Reply #4: Playing with words [View All]

[Canuckistanian]

The question asked was, "Do you think the world is better off with Saddam out of power", which is a loaded and misleading question to begin with.

Now, some Democrats, answering the question would assume that the question meant "Was it a good idea to attack and depose Saddam Hussein", so they'll vote no. Or at least some 40% took it that way.

Looking at it realistically, having Saddam IN power was better for the world in general. Why? Because he kept his own radicals under control and because of the sanctions and the bombing of his weapons facilities, he was not able to attack any other countries. And his power was actually weakening day by day.

Thus, to the world in general, he was no threat. Tough luck for the average Iraqi citizen, but no problem for the rest of the world.

And not even his neighbors considered him a threat either. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Turkey and Iran refused to get involved in the fighting. They had no problem with Saddam. At least not with any major security issues.

So, was the world better with Saddam in power? I'd have to say, on balance, yes.