That logic cant stand. You cant have a necessary evil that isnt a staunch ally in the region.


That argument woyld make sense if after 9 11 he was offering intell on radical elements, pledging not to harbor terrorists and complying with un inspections. Then the argument could be made that his behavior in country was a necessary evil.


Instead what u had was a suni state actor who had proven he was a.) a sociopath b.) would use chemical weapons and c.) wouldnt comply with non proliferation.


This romantacizing of sadaam is revisionism. He freely admitted that he had no intent of complying with the un, hadnt followed all directives would pursue nuclear wrapons and had already threatened the stability of the petro dollar which is part of why this green stuff in our pockets has value and the effects of which could be devastating.


Security in that region does take a strong hand nut history has proven that outsourcing that security to satan doesnt work out in the long run.

---