re: #343 Charles

It always amazes me when people like Uygur try to argue that Sadam Hussein was no threat. This is the dictator who got within months of having a working nuclear reactor online, generating enriched uranium.

Did we find WMDs in Iraq? Obviously, the answer is no. Was Saddam Hussein a brutal murderer who would continue to be a threat to the Middle East and the world? Obviously, the answer is yes.

The world is better off without Saddam in it, despite the messy consequences of our invasion of Iraq.

I don’t disagree that he is not missed but I think there is, perhaps, a critical misread of the modern middle eastern history. I submit that Saddam was our best friend in the region prior to 1991.

1) Saddam was a secularist. He viewed himself as a modern day Salladin. He crushed Islamic extremists in his own country with brutality. In fact, he is the only leader in the region who completely controlled Islamic extremists in his own country. The leaders we support don’t crush extremists, they buy them off by paying for madrassas in Pakistan.

2) Saddam was a valuable check against Iran. Saddam loathed everything the Iranians stand for and fought an eight year war against them. While war is bad and his tactics were horrible. From a cold, hard strategic perspective, we were on the same side re: Iran.

3) Saddam had no historical grievance with Israel and only began supporting Palestinian causes after he was beaten in 1991 as a way to tick off the west. He shared no ideological kinship with Hamas or Hezbollah.

4) Every leader in that region is despicable and supports draconian and reprehensible policies. Bar none. Since we had to back one of them, why not Saddam?