Insofar as America’s national security was concerned Saddam’s regime was far better than what’s there now. Yes, he kept things in line by fear, intimidation and murder. Like it or not, that’s how those people are ruled. Are you going to try to make the case Maliki’s government is any better? Have you studied the plight of religious minorities in Iraq in recent years? Christians were far better off when the Ba’ath party was in power.
I’m not making a case for Saddam, Mubarak, Maliki, Gaddafi, or any of the other despots who used to rule the various nations in the Middle East. I do not applaud their tactics nor their (former) regimes, regardless of how people fared then vs now.
I am WELL aware of how the various Christian sects have been treated in recent years, as I’ve been to certain areas to see it first-hand. And regardless if it was “better” or “worse” under a despot than it is now, my point is still the same:
Saddam Hussein is not to be praised for being a “good guy.” To another poster’s comment, NO, his genocidal actions are not to be tolerated in the interest of what you term as “global stability”. You ignore that, you become complacent with his brand of evil. You think his actions were acceptable? I do not. You are free to disagree with me if you like. He wasn’t stable to begin with, by the by.