Quote:
Originally Posted by sclitheroe
I’m amazed that anyone would claim Saddam was good for stablity in the region though - when he wasn’t using poison gas on his country’s citizens, what about launching ballistic missiles at their nuclear capable neighbors? How did that enhance security in the middle east?
|
Everyone is welcome to their perspective/viewpoint, sure.
I don't want facts to get in the way, but I just want to point out that....
The guy gassed the Kurds in 1988. (25 years before Iraqi Freedom)
The last war Iraq fought was in 1993. (22 years before Iraqi Freedom)
The last missiles fired into Israel was in 1993. (22 years before Iraqi Freedom)
Post Gulf War, the guy was a regional nuisance at best. Yes, he was torturing enemies and doing all the things that dictators/autocrats tend to do, but in doing so had alienated himself from the region and had very little influence at all.
As for whether removing Hussein has been beneficial......
Over the course of his reign (1979-2003), about 300,000 people are known/suspected to have been killed. That's half the number attributed to the Iraqi War by the Lancet Survery 2006 (650,000) and nowhere near the number of 1,000,000+ (look at all those zeros!) suggested by ORB in 2008. And that 100%-350% increase only took 5 years!
So now that the death toll has risen, the country has minimal infrastructure, and at least one generation of civilians is fervently anti-west, we're in a much better shape for regional and worldwide stability than if that madman Hussein had stayed in power.