If the US hadn't intervened in Irak...

[Californian Tony]

While thinking about the bloodbath in Syria and the Arab Spring, the though just crossed my mind. If Saddam hadn't been overthrown in 2003, Irak would likely have been affected by the Arab Spring too. That's why I'm interested in knowing your speculations on these issues. I've tried to include all the possible outcomes, even though some of them aren't much likely (I'd rule out options 1, 7 or .

Personally, I think the situation of Irak had the possibility to become as bloody as Libya and Syria, considering the strong religious and ethnic divide, and the bitterness of those categories toward the regime. No idea what the international community would have done, but without the disaster that was the 2003 Irak intervention, it's easy to imagine the US being still in an interveintionist mood.

[True Federalist]

If Iraq had not been invaded and we'd instead concentrated on doing the job right in Afghanistan, there would be sufficient butterflies that the Arab Spring happening on schedule would have been unlikely.  It may have happened earlier or later, but our presence in Iraq definitely affected when an Arab Spring could have taken place.  it certainly affected the outcomes elsewhere.  The intervention in Libya would have at a minimum taken place without the approval of the Security Council, as I suspect Gaddafi would have remained a useful semi-pariah for the Russians as he would not have taken the steps he did to avoid becoming the next dictator subjected to an Iraqi-style intervention.

[dead0man]

4 or 5...I went with 4.

[Χahar]

Why is it spelled Irak in French? It seems odd, seeing as that k isn't a French letter (if it were fully Gallicized, it would be Irac). Is the letter qaf transliterated as k in French?

[ChairmanSanchez]

4

[Senator Snowstalker]

Iraq really should have been split into 3 countries. Blame the British and French for drawing random borders.

[dead0man]

It still should be broken up into three countries, but it's neighbors and I think the non-Kurdish Sunnis in the middle have less oil than the other two regions and feel they'd get screwed in the split (not that they wouldn't deserve it since they've been the ones enjoying the oil money while sh**tting on the other two groups for the last half a century).  What's for the best doesn't always get done if people with a little bit of power feel like they might get slighted a little in the process.

[Cory]

If there was a Libya type situation in Iraq I don't think the West would miss out on a golden opportunity to defeat one their primary adversaries in the region. So yeah, I voted that it would be like Libya.

[Californian Tony]

Why is it spelled Irak in French? It seems odd, seeing as that k isn't a French letter (if it were fully Gallicized, it would be Irac). Is the letter qaf transliterated as k in French?

I honestly have no idea. Iraq would make more sense, indeed.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Why is it spelled Irak in French? It seems odd, seeing as that k isn't a French letter (if it were fully Gallicized, it would be Irac). Is the letter qaf transliterated as k in French?

I honestly have no idea. Iraq would make more sense, indeed.

I don't know about French, but in Polish it's "Irak" too, although under a proper scholarly transliteration qaf would stay. But, heh, the same should go for Qaddafi, who was "Kadafi" in Polish.

More I'm studying Arabic, the more I'm annoyed with bastardisations.

[London Man]

If Iraq had not been invaded and we'd instead concentrated on doing the job right in Afghanistan, there would be sufficient butterflies that the Arab Spring happening on schedule would have been unlikely.  It may have happened earlier or later, but our presence in Iraq definitely affected when an Arab Spring could have taken place.  it certainly affected the outcomes elsewhere.  The intervention in Libya would have at a minimum taken place without the approval of the Security Council, as I suspect Gaddafi would have remained a useful semi-pariah for the Russians as he would not have taken the steps he did to avoid becoming the next dictator subjected to an Iraqi-style intervention.

I agree - many of the states were the Arab Spring took place were propped up by the US and if it hadn't been for Iraq, the US would have been more popular.

[Vosem]

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.

[Californian Tony]

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 ?

[dead0man]

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.

[Χahar]

Why is it spelled Irak in French? It seems odd, seeing as that k isn't a French letter (if it were fully Gallicized, it would be Irac). Is the letter qaf transliterated as k in French?

I honestly have no idea. Iraq would make more sense, indeed.

I don't know about French, but in Polish it's "Irak" too, although under a proper scholarly transliteration qaf would stay. But, heh, the same should go for Qaddafi, who was "Kadafi" in Polish.

More I'm studying Arabic, the more I'm annoyed with bastardisations.

Of course, Polish uses the letter k, so that makes sense. French doesn't.

[Vosem]

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).

[London Man]

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).

It would be harder to get rid of Assad than Gaddafi - better military for a start.

[Californian Tony]

OK, I stand corrected.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

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.

Iraq is much bigger than Libya in terms of population. Gaddafi didn't have Kurds and was not involved in a lenghty war with Iran. If you placed Muammar in helm of Iraq, things would be either the same or even worse, considering that Gaddafi was far more deluded than Saddam.

[dead0man]

and?

[© Tweed the Younger]

if the US hadn't pushed for sanctions in the 90s and 00s then he very possibly would have faced serious trouble.  but God knows, counterfactuals are largely useless.

[Californian Tony]

if the US hadn't pushed for sanctions in the 90s and 00s then he very possibly would have faced serious trouble.  but God knows, counterfactuals are largely useless.

But they're fun.