There's still a lot of argument on that. Personally I think it's a good thing we didn't take him out.
We either let the region rebuild it (Iran, Syria, Saudi) or we do. The President lost in 92, guess who comes in during rebuilding.
That's right. The reason Balkans is so messed up, worse than Iraq it seems, (now there's a real quagmire), is because we were so uniformly one sided it's embarrassing. See how the PResident, our military, and the Iraqis do it? Anyone who steps out of line gets a uniform @$$whupping. Shia, SUnni, Kurd, other than IRaqi, doesn't matter. That's what we should have done there. But NOOO Serbs bad. Serbs must be punished because we are too lazy to actually find other scumbags on the Croat, ALbanian, and Bosnian side.
IF we are going to rebuild and Bush the elder was the one in the White House in 93, we should have taken Saddam. Otherwise, all betts are off.
I can see the toon now, backing up the Shia as a majority while, telling the others to screw off, and letting the whole of Iraq devolves into civil war.
Of course there'd be a news black out from the Monica wannabes in the DEMONcrap ministry of information and propaganda.
We had the entire Iraqi Army in the field during the first war. We could have wiped them out and then had no resistance whatsoever.
Instead in Gulf War 2 we didn't fight the Iraqi Army, we just went into Baghdad and told them all to go home.
The number of troops we had in the first Gulf War was also more then enough to provide security in a country the size of Iraq. The number of troops in the second Gulf War was about half the number needed.