Ah, the ingenious 'if you're not with us, you're against us' argument.
No, I despised Saddam Hussein as well. He too was a killer, kidnapper and a torturer. But is a warmonger and mass murderer any less evil for the existence of another of his ilk? People are not absolved of their crimes simply because others have committed comparable ones. The reason I didn't mention him here was because, guess what?
This thread had nothing to do with him.
No one will know if the world is better off now or under Hussein? Seems like a paltry, pathetic excuse for the anarchy which has reigned in Iraq since the commencement of the war.
For all Saddam Hussein's vicious tyranny, at least the country was stable. People could go to school, get jobs, lead relatively normal lives as long as they kept their heads down and did nothing to upset the powers that be. Prior to the invasion, Saddam had not attacked any of his population on a large scale in some time. Over the last 5 years in Iraq, every day life has been utter chaos and anarchy. When a 7/7, a Madrid or Bali bombing occurs every single day, when there are militias running around starting gun battles every other week, when US soldiers are dragging people off for ritual humiliation and torture, just how much of a normal life can people experience? So, are Iraqis happy that Saddam is gone? Definitely. Are Iraqis happy with what they have today? Clearly, no. One horror has been substituted for another.
And what does it mean in terms of terrorism? Well, only a complete idiot could think the West is safer now than it was in 2003. Where once Arab nationalists and Islamic terrorists had an antagonistic relationship (which is why al-Qaeda's supposed alliance with Saddam was so ludicrous), the Iraq War has produced an unholy amalgam of the two. Those who were not radical, now feel they have ample reason to blow themselves up and indiscriminately kill as many as possible in the process.
By the way, I don't identify myself as a liberal at all, if by that you mean my views are somehow in consonance with your Democrats in the States (liberal means something quite different in Europe). I don't like Bill Clinton. I don't like Hillary. I've heard things in Obama's rhetoric which I find chillingly reminiscent of Clinton and Blair, so I am very, very wary of him too. He was better than any of the alternatives, but that's not saying much.
