If Ba'athism had succeeded back in the day and the Arab

>>2207783
Baathism was a mistake that replaced the more kingdoms through violent revolutions. Notice how Jordan for example didn't have a Baath ruler and they don't have a collapsing country right now.

>>2207791
*more stable kingdoms

>>2207783
>Israel and America would exist today
But anon... Israel and America do exist today.

>>2207791
A lot of is just geopolitics. Syria, Iraq and Libya (I know Ghaddafi wasn't a Baathist but he falls under Arab National Socialism) would be kicking if not for the USA.

>>2207798
That's funny because Ghaddafi and Saddam would never be in power if it wasn't for Americans financing their coups. It's only poetic justice that they got deposed by the Americans as well.

>>2207805
Nah the 1963 coup was American backed, sure, but the 1968 one which brought Saddam to power sure wasn't.

>>2207805
The same could be said for most middle eastern nations.

>>2207816
Imagine if I gave you a toy and then some time later I would take it away and you would be whining that if it wasn't for me you would have a toy. It's retarded. Middle East should go back to traditional monarchism instead of islamist Mossad agents and crypto-communist dictators.

>>2207791
Jordan is stable because it's a puppet government of the British. If the Iraq, Egypt, and Libya kingdoms were as stable as you say (they weren't), there wouldn't have been the revolutions in the first place. People don't respond well to a rich monarchy giving 95% of your countries oil to another country.

>>2207839
Sounds reactionary.

>>2207844
So?