I was always of that opinion. I was of that opinion back in 1986, when we were sending troops to aid the illegal campaign by the Iraqi and Kuwaiti govts to sink civilian shipping (the so-called "tanker war.") Kuwait was Iraq's ally, then, of course. So was the US, and the British govt was giving them special aid to build a chemical facility ...
If you are of that belief you should therefore be in favor of restoring Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq and letting mass graves continue.
But why do you think that any new government that we install is going to be any better? Do you think that the violence of war is likely to democratise Iraqi society. Or that the people who supported Sadaam for so many years are "good pickers" of govt leaders? There are no proposals for a peaceful govt in Iraq, and Daniel Pipes is already suggesting that the country be handed over to a "strong-man" figure for a "transition" period.
Ok, either the people get a new leader, or they get Saddam Hussein. The same was with Hitler and also in Japan. The people in Japan were bass akwards. 10 years after the war they were a growing nation. The same with Germany. After a ruthless leader was overthrown, along with the cities destroyed from years of war, a new government was installed. It worked. And yes, I do believe that the people of Iraq are better off now than when they were under Hussein. Even without the government set up, they are better off.
As for helping Iraq/Iran in the 1980's, there's a lot of cold war issues involved that most people don't realize. You pick the lesser of the two evils in that bout. Keep in mind the Soviets were just next door in Afghanistan. That played a HUGE role in what we were doing over there.
I doubt you can argue the point that the Nazi's were less radical than the Islamocrazies, or the Japanese were less suicidal?