I guess even she can't be amusing about this sad subject.
Dan
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
is to put the Sunni's back into control, tell them we just had a beef with Saddam, and get out of there. It would keep balance in the region. The way we are doing this right now, the Shia will gain control, put down dissent from the Sunni, and then ally with Iranian hardliners, which will keep that area in an Islamic Dark Age for even more years.
Hi, James.
The problem with your solution is that it's undemocratic, and would doubtless lead to a bloody civil war that the Shiites would eventually win. We (though not the Iraqi people) were frankly better off with Saddam keeping a lid on things.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
First he invaded another country we have friendly relations with, and one that is pivotal in the oil cartel. Second he committed atrocities using weapons of mass destruction, such as the gas bomb attacks on villages, which then ended up in newspapers and magazines across the world. Third he deliberately led everyone to believe he continued to harbor weapons of mass destruction, even if he didn't actually have any remaining. Saddam sealed his own fate but overplaying his hand, trying to appear more powerful and more menacing than he was at the time. He wanted to instill a respect of Iraq based on fear, and forgot that people kill that which they fear when they have the chance to do so. Saddam had to go, but the alternatives don't look much better.