bcglorf wrote:I think it still warrants a hurray when the world is relieved of another genocidal monster. Doesn't seem to me that the right response is to attack the ones that got rid of him solely because there are still others that deserve the same.Skipjack wrote:I dont think anyone doubts that. There are many such dictators all over the world though. Many stay in their positions for a long time. Saddam was there while he fulfilled a purpose. When that was gone, so was he.Do you really consider there to be a shadow of a doubt that Saddam wasn't guilty on multiple accounts of genocide and other crimes against humanity?
It has nothing to do with whether or not Saddam Hussein was a genocidal monster. It has to do with whether or not he was able and willing to export misery to us. U.S. Had Saddam been able to make Atomic bombs in onesies or twosies, his only target of significance was Israel.
Recall. Saddam pictured his self as the modern day Saladin. His erotic dream was to unite the Arab nations under his banner. His most obvious method for accomplishing this was to perform (or threaten) a Nuclear strike on Israel. (what else can you do with one or two bombs?)
The possibility that Saddam would plunge the world into a massive war is what warranted taking action against him.
Currently, it appears that Saddam was running a bluff. Unfortunately for him, his major enemies (US) believed his ruse more than his Minor enemies. (Iran.)