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

Doesn't the whole ATL forget that Osama bin Laden came to power within the Al-Qaeda movement because of the anti-American sentiment generated by American presence in Muslim countries (e.g. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, et al.)? To make matters worse, with an American entry into Baghdad in 1991, the United States suddenly is in violation of the UN mandate, but it serves to alienate the Arab nations in the region.
 
Not pursuing Saddam Hussain is comparable to the Allies declaring a truce once the Nazis were driven out of their occupied territories.
:rolleyes:

I wish people would stop comparing Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmajinedad to Adolf Hitler. Iraq and Iran are/were chumps compared to Nazi Germany. They didn't/don't pose a fraction of the threat to the rest of the world.
 
:rolleyes:

I wish people would stop comparing Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmajinedad to Adolf Hitler. Iraq and Iran are/were chumps compared to Nazi Germany. They didn't/don't pose a fraction of the threat to the rest of the world.

I think when people do that they are generally not relating the level of threat, but the type of person/leader.

To the people of Kuwait, the threat level from Saddam was plenty high.
 
Doesn't the whole ATL forget that Osama bin Laden came to power within the Al-Qaeda movement because of the anti-American sentiment generated by American presence in Muslim countries (e.g. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, et al.)? To make matters worse, with an American entry into Baghdad in 1991, the United States suddenly is in violation of the UN mandate, but it serves to alienate the Arab nations in the region.

Toppling the Iraqi regime and then departing is alot better than having a nearly 20-year military presence in Saudi Arabia.
 
Toppling the Iraqi regime and then departing is alot better than having a nearly 20-year military presence in Saudi Arabia.
Not if it means the rise of sectarian violence and civil war, along with possible ethnic cleansing (e.g. the Kurds) by local allies (e.g. Turkey). Consider that you also now have a country wherein 10 million people are being actively recruited by members of Al-Qaeda for desecration of Muslim holy sites. You have a government that is suddenly spouting anti-American and anti-Israeli platforms. There is no way American troops can leave the area in this situation without conceding massive state failures....
 
I see two basic possible outcomes here:

1) If US Stays, two things happen. First, the insurgency is slower to pick up speed, but after the coalition fractures and UN troubles cause other troop pull outs, it picks up pace. Secondly, 9/11 exactly is butterflied away, but there's very likely to be some other direct attack on the US by Islamisist terrorists.

2) If the US takes Saddam down and then pulls out, the resulting power vacuum pulls in first Iran and Turkey, and shortly after an Arab coalition (Saudi-Syria). After an initially short sharp three way war and a genocide of the Kurds, we have a Mexican Standoff between the three. Turkey looses any chance of EU membership due to the Kurdish problem, and turns its energies towards Central Asia (the 'Stans). The result here re the US is probably even more hostility than OTL or 1.
 
Not if it means the rise of sectarian violence and civil war, along with possible ethnic cleansing (e.g. the Kurds) by local allies (e.g. Turkey). Consider that you also now have a country wherein 10 million people are being actively recruited by members of Al-Qaeda for desecration of Muslim holy sites. You have a government that is suddenly spouting anti-American and anti-Israeli platforms. There is no way American troops can leave the area in this situation without conceding massive state failures....

Nit necessarily. If Turkey did not start an extermination of Kurds in the present conflict, they would not do so in 1991. Not to mention that the Americans in Iraq in 1991 are there in greater numbers, and would likely avoid most/all of the other George Bush's mistakes.
 
Nit necessarily. If Turkey did not start an extermination of Kurds in the present conflict, they would not do so in 1991. Not to mention that the Americans in Iraq in 1991 are there in greater numbers, and would likely avoid most/all of the other George Bush's mistakes.
Actually Turkey began "police actions" against the Kurds into Iraq in 2003, 2007, and 2008. Furthermore, ever since 2004, the Turkish government in Ankara has made sure to name the PKK, the political party of the Kurdish people, to be considered a terrorist group by the European Union since 2004. To make matters worse, you would also have greater foreign intervention in the form of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, et al. sending "volunteer militias" to attack American troops....
 
Top