WI Bush (Senior) doesn't wimp out in Gulf War...

[Electric Earth]

...and goes after Saddam Hussain, and executes him. Issue of WMD never comes up, no reason for his son to invade Iraq. Bush Junior retains post-9/11 popularity, which spreads out to other Republicans, and McCain is elected President. Comments?

[Colossalmeat123]

hahaha nobama

[Constantius]

Originally Posted by Electric Earth

...and goes after Saddam Hussain, and executes him. Issue of WMD never comes up, no reason for his son to invade Iraq. Bush Junior retains post-9/11 popularity, which spreads out to other Republicans, and McCain is elected President. Comments?

B.u.t.t.e.r.f.l.y. e.f.f.e.c.t!

[Count Dearborn]

He didn't wimp out, he said that they could take the country, but what would they do with it after they go it. The reason that they invaded Kuwait was because Kuwait was drilling in such a way they they were drilling into the part of that oil field that was under Iraq.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

OK, for a reality check-Bush would have faced the same problems with occupying Iraq that his son did. He might have handled it better, but it would still have become an issue for the Democrats in '92 especially with a recession going on. As for Bush Jr. post-9-11, he probably would have gone to war against Pakistan, which would open up a whole new can of butterflies.

The mission was never about taking out Saddam Hussein no matter how much armchair asskickers might have wished for it. It was always soley about driving Saddam out of Kuwait, so that's what Bush did.

[Alratan]

If the US moves its troops from Saudi to Iraq, then we probably don't see a 9-11.

[Jon0815]

Originally Posted by WestVirginiaRebel

OK, for a reality check-Bush would have faced the same problems with occupying Iraq that his son did.

Not exactly.

Bush I had something like 500,000 troops in Desert Storm, vs. the 140,000 Bush II had for OIF. Had Bush gone to Baghdad, there would still have been a Sunni insurgency, but it would have been faced with a post-Saddam occupation force that was several times as large as Bush II's in OTL, and hence the insurgency would never have grown as large as in OTL.

Also, in 1991 you would not have had hundreds of al-Queda suicide bombers stoking sectarian violence in Iraq, which is what is most responsible for Iraq nearly going off the rails in OTL.

He might have handled it better, but it would still have become an issue for the Democrats in '92 especially with a recession going on. .

If the US is fighting an insurgency in Iraq in 1992 (tho a less deadly insurgency than the one in 2004 of OTL), this might actually help Bush, causing him to win re-election. The war would still have public support at that time, and Americans would trust Bush to win it much more than Clinton.

And the recession ended in 1991.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Keep in mind that in doing this he is breaking promises to our allies about the limited war.

Not that they would fight, but it would have consquences.

And I agree that it would have likely lead to reelection here.

[feanor512]

Originally Posted by Colossalmeat123

hahaha nobama

No Dubya either.

[Anaxagoras]

In such a scenario, so many butterflies would be created that there would be no 9/11.

[King Thomas]

Best case-The insurgency if there is one is rapidly crushed, no 9/11, no G.W.Bush junior as president.

Worst case-Iraq ends up as violent as OTL, 9/11 still happens.

[Electric Earth]

Not pursuing Saddam Hussain is comparable to the Allies declaring a truce once the Nazis were driven out of their occupied territories.

[Germaniac]

It was not a matter of wimping out. It was a matter of Bush senior being slightly smarter that dumbass president bush junior. Senior saw the potential for a Vietnam-like situation. If he had been in there, Clinton(or another democrat) with the democrats retaining control of the house and senate. Hell i wish he did do that we might have National Healthcare with a democrat government

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Electric Earth

Not pursuing Saddam Hussain is comparable to the Allies declaring a truce once the Nazis were driven out of their occupied territories.

Can we start an AH.com tropes wiki? I nominate "Every modern war is like WWII".

[Germaniac]

Originally Posted by Electric Earth

Not pursuing Saddam Hussain is comparable to the Allies declaring a truce once the Nazis were driven out of their occupied territories.

that is rediculous. Last time I checked Nazi germany declared war on the United States. the analogy would work without US but with its a dumb comparison.

Saddamn was an awful dictator. But we propted him up and as soon as we were done with him we painted him as evil. We should not be policing the world. It is a countries own responsibilities to overthrow and fight off a repressive government, not ours.

[Dave Howery]

from what I remember reading in the news at the time, the main reason Bush I didn't go after Saddam is that there was really nobody in the works to replace him... taking out Saddam would have meant pretty much taking out the central government... and at the time, there was real worry about Iran taking advantage of such chaos and monkeying around in Iraq. A book I read later on the war noted that the US and allies agreed on a strategy that would kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, destroy most of their advanced weaponry, and leave them with a solid core of infantry; basically, leave Iraq with a powerful defensive force, but not an offensive one...

[bookmonkey786]

Originally Posted by Germaniac

[snip]
We should not be policing the world. It is a countries own responsibilities to overthrow and fight off a repressive government, not ours.

We don't unless the US's feels its in its best interest to do so. Generally that means there's something valuable there or its of strategic importance. You think the US really gives a crap if one worthless (from the US's POV) African country invades another. We haven't so far.

If the US was really the world's policemen we would have stepped in to stop the crimes in Sudan long ago. Most we'll do in cases like that is send a token Peacekeeping force and let the rest of the bleeding heart world sort the mess out.

[Berra]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Can we start an AH.com tropes wiki? I nominate "Every modern war is like WWII".

To be fair, we are not as bad as the rest of the world. We are more like "every modern war is like the 43 Punic war between some obscure German state and the Aztecs. With bear cavalry. And it will bring back the monarchy."

[Trotsky]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Can we start an AH.com tropes wiki? I nominate "Every modern war is like WWII".

hahaha I like how he even subject-heads his post with "WW2 Analogy."

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by WestVirginiaRebel

OK, for a reality check-Bush would have faced the same problems with occupying Iraq that his son did. He might have handled it better, but it would still have become an issue for the Democrats in '92 especially with a recession going on. As for Bush Jr. post-9-11, he probably would have gone to war against Pakistan, which would open up a whole new can of butterflies.

The mission was never about taking out Saddam Hussein no matter how much armchair asskickers might have wished for it. It was always soley about driving Saddam out of Kuwait, so that's what Bush did.

Why would W go after a committed U.S. ally?