Is world better without Saddam?

[abaris]

Before I respond, I want to point out that this is precisely what I commented upon posts ago.  What a convenient world for a despot, were the indirect threats he can leverage against his population are seen as valid and compelling to us.  "If you get rid of me, even more people will die".  Oh, you're -absolutely right-...continue being a despot, with our blessing.  

In a perfect world, you would have a point. But as I said earlier, that's not how it works. If no political or economical interests are involved, dictators can do just that. In fact, if they lick Western boot, they are encouraged and praised by the West. Best example, Ruanda, where nobody gave half a shit about what was happening there, with over a million casualties. Another example, as far as praising is concerned, Saudi Arabia. Much worse than Iran, as far as civil liberties, democracy and women's rights go. But still, one of our bestest friends, as Forrest Gump would put it.

So, the only logical argument that follows is, if you are removing any given dictator, please, at least have a plan for the aftermath or at the very least, inform yourselves on the situation at hand. Don't make it worse. And that, inn the case of Saddam, has been predicted. By experts, as well as by me, right before the war started. I did so on fearbush.com, back in early 2003. It was that obvious, that it didn't even escape my notice, although I only had a fleeting knowledge of the region and it's problems. Turned out, I was right, but I certainly don't take credit for that, since everyone with half a brain and the will to inform themselves could only come to the same conclusion.