You mean someone like Saddam in the 1980's? Well, you support the idea of the tyrannical rulers!
F14 Pilot:
I agree. He describes Saddam Hussein in an earlier incarnation. Hussein did manage to bring much more technological advancement to Iraq than was typical in the Arab world. He also happened to be quite evil. The lesser of evils at the time was the thinking (and AFAIK, we didn't provide what little support we did until after the Shah was deposed and Iran went radical), but obviously U.S. long-term planning either wasn't implemented correctly or wasn't well-planned in the first place.
Tom Jefferson:
I understand your frustration, but as F14 Pilot pointed out, it's been tried, and look at what we've had to deal with as a result. The problem with dictator strong-men is that they rarely remain anyone's. Their maniacal ego prevents them from remaining helpful pawns long. Sooner or later they figure they are meant for greater things, and decide to prove it to anyone who doesn't cower before them. Using them is a very short-term option at best.
No, Iraq would truly be better off, for them and for us, as a functioning democracy/republic/free-country, whatever you want to call it. I believe that is possible. Despite what the leftist press would have you believe, there are significant numbers of Iraqis with the will to do this, as soon as they can overcome their fear. Whether it will happen within Americans' and Europeans' short attention spans, that's another story.