Who thinks...

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

OK, pjmyjr, I hear yah and I agree with you completely. The only question is: Is Hussein or anarchy better? Hussein was a tyrant, but that kind of dictator was the only thing that kept those people under control over there. I didn't like him and thought he was extremely cruel, but it worked. He kept the country together. Anarchy has torn that country apart. It can't and won't be stabilized again until another powerful dictator, who will have to be firm and cruel, like Hussein, takes over. Who knows? This new dictator might be worse than Hussein. Then what? Are we going to go to war all over again?

An important note is that their have been many mass murders and genocide attacks in other countries over the years. Why hasn't the U.S. tried to liberate those people?

he kept the country together?? i can't believe that mass genocide, torture and the like are excusable for any reason...is anarchy better? no. they're both evil, and hopefully both will eventually be no more.

the only reason i think that we should have left him in there is to keep iran at bay. the power vacuum so many feared, the real reason we didn't go into iraq in the first gulf war, is now a reality....and iran is reaping what we sowed.