Minnemooseus:
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?
Surely you realize this is still terribly vague. For this question to make enough sense for anyone to discuss it in a practical way, more clarity is required about the kind of regime you propose. Specifically, what do you mean by 'bad, but not very bad'? What do you mean by 'function'?
Can you give us a picture of this? Just a few details. A sketch.
'Function,' for example. You suggest it means the absence of civil wars. Does it also mean the absence of genocide? Or is genocide OK as long as the face on the money stays the same?
And 'bad, but not very bad.' Does that mean shots to the head instead of prolonged torture? Labor camps instead of dungeons? Mental hospitals instead of labor camps?
The Iraqis need someone 'bad' like Saddam Hussein, you say, but not 'very bad' like Saddam Huseein. Would that be someone more like Pinochet? Mao? Miloevi? Stalin? Pol Pot?
Do they need someone more like Baby Doc? Than Shwe? Mussolini? Castro? Amin?
How about Kim Jong-il? Is the North Korean model of functionality on the table?
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Archer
All species are transitional.