Are you using some different definition of “stable”? SH was in power ~30 years. Also, aiding goverments which enforce stability through brutality has a prominent history in western foreign policy. These are more fact than opinion, you disagree?
At first glance, I thought you were just spewing an idiocy for the sake of painting me as a Saddam-lovin’ hater of humanity. But then I thought a bit more about your stupid little strawman, and I realized that there’s quite a bit of truth in it.
-
Saddam should have been left in place, at least by the U.S. and the U.K. It’s patently obvious that the guy posed no threat whatsoever to us. In light of that fact, Saddam should have been left to the Iraqi people, just as other homicidal dictators have been–and will continue to be–left to their own people to deal with.
-
The sanctions should have been lifted, at least to the extent that the sanctions did not implicate Saddam’s weapons programs . Make 'em smart sanctions, as Colin Powell was advocating before 9/11 gave Georgie Boy the excuse he was looking for.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but to hell with the Iraqi people. I’m interested in whether we are better off with the pre-invasion status quo or with the current and future boondoggle.
I actually went back in the archives to see what the people so gung-ho about removing Saddam now had to say about the American involvement in the former Yugoslavia under Clinton, but some kind of software glitch removed all the names from the posts, so I have no clue who felt what…
Totally blew my back-up for a trenchant observation out of the water.
I’m bummed… 