Iraq: wouldn't it be better to do all over again had Bush...

[MaC]

found a group of people who wanted to overthrow Saddam and simply give them money and weapons?  Reagan didn't have any huge wars to his name, but he did supply one side in a war over another.  I think in the long run, this could've failed or suceeded, but 1. the war would be over by now 2. despite giveaways in foreign aid, it wouldn't have cost so much 3. many American lives would be spared.
Thoughts? Comments?

[MODU]

found a group of people who wanted to overthrow Saddam and simply give them money and weapons?  Reagan didn't have any huge wars to his name, but he did supply one side in a war over another.  I think in the long run, this could've failed or suceeded, but 1. the war would be over by now 2. despite giveaways in foreign aid, it wouldn't have cost so much 3. many American lives would be spared.
Thoughts? Comments?

Possibly, but I don't think there would have been anyone who would have tried, following the what happened to the Kurds last decade.  I've always been a fan of sending in a lone soldier of local ethic decent, give him a Russian rifle, and peck Saddam off from a distance.  The only problem is, there were so many Saddam look-a-likes running around, he'd have to know it was the real deal before shooting. 

But if that happened, who anything have changed?  His wacko sons would have taken over and been just as bad as their father.  So they'd have to be taken out as well.

[John Dibble]

Not really sure, considering that it may have been a three-sided war that could have gotten other countries involved as well. The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds weren't and still aren't buddies, you know. While the country isn't exactly stable with the U.S. having been the force that took out the regime it may have been more unstable if an insider did it because they may not have had the power to keep the three primary factions mostly under control. That's not to say whomever we had overthrow Saddam couldn't have been able to, but I find that unlikely(he'd probably have to control Saddam's armies and would likely have to control certain elements of the populous through fear just like Saddam did - I'm not really for replacing one tyranny with another). So, even if we went with this plan, there would be no gaurantee that the war would be over. Given the possibility of a potentially region destabilizing war we may have had to intervene anyways as a 'peace-keeping force' and things may have gone just as bad.

Of course this is all hypothetical, so there's no way to know for sure either way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. Many, many, many more people would have been killed and Saddam would probably still be in power.