I have a pretty controversial viewpoint, and let me first say, I never supported the Iraq War. I strongly support, and still to this day, support the war in Afghanistan; Osama should've been our main target.

So, here's what I think:
I feel we should've left Saddam Hussein in power. I also don't think, in the scheme of things, that he was a terrible, evil person ala Hitler as the media tried to suggest he was in the build up to Iraq. Why, some of you may ask, why she we have left a vicious dictator in power? I'll list a few basic reasons why I feel this way:

1) We work on a daily basis with quite a few other ''dictatorships'' who oppress and mistreat their people--China for one. If we're really so against dictatorships and we want to free oppressed people, what's stopping us from going after China? North Korea? Fear, and because they have nukes. We're like the bully is too afraid to fight the big kids and so picks on the little guy whose too weak to really defend himself. We're fine with dictators as long as we can't get our as*es kicked or if they work the way we want them to.

2) Saddam never had any connection with Al Queda, or 9/11 much less supported them. Hussein and bin Laden had totally divurgent political views. Hussein was a secular leader, who tried to make Iraq a modern secular nation, free of the influence of Sharia Law. Hussein wasn't very religious, and only used the word "Allah" when it suited him politically; whereas bin Laden was a religious fundamentalist who felt Sharia Law, and the Koran should be followed to the letter, and should be used as the guidlines which the world should follow. bin Laden, also, unlike Hussein, detested the US for our involvement in the Middle East, whereas Saddam at first (for the first 23 years of his reign) welcomed our involvement and support.

3) Saddam, if used correctly, I believe could've been a trustworthy form of eyes and ears in the Middle East. Perhaps we could've even used him against Al Quaida. We were a staunch supporter of his until 1990, and the only reason why we went against him then was because Kuwait was an oil rich nation and we felt it might be a danger to us economically. I don't think it would've, personally. I think if we had let him take Kuwait, and still supported him economically as we had for the past 20 years, he wouldn't have used oil against us.

4) His Iraq was one of the few secular, progressive nations in the region. Did his regime have a dark side, yes. But, his was one of the few Muslim nations which abolished Sharia Law. He also was the first leader of Iraq who supported women's education; women were also offered high level jobs, and sought to iradicate illiteracy in his country. The government under Saddam also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East. He also helped Iraq raise from a nation of country dwelling farmers to an industrialized regional power. He did also support torture of enemies yes, but at this point so do we (we meaning the US), or at least we have for the last 5 or 6 years now. So I don't think us as Americans can claim to have a higher moral ground in the torture department any more.

Also--Some have claimed that Saddam supported the horrible things his son did, the rapes etc. Maybe the sources I've read are wrong, but I read that by the time of his death, Saddam's son Qusay had been estranged for years from his father, who felt his actions such as the rapes, kidnappings etc were ''extreme'' and ''out of control.''

There's other reasons, but those are the main reasons for now...Feel free to disagree.

I actually thought they'd just get Saddam and Sons out of power and then pull everyone out instead of it being an Occupation.  Silly me.

In retrospect, leaving Saddam in power would've saved us a ton of money :P

...and lives of soldiers too, that's important.

4) His Iraq was one of the few secular, progressive nations in the region.

Secular, yes... but progressive?  Not exactly.  Trustworthy??? 'nuf said.

And even that secularity was waning as Saddam tried to court popularity with Muslims.

Yet, apart from that, by and large you're right: we, the West (I include the UK in this, even though the overwhelming majority were against the war in Iraq.. we still voted Blair back in again afterwards), had no right and no real cause to invade a sovereign state.  Always seemed like Bush & co had their own agenda, and Blair got suckered into supporting what was a ridiculously weak rationale for a war that has cost a huge number of lives.


I actually thought they'd just get Saddam and Sons out of power and then pull everyone out instead of it being an Occupation.  Silly me.

In retrospect, leaving Saddam in power would've saved us a ton of money :P

Hell, if they didn't have a clue what they were going to do after the invasion, how on earth were you supposed to know?

China is not really a dictatorship.  It is run by a one-party system.  If any one guy in that party gets "too big for his britches" they give him the hook.  My opinion... Chairman Mao was the last dictator in modern China.

As to knocking down dictatorships, what's the point?  If a dictator is not acting against the interests of the USA, why do we care?  USA should not be the world's policeman.  We should only use our power to protect our interests.

China is not really a dictatorship.  It is run by a one-party system.  If any one guy in that party gets "too big for his britches" they give him the hook.  My opinion... Chairman Mao was the last dictator in modern China.

As to knocking down dictatorships, what's the point?  If a dictator is not acting against the interests of the USA, why do we care?  USA should not be the world's policeman.  We should only use our power to protect our interests.


But the question is whether Saddam was really acting against our interests.  I don't think he was.  He was just basically oppressing his people.  We had him contained.

Hell, if they didn't have a clue what they were going to do after the invasion, how on earth were you supposed to know?


Touche.