|You have posted a very interesting thesis. The points you glossed over include the fact that Iraq was hated in the region; he had a history of attacking neighbors. He had public record of murdering his own citizens for political purposes. He was actively exporting terrorism (unless some leftwingnut can explain what else you would call paying $50,000 each to the families of cowardly Palestinian homicide bombers).|
The fact that they had Saddam on WMD violations galore just made the liberation of Iraq that much easier. The coalition of the bribed and coerced tried hard to prevent the UN resolutions from being enforced, but ultimately failed because of the resolve of Cowboy President Bush.
You are probably correct that President Bush decided that he could do more good towards reducing terrorism by removing a despot from power. A vibrant Democracy in the Middle East would draw people and financial resources from surrounding countries. If people in the Middle East could see what success from self sufficiency is like, they will want and demand freedom themselves.
I read this week that many Methodist retired Bishops and a few active ones came out stating they wished that the activities in Saddam's rape rooms had never been interrupted. Was the message that rape, mutilation, and murder are Methodist values to be honored and upheld? If the Methodists who made this a point are offended at my post, they are no more offended than I am at their statements of support for Saddam.
The fact is that more people would most likely be dead in Iraq if Saddam were still in power, it just would have been freedom loving people and those willing to fight tyranny rather than despots and supporters of tyranny.