We shouldn't just be asking if Iraq would be better off under Saddam than it is now

[mtnsnake]

We should be asking if the entire world would be better off if Bush hadn't gone into Iraq and removed Saddam by force, opening a can of worms that completely destabilized an area of the world that was already unstable enough, leading to countries like Iran now getting involved and who knows else who will become involved before this one is all over.

Bush has opened a can of worms of the likes that the world rarely gets to witness. Because of Bush, this particular can of worms may not be closed for years now, maybe even decades...if at all....regardless of whether our troops are still over there or not. Bush created a situation that can't possibly get better, so what's he do? He makes it even worse by adding more fuel to the fire. Bush is a world class fool.

[ClintonTyree]

1. Many, probably a majority.....

of Iraqis would agree with that statement. At least they had electricity and potable water then and they KNEW what to expect. Now..... :shrug: The entire country is in flames and death is more commonplace than under Saddam.

[mtnsnake]

2. Yes. However, my point is that Bush made the entire world a more dangerous place

by taking out Saddam by force. Not only did he make the Iraqis worse off than ever, but he made the entire world worse off with his faux-cowboy antics, all of which backfired.

[DuaneBidoux]

3. This is exactly the correct way to think about it:

The total picture before Saddam was deposed: Iraq as it was, plus the region as it was, plus the rest of the world as it was VS. The totality of everything as it is now.

If that is the measure there is no question that virtually everything was better before than now.