saddam was a nasty. but he was a stabilizing force in the region. people seem to confuse stabilizing with good. they have nothing to do with each other.
saddam was stabilizing because he had such tight control of the people and because he was not interested in the crap the other countries in the area had to dish out. he kept iran in check. he helped keep their actions in syria down and by that their actions in lebanon.
i'm the first to denounce his actions within his borders... but he did help keep the region controlled.
and that's why pliny the elder left him there. because he had sound theory behind his foreign policy. sometimes it's not expedient to do the right thing. of course. how pliny the younger did it wasn't right or expedient and is resulting in as much ethnic cleansing as he ended. not to mention the fact that turkey is now attacking the kurds. iran is all up in iraq's shit, and everywhere else at that. see what i mean? stabilizing.
if we had worked with these various countries diplomatically to help ensure that the action in iraq went smoothly on the edges, we'd be having fewer problems. but they know we're weak.
™ Version 4.2
