When Israel tried to kill Sadam Hussein

Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
70
Reaction score
15
Points
21

Not long ago I read this book about the Sayeret Matkal disaster in training for the assasination of Iraq's leader, and it raised a real deep question that I would like to share here.

Considering that the Sayeret matkal is one of the most capable Elite units in the world, if there was no accident and Israel would go against Saadam, how would this change history and shape the middle East future?
Do you believe that if this would happen Iraq would have fallen into more radical islamic leadership or even start a new middle east conflict like 67?
 

ABikerSailor

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
49,014
Reaction score
9,307
Points
2,040
Location
Amarillo TX
It does bring up some really interesting questions. If Israel had taken out Saddam before 9/11, think that Jr. would have managed to get OBL?

And, if they had managed to take out Saddam, even though the Taliban was just getting started back then, think they would have taken over Iraq?
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,294
Reaction score
3,468
Points
290
Location
Texas
Why Bush I didn't go ahead take him out is just bizarre; never heard a decent reason for backing off, other than they thought the city would fall soon, but it never did.

If Israel had taken him out after 9/11, Iraqi history would have remained much the same, only with less time for Iranian interference to cause problems. The allies occupied the place, after all, the real war ended years before. What 'fundie' could possibly have taken over?

The Taliban can't even control Pakistan as long as we keep bases there. Even with a skeleton force they have to keep running back into the hills and hiding behind women and children. They couldn't hide in Iraq with the forces we had there. And there would still be the Sunni-Shia civil war going on, which is the main activity we see today. With the Sunnis and Israelis patting each other's asses for the time being, it's the Iranians who are losing ground, their ally in Syria lording it over a junk pile of rubble, their control of Lebanon at risk, and their only 'allies' Russia and China, both fickle and not in good shape themselves, it's clear why Obama, the Democrats and other America haters feel the need to rescue the Iranians and keep them in the game.

The real wild card is Turkey and the nutjobs there; we may possibly see the day where we reverse policy and encourage the Russians to invade that shithole, or at least not stand in their way. And don't count the Kurds out, either. The U.S. really took a dump on their heads, for no good reason other hoping appease stupid treasonous left wing domestic scum in. and screeching right wing isolationist faggots the U.S.
 
Last edited:

TheParser

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
2,715
Reaction score
1,212
Points
210
The idea of one country terminating the leader of another country is very controversial.

Some people think that it can do more harm than good.

I may have read that the British had some opportunities in the 1930s to terminate that evil man who was rising to power, but they felt it would not be cricket to do so. Just as one of our leaders before World War II felt that reading the secret mail of foreign leaders was not gentlemanly.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,294
Reaction score
3,468
Points
290
Location
Texas
The idea of one country terminating the leader of another country is very controversial.

Some people think that it can do more harm than good.

I may have read that the British had some opportunities in the 1930s to terminate that evil man who was rising to power, but they felt it would not be cricket to do so. Just as one of our leaders before World War II felt that reading the secret mail of foreign leaders was not gentlemanly.
That was an era where diplomatic 'manners' were recognized by all civilized parties. There are no 'civilized' parties in Red China, the ME, most of Africa, and Indonesia. They don't care about European diplomatic traditions. Hussein violated the cease fire agreements almost daily for year after year after year. Again, he should have been wiped out long before 9/11, under Clinton. Clinton was too busy rescuing Muslims from their victims in the Balkans and bombing non-Muslim white people for trying to free themselves.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
45,495
Reaction score
9,184
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Israel didn't try it. Elite units train for all sorts of stuff. That's how they are able to execute missions quickly. Entebbe was a brilliantly executed mission but projecting the authorization and success of a complicated mission that makes Entebbe look like child's play is a useless endeavor. If Israel thought it would work they probably would have tried it.
 
OP
TDontTouchMyCigars
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
70
Reaction score
15
Points
21
Israel didn't try it. Elite units train for all sorts of stuff. That's how they are able to execute missions quickly. Entebbe was a brilliantly executed mission but projecting the authorization and success of a complicated mission that makes Entebbe look like child's play is a useless endeavor. If Israel thought it would work they probably would have tried it.

Wrong.
Israel did train for this specific mission. The ones who died in the accident were playing Hussein's siblings.
 

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,850
Reaction score
5,733
Points
290
..most likely not much would've changed---1992? after PG1
..and were these just plans or actually given the go ahead?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top