Is world better without Saddam?

[Excited Penguin]

That is a laughably false analogy.

I'll admit that it's somewhat flawed (all analogies are), but I don't think it qualifies as 'false'.  The point is whether or not you can punish an actor (either a State or an individual) for crimes not yet committed.   Hussein was a thug and a brute, no possible doubt, but the fact, as real as a fist in the face, was that he hadn't committed an act of war against the US or its allies or even its interests.  The first Gulf War, the one based on the invasion of Kuwait, was different.  He had committed an act of war and got his arse handed to him for his troubles.  But none - absolutely NONE - of the reasons given for the sequel either panned out or justified that war.  It was a war of political economics and expediency, and the nightmare situation today in the Middle East is the direct result.  The steaming great hypocrisy of the US justifying the war by saying that Hussein was an existential threat is utterly laughable and morally repugnant.  The three real reasons that Saddam was attacked were:  1)  The US desperately needed something to bomb after 9/11;  2)  Attacking Iraq was politically more expedient than attacking North Korea; and 3)  I won't come right out and say it, but here's a hint:  It rhymes with 'fetroleum'.

But back to the analogy:  Saddam was attacked and deposed based on what he might have done.  This is directly analogous to an individual being incarcerated or executed for a crime they might eventually commit.

Boru

I don't claim to be informed on the subject. But if there was reason to suspect any nuclear foul play, you can't compare that with anything. Clearly, something has to be done in that case, whether it's spying, limiting resources, and so on. When we're talking about the possibility of developing nuclear warfare we're not even close to talking about crime and punishment, we're talking about the survival of the human race.