I'm not denying that Saddam was a very bad person. The question is, does Iraq need a "bad" (but not "very bad") person in order to function?
It's rather obvious (to me anyway) that some kind of repressive government is needed in Iraq now to stop the bloodshed.
It is also rather obvious (to me anyway) that the US had replaced Saddam as the current repressive government, but that it is losing what control it was able to exert. The country is now being divided up into fiefdoms whether the Botch administration realizes it or not, and I don't think we can do anything to stop that.
Is Iraq now looking at decades of civil war, perhaps until a neo-Saddam finally takes charge?
Or several mini-Saddams under a loose umbrella facade of a national government. A government of mutualism by thugs.
The same thing is happening in Afghanistan. And it was such an opportunity. If the US had stayed in Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq, set up an international provisional support system through the UN to provide services (security, education, roads, water, electricity, justice, etc) to transition to full local control over 20 years, they could have used it as a base to go after Al Queda -- as international criminals and to pressure other countries in the area to follow a program of reforms (instead of using them for black-ops 'renderings'?), it could have been a positive influence on the whole area, with the full international backing that we had going in to Afghanistan.
To me, it is telling of the incompetence of the Botch Administration that they HAD in Afghanistan what they THOUGHT they would get in Iraq - and didn't know it.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.