lapdogs maybe, but not terrorism.

A better question would be: would Saddam Hussein have prevented ISIS from coming into existence and the answer is, no. There's no way he could have prevented a rebellion in Syria. There's no way he could have stopped an ISIS invasion of Iraq, since he couldn't move his forces into the no-fly zone to engage them.

On a side note: the feverish effort to blame Bush is becoming embarrassing for the Libbos.

I disagree.

Saddam's had a decent national defense system in place even after Operation Desert Storm. They couldn't contend with the overwhelming military force we unleashed upon them, but they certainly had the ability to put down any rebellion within its borders and had its military in the north that would have repelled any northern aggression. Of course, he may have let the Kurds get slaughtered, but there's no way he would have let any outside invaders come into Iraq. It would explain why no other country except the US had every invaded Iraq under Saddam's watch.

Now, I agree with you that the no-fly zone that the UN imposed would have been a problem for him, but I think he would have ignored it if Syrian air craft came south to attack his country. He certainly had the air power to repel them.
 
Anyone who answered "yes" forgets how Sadaam ruled that country with an iron fist.

Now the cat's away, and they mice are playing, so to speak.

It's as we all feared - some people are not ready for democracy.
 
A more interesting question: Would ISIS exist if Bush were still president?

I believe Obama pulling out and generally neglecting Iraq is part of the reason we have an ISIS problem today.
 
The group (the Islamic State or ISIS) originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—when the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. As Jama'at and later AQI, the group participated since August 2003 in the Iraqi insurgency which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). ISI gained a significant presence in Al Anbar Governorate, Diyala Governorate and Baghdad Governorate.


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think most people rightly interpret the poll question as "Would ISIS exist in Iraq today if Saddam was still in power?"

But from a literal interpretation, you are correct. ISIS, formerly known as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, certainly did exist even while Saddam was alive and ruling Iraq. However, I seriously doubt they'd ever have gained any traction in Iraq if Saddam was still ruling that country today.

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Arabic: جماعة التوحيد والجهاد‎, Organization of Monotheism and Jihad) was a militant Jihadist[1] group led by the Jordanian national Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This group's name may be abbreviated as JTJ or shortened to Tawhid and Jihad, Tawhid wal-Jihad, Tawhid al-Jihad, Al Tawhid or Tawhid. The group started in Jordan, then became a decentralized network during the Iraq insurgency in which foreign fighters were widely thought to play a key role, though some analysts said that it may have also had a considerable Iraqi membership.
 
Last edited:
A more interesting question: Would ISIS exist if Bush were still president?

I believe Obama pulling out and generally neglecting Iraq is part of the reason we have an ISIS problem today.

Well, considering that he could only run for President twice...

But I'll go with that hypothetical...

Assuming GWB had the same neocon regime, no. I think the newly elected Iraqi government was more emboldened once the American presidential transition team changed hands. I do believe it was as many Republicans have said, that President Obama wanted American military (combat) forces out of Iraq but he was also following the SOFA that was in place at the time. Now, did he "find" a grey area? I'm sure he did (i.e., agreed upon troop levels and asylum for U.S. military personnel from Iraqi law), but unless we wanted to be viewed as "occupiers" and not "liberators" who respect the sovereignty of another country, I firmly believe we had no choice but to leave Iraq to govern itself. We might not like the eventual outcome, but I think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
 
Anyone who answered "yes" forgets how Sadaam ruled that country with an iron fist.

Now the cat's away, and they mice are playing, so to speak.

It's as we all feared - some people are not ready for democracy.
They never were.
 
NO
But only the opinion of a "partially knowledgeable" old man ...
 
1.China's support of the north Koreans in the Korean war.
2.China's support of the Vietcong in the Vietnam war.
3.China threatening our Japanese ally.



Unless everyone on the anti-war side is Mistress Cleo then the anti-war side could only speculate.

Lol, I thought we nuked Japan.

What makes you think the North Koreans and the Chinese were bad guys in the Korean War? And again in the Vietnam war?
 
I think most people rightly interpret the poll question as "Would ISIS exist in Iraq today if Saddam was still in power?"

But from a literal interpretation, you are correct. ISIS, formerly known as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, certainly did exist even while Saddam was alive and ruling Iraq. However, I seriously doubt they'd ever have gained any traction in Iraq if Saddam was still ruling that country today.

Hey, I make that point on a regular basis. Expand that, if Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad were still in power and control, then these freaks wouldn't be running around the whole region, conducting their crimes.
 
No.

Terrorist didn't exist in Iraq while Saddam was in power. Extortion and outright brutality from Iraqi government lapdogs maybe, but not terrorism

In fact, terrorism did exist under Saddam and he did indeed support terrorists.


.National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States


I disagree.

Saddam's had a decent national defense system in place even after Operation Desert Storm. They couldn't contend with the overwhelming military force we unleashed upon them, but they certainly had the ability to put down any rebellion within its borders and had its military in the north that would have repelled any northern aggression. Of course, he may have let the Kurds get slaughtered, but there's no way he would have let any outside invaders come into Iraq. It would explain why no other country except the US had every invaded Iraq under Saddam's watch.

Now, I agree with you that the no-fly zone that the UN imposed would have been a problem for him, but I think he would have ignored it if Syrian air craft came south to attack his country. He certainly had the air power to repel them.

1) The Iraqis that made up the army then are the same Iraqis that make it up now.

2) Syrian aircraft wouldn't have invaded the no fly zone.

3) ISIS didn't use aircraft when they invaded Iraq.

4) Any Iraqi aircraft to enter the no fly zone would have been shot down.
 
In fact, terrorism did exist under Saddam and he did indeed support terrorists.


.National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
It's okay...I corrected myself. (See post #137)

1) The Iraqis that made up the army then are the same Iraqis that make it up now.

Same citizens, different skill levels (i.e., military discipline). Not the same "Iraqi Army" at all.

2) Syrian aircraft wouldn't have invaded the no fly zone.

Then what was your point with taking the conversation in that direction?

apdst said:
A better question would be: would Saddam Hussein have prevented ISIS from coming into existence and the answer is, no. There's no way he could have prevented a rebellion in Syria. There's no way he could have stopped an ISIS invasion of Iraq, since he couldn't move his forces into the no-fly zone to engage them.

You blend the two issues - Syrian rebels form ISIS, ISIS forces invade Iraq from the air from Syria. How is that possible when you yourself said "Syrian aircraft wouldn't have invaded the no fly zone" and ISIS was formed in Iraq? (Or atleast the ISIS that spun off from AIQ anyway.)

3) ISIS didn't use aircraft when they invaded Iraq.

ISIS didn't invade Iraq. They were formed as a reconstituted brand of Al-Queda that was already operating in Iraq.

4) Any Iraqi aircraft to enter the no fly zone would have been shot down.

Okay, by whom? US-led NATO forces or the Syria airforce you claim wouldn't have entered the no-fly zone?
 
Last edited:
It's okay...I corrected myself. (See post #137)



Same citizens, different skill levels (i.e., military discipline). Not the same "Iraqi Army" at all.

Link?



Then what was your point with taking the conversation in that direction?

I never said anything about Syrian aircraft entering Iraqi airspace.



[Quoute]You blend the two issues - Syrian rebels form ISIS, ISIS forces invade Iraq from the air from Syria. How is that possible when you yourself said "Syrian aircraft wouldn't have invaded the no fly zone" and ISIS was formed in Iraq? (Or atleast the ISIS that spun off from AIQ anyway.)

I can't say it enough: I never said anything about Syrian aircraft entering Iraqi airspace. You brought that up.



ISIS didn't invade Iraq. They were formed as a reconstituted brand of Al-Queda that was already operating in Iraq.


ISIS invaded Iraq from Syria. That last June, when we had a chance to lay waste to them, while they were in the open.


Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, by whom? US-led NATO forces or the Syria airforce you claim wouldn't have entered the no-fly zone?

Are familiar with the no-fly zone?

Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I can't say it enough: I never said anything about Syrian aircraft entering Iraqi airspace.

No, you didn't. At least not in those exact words. But when you said this...

apdst said:
A better question would be: would Saddam Hussein have prevented ISIS from coming into existence and the answer is, no. There's no way he could have prevented a rebellion in Syria. There's no way he could have stopped an ISIS invasion of Iraq, since he couldn't move his forces into the no-fly zone to engage them.[/B]

...you assume that the Syrian rebels would have sided with ISIS while Saddam was in power. Let's not forget that Syrian civil war didn't begin until 2011 long after Saddam was killed. Furthermore, when you leave things as convoluted like the section of your post above, it's easy for things to be misinterpreted. In this case, since ISIS was essentially "home grown" in Iraq (again, long after Saddam was gone) and the only outside aggressors that could have possibly come into Iraq from the north-west through the no-fly zone were Syrian fighters, you're either talking about Iraq repelling a ground invasion from the air OR both sides facing each other in air combat. Which is it? Be specific and then perhaps people can understand you better. Don't (purposely) leave things so convoluted.

You brought that up.

Yes, I did. But now that I've explained why would you be so kind as to clarify your position on Iraqi's use of air power through the no-fly zone?

ISIS invaded Iraq from Syria. That last June, when we had a chance to lay waste to them, while they were in the open.

Which goes back to my previous point. ISIS in Syria didn't exist while Saddam was in power any more than they existed in Iraq at the time.
 
No
Yes
Other

No, then again it wouldnt exist if we hadnt ****ed up the occupation and armed them, nor would it exist if the British and French had left the region in a better state after the end of the mandate system, nor would it exist if Iraqs parliamentary democracy hadnt been overthrown in the 1950s (nor Syrias for that matter) This doesnt mean dictatorial rule was or is the only viable option for the region.
 
In Syria, they would exist. So whose side were we supposed to take, Assad allied with Iran or with ISIS?

Armed opposition in Syria consists of up to 1200 different groups (many of whom are at war with each other) thats plenty to choose from.
 
. With Hussein, Mubarak Gaddafi and Assad, we had containment. Those figures are absent, and with that is the direct correlation in the rise of Islamic extremism.

You also have containment with pressure cookers, albiet to a finite extent :)
 
You also have containment with pressure cookers, albiet to a finite extent :)

Yes, but before you remove the lid, you allow the pot to cool off.
 
Back
Top Bottom