Is the world better off with Saddam gone and if so why/how?

[Bandit]

There was no killing going on and no war in Iraq. Saddam was growing weaker every day. Sanctions were in place and over two thirds of his country was a no fly zone patroled by US war planes. Women were treated in the same fashion as they are in the west. There was no religious domination and the Iraqi people were actually living in peace. Saddam had no WMDs so was in no way a threat to the United States or any other country for that matter. They keep repeating the sound bite that the world is better off without Saddam but from all I can tell things are way worse now. People are being beheaded on National TV. Civil War is breaking out across Iraq and Fear is becoming the norm in most mideast countries. Turkey is hardly an ally anymore, Iran is trying to aquire Nukes as quickly as possible and North Korea already has them which they aquired during the Bush* Administration. I am not sure I believe the world is at all better off today than it was before we attacked Iraq. If that is the reason to attack a country then look out Korea and Iran.

[Jacobin]

1. Ask the Iraqis

Would be interesting to see that poll. I suspect he would be more popular than he was before the invasion.

[Born Free]

4. not worth it

sorry, when you add up all the lost lives, all the lost limbs all ther lives destroyed just to get a tyrant in jail just doesn't seeem worth it to me. I would not trade one innocent life for the tyrant, especially when he was contained and growing weaker every day.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. This is all true. As with all things chimp, it takes a little while

for what guy does to fail. It was only a matter of time before this "triumph" was turned into tragedy.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

3. The point is, perhaps...

The political entity known as "Iraq", a British fabrication designed (like the borders of Africa) for permanent instability, must either have its Saddam or be dissolved. Anyone who takes control of the country will be, for all intents and purposes, Saddam Hussein. In fact, we are doing what Saddam did, and doing worse--killing more people faster without fostering the stability of his regime.

At this point only an independent Kurdistan with Turkey freely ceding land could stabilize the region and allow any possibility of democratization ANYWHERE (it will never happen for all of Iraq, but the Kurds might pull it off). Guess what? Turkey's never giving up that land. So the choice is between war without end and dictatorship a la Hussein.

Also--hundreds of billions of dollars to kill a 65 year old overweight male smoker? If only we had insurance men instead of oilmen running the government! A "natural" succession would likely have ended with more progressive officers taking over after offing those crazy sons--the beginning of a sort of mini-glasnost. Those officers are dead or rotting in US prisons now.

We should have just waited for the old fuck to die.