Hooray!
Al-Qaeda would not have been fighting (much) in Iraq if Saddam had remained. Rights, democracy; these are important, but at what cost?
And should they be arbitrarily imposed upon populaces who may never otherwise achieve it, even at great cost?
That is a question I don't have the answer to.
I would rather have a democracy in Iraq and the hope of it spreading then having that Socialist dictator. The human cost was very high (and in fact it could of been lower if Bush listen to the English advice of more troops and keeping the Iraqi army in place). But like i said; I would have a democratic Iraq then Saddam's Iraq. At least the men and women can choose their own future now.
Forgive me, but what has socialism got to do with it? Wouldn't a better argument against Hussein be that he was a war criminal?
Saddam was the leader of the Ba'ath party. Which believed in "Arab socialism". Not a jab at all socialist.
Arab Socialism == National Socialism != socialist
Hussein was essentially a fascist, not a socialist. Believe it or not, there is a clear and distinct difference.
"War criminal" and "socialist" are interchangable words. 206.74.178.104 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)