Would the world be a better place if, in 1991...

Would the world be a better place if, in 1991, George Bush had allowed his troops to continue the attack into Iraq and had ousted the Saddam government?

The way to Baghdad was clear and it would have taken a week more, tops.

Well George W. did just that and look how amazing the world has become thanks to his decision.

it was easier than that, murricans only had to support anti-Saddam rebellions

Iraq should have been nuclear-holocausted as a warning to others.

Yes because he would've done a way better job at handling post-war Iraq than his son did.

Also, Iraq's infrastructure significantly degraded in the 12 years between the wars thanks to embargoes, which was a major contributing factor to the civil war that followed the invasion.

In this scenario, reconstruction of Iraq would begin immediately and we'd be starting from square 1 rather than square -100.

>would have taken a week more, tops

Try 72 hours.

Geroge W. made the retarded decision to stay in Iraq after ousting Saddam.

I never said occupy Iraq, I said oust Saddam in 1991.

Yeah the decision so stupid that every succeeding president immediately overturned it and left Iraq right away.

I think it's safe to say Saddam's days were numbers from 1991 onward one way or another. It would have been less painful for all concerned to get rid of him while we have the momentum now rather than pushing the problem down the line.

Besides, it's not like we can't just install another strongman (one that knows his place) or anything.

"If everyone from the same ruling class agrees, it must be a good idea!"

"If some dumb faggot on Veeky Forums, the worst and the most retarded board on Veeky Forums, disagrees, it must be a bad idea!"

>In this scenario, reconstruction of Iraq would begin immediately and we'd be starting from square 1 rather than square -100.

Iraq can only exist in two states:

>Semi-Peaceful under a Strong Man

or

>In a violent state of chaos

There are no other options for Iraq.

I just said put in another strongman, but have it be one who can behave himself and keep his war crimes out of the newspapers.

Iraq would be more stable today if, after invasion, institutuonal and political power was proportionally distributed among confessional and ethnic communities, like it was distributed in Lebanon, or if Iraq was divided into three states along confessional and ethnic lines.

What do you think would've happened if the US that crashed Iraq's government and fucked off? The middle east would have been an order of magnitude greater shithole than it is today.

>The Middle East is Iraq

heh

>What happens in one country has zero effect on its surroundings

Double heh.

>America is a shithole because of the unstable, violent place that Mexico is

heh

It would be a better place if America stopped butting in as the self appointed world police, the country that has to warn its citizens not to shoot at hurricanes

Arguably, their faults do cause us some pain, we have to deal with their migrants and refugees, not to mention the very large criminal element therein.

Yeah, but one country does not an entire region destroy.

Nigger, did or did not Iraq become a hotbed of terrorist activity that then got exported to places like Syria and Lybia after Saddam got knocked off?

I never said that the Iraq war singlehandedly made ME shit, but you can't deny it made it shittier than it already was.

It only stayed that way because the Americans stayed and stoked the fire.

Look at Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal.