If the US hadn't intervened in Irak... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 20, 2024, 03:17:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  If the US hadn't intervened in Irak... (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ...what would have happened to Saddam Hussein during the Arab Spring ?
#1
He would have been overthrown in a relatively peaceful way (see Tunisia)		  
#2
Protests and riots would have degenerated into a civil war or close to a civil war - Saddam eventually bows out		  
#3
Protests and riots would have degenerated into a civil war or close to a civil war - Western countries eventually intervene and help overthrowing it (see Libya)		  
#4
Protests and riots would have degenerated into a civil war or close to a civil war - but the international community would fail to take any action and the fighting would continue for months (see Syria)		  
#5
Protests and riots would have degenerated into a civil war or close to a civil war - but Saddam would eventually crush the opposition		  
#6
Some protests would have erupted, but not enough to succeed (see Saudi Arabia)		  
#7
Some protests would have erupted, but Saddam would manage to placate them through moderate reform (see Morocco)		  
#8
No significant protest would have erupted		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 24

Author Topic: If the US hadn't intervened in Irak...  (Read 1369 times)
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,641
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09
« on: February 28, 2012, 08:43:05 PM »
Like Libya, but Gaddafi stays in power; the economic crash was the main force behind the Democratic victory, and I think it's reasonable to suggest a Democrat in 2011, in probably-still-not-too-dissimilar circumstances, would only have the political capital for one war, and Saddam is more of a bad guy than Gaddafi under pretty much any reasonable definition.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,641
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2012, 10:39:21 PM »
Quote from: dead0man on February 29, 2012, 12:18:54 AM
Quote from: Antonio V on February 28, 2012, 08:51:07 PM
Quote from: Vosem on February 28, 2012, 08:43:05 PM
and Saddam is more of a bad guy than Gaddafi under pretty much any reasonable definition.

Really ? I'm not saying Saddam was significantly better, but the two seem at least comparable in terms of hideousness. Hasn't Gaddafi has done his fair deal of atrocities too ?
Saddam's got a much higher "kill" total.  They both were giant douches and the world is better off without them, but Saddam was at least an order of magnitude (pop POP!) more deadly than Gaddafi.
And Gaddafi has some actual positive achievements to his name - literacy, or the Great Manmade River. Of course, everything averaged out he was pretty bad, but he was better than plenty of people the US has not intervened against yet (Assad and Hamas come to mind first as some targets the US could get rid of with a wrist-flick; bigger baddies like Iran are more difficult).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.