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

I'm going to say yes but you wouldn't know them by that name. You'd know them as the baathist party officers of Saddam's army.

Would ISIS exist if Saddam were still in power? - No.

We attacked Al Qaeda and then we attacked Iraq and then we attacked ISIS and then we attacked...

pbrauer said:

No
Yes
Other

Click to expand...

Is it the we shouldn't remove one genocidal mass murdering dictator because someone slightly less worse and evil than the dictator might take his place argument?

Moot said:

In Syria, they would exist

Click to expand...

Not really. ISIL grew out of the left-over leadership of AQI.

Montecresto said:

In some respects, the Islamic State is a new name on an old face, with a bit more extremism. But clearly, this group of organised criminals would not be going about the Middle East conducting the campaign that they are. Obviously though, this poll is another attempt to blame this very real problem completely on the Bush administration when the last few decades of USFP in the region has been contributing to the radicalisation and emboldenment of these groups, and the last 7 years in particular have undoubtedly been the most damaging to security and stability in the region. 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.

Click to expand...

I don't know when we are going to learn. In the last 30 years we have yet to have a single military operation in the Middle East that had a positive long term result.

jamesrage said:

Is it the we shouldn't remove one genocidal mass murdering dictator because someone slightly less worse and evil than the dictator might take his place argument?

Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein was evil, but he was contained and ISIS is not contained.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I don't know when we are going to learn. In the last 30 years we have yet to have a single military operation in the Middle East that had a positive long term result.

Click to expand...

that's matter of perspective.
alot of folks consider deposing murderous tyrants as a positive thing... lots more think that disallowing one country from taking over a lil tiny neighbor country by force is a positive thing <shrugs>

Probably not. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but to some extent he kept order. And I think if the people of Iraq had gotten rid of him like nearly every other country in the world got rid of their tyrannical government, with a bottom-up peoples' revolution, we wouldn't see alot of the instability we see there today. Having the United States World Police swoop in and yank him out of his seat before the people of Iraq were ready for that really did them a disservice. It left a power vacuum...which was happily filled by ISIS.

pbrauer said:

No
Yes
Other

Click to expand...

it would sooner or later


just because of the nature of fanatical faith

joko104 said:

You mean the wonderful Saddam Hussein, pro-American man of peace and human rights justice? :roll:

Click to expand...

shhhh no 1 has to worry about that now so they wont

cpwill said:

Not really. ISIL grew out of the left-over leadership of AQI.

Click to expand...

I've read it grew out of Saddam's Republican Guard and Baathists that were ousted after 2003 invasion. A lot of them went to Syria.

apdst said:

That most probably means that Saddam would have allied with ISIS.

Click to expand...

Of course he wouldn't have. He would have executed, brutally, any Al Qaeda or ISIS who surfaced in Iraq. What do you know about Hussein that tells you he was willing to share power?

TeleKat said:

Probably not. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but to some extent he kept order. And I think if the people of Iraq had gotten rid of him like nearly every other country in the world got rid of their tyrannical government, with a bottom-up peoples' revolution, we wouldn't see alot of the instability we see there today. Having the United States World Police swoop in and yank him out of his seat before the people of Iraq were ready for that really did them a disservice. It left a power vacuum...which was happily filled by ISIS.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that you're completely ignoring the situation in Syria, that fully contradicts your assertion.
After all the Syrian tyrant wasn't taken out by the World Police or anyone else, and yet during the "people's revolution" ISIS and other terror organizations have taken control. I don't see any possible way to determine for certain that if Saddam had stayed in power there wouldn't be a people's revolution that involves a terror organization similar to ISIS.
I think it's very easy just to blame the US for everything.

It's a fair question. I voted "Other" only because I can't speculate on what might have happened, and since militant extremists predate Hussein, who knows?

No ISIS would not exist. There manifestation is one reason why it was a big mistake to have invaded Iraq in 2002.

Not sure. I lean toward no, simply because Saddam probably wouldn't have tolerated competition, being a mass murderer and psycho. Of course I agree with those who say he was easier to keep taps on than ISIL. One dictator vs what amounts to an ideology. Well, that's my opinion on it for what its worth.

TeleKat said:

Probably not. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but to some extent he kept order. And I think if the people of Iraq had gotten rid of him like nearly every other country in the world got rid of their tyrannical government, with a bottom-up peoples' revolution, we wouldn't see alot of the instability we see there today. Having the United States World Police swoop in and yank him out of his seat before the people of Iraq were ready for that really did them a disservice. It left a power vacuum...which was happily filled by ISIS.

Click to expand...

Saddam was brutal to be sure but he did better than just keeping order to some extent. The country was stable, modernizing and prosperous under his regime. Arguably the average Iraqi was better off with him in power.

It's hard to say but Saddam wasn't shy about using his military to suppress dissent and revolt. ISIS would in all probability not be in existence in Iraq today had he remained in power. ISIS in Syria is anyone's guess.

For Myself.....I don't think ISIS would exist in its form that it is now, if Saddam was still in power. Both CPW and Moot are correct. ISIS comes about from AQIL and from the Baathists that were secular under Saddam. The problem also stems with Saddams Faith based Campaign and what took place afterwards with Saddam being gone. Which was recently revealed by a couple of writers, plus now a couple of more that have put info out on ISIS.

We removed thousands of bureaucrats, administrators, university professors, doctors, lawyers, judges, engineers, bankers, etc from their positions in Iraqi society because they were Ba'athists. ISIS isn't just another insurgency. They have a fully-fledged economy with farms, businesses, schools, courts, factories, mines, oil refineries, even a mint. They have international trade with sympathetic companies in countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey.

Then we saw the Leadership of ISIS go after Baathist Officers and Commanders.....and did so quickly.

That's not to say another face wouldn't be showing. So while Terrorist networks wouldn't be the focus this would not stop the tribal war between Sunni and Shia. More focus would be highlighted as to what Iran was doing with the Shia. While watching the Sunni being directed by the Saud and those Sunni that bow before them be the cause of further conflict that is taking place throughout the ME.

Which another concern would be how the Sunni are now set to take Libya(another country just handed to them that they couldn't take on their own).....even though they can't get Rid of Assad. While the Berbers are followers of the Sunni Doctrine.....many refuse to bow before any Saud or Sunni Arabs. I think Gadhafi mentioned something about them being like bugs that infest anything they get into.

So that problem of Sectarian divide.....would be more pronounced and more clear as to who was responsible for whatever genocides took place.

The real question is whose bright idea was it to overthrow Assad? Those are the idiots that are responsible for this.

MildSteel said:

The real question is whose bright idea was it to overthrow Assad? Those are the idiots that are responsible for this.

Click to expand...

Mornin Steel. Ooooh, Oooh, I got it! That would be those alleged Arabian Knights in white shining cloth even whiter than Clorox with bleach. The Saud/Sunni !!!!! :mrgreen:

MildSteel said:

The real question is whose bright idea was it to overthrow Assad? Those are the idiots that are responsible for this.

Click to expand...

No the real question is who's bright idea was it to remove every last remnant of American militarily assets out of Iraq ?

The idiot that decided that is responsible for this.

Interesting factoid....its the same idiot who decided to overthrow Assad.

MMC said:

Mornin Steel.

Ooooh, Oooh, I got it! That would be those alleged Arabian Knights in white shining cloth even whiter than Clorox with bleach. The Saud!!!!! :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Morning to you!!!!

Yep. That's why they need to march their sorry behinds over their and clean it up themselves instead of coming to us whining.

Fenton said:

No the real question is who's bright idea was it to remove every last remnant of American militarily assets out of Iraq ?

The idiot that decided that is responsible for this.

Interesting factoid....its the same idiot who decided to overthrow Assad.

Click to expand...

Do you have a reference that states it was Obama's idea? I don't mean one that demonstrates he went along with it. I want one that demonstrates it was actually his idea.

MildSteel said:

Do you have a reference that states it was Obama's idea? I don't mean one that demonstrates he went along with it. I want one that demonstrates it was actually his idea.

Click to expand...

He said on 60 minutes that his plan for Syria left no room for Assad.