he would have snuffed it out but at what cost? He snuffed out anyone who raised the slightest dissent. Killing quarter of a million Kurds for instance. There is nothing to admire about it
You could snuff it out by nuking a few countries in the Middle East. Is any solution acceptable?
I think we probably need to establish that this Saddam admiration cult is actually the product of your imagination. I don't think there's a great deal to admire about Saddam, only that you were faced with a series of sub-optimal choices, none of which were particularly edifying. The decision to deal with Saddam would have been the correct strategic choice on all sorts of different levels though. Indeed, it was the decision that George H Bush took when he decided not to puruse him in Baghdad circa 1991. He'd also vetoed Democrat moves to impose sanctions on him in 1988, but I doubt you'd describe Bush (41) as an admirer would you? It was only Bush (43) who reversed this decision which such catastrophic consequences. Now we have to deal with a spreading threat of IS instead. Only a real moron (and I do count Bush (43) in that category) could think this has been result. He wouldn't have committed 250,000 troops in Iraq unecessarily either.
In terms of killing Kurds, you need to remember they were beligerents in war. I won't go so far as to call them fair game, but there are plenty of examples from history of exactly the same thing happening. Indeed, one particularly striking paralell occurs between France and Scotland with the signing of the 'auld alliance'. You had a restive group of people allied and supporting England's enemy, France. The Scots were required by treaty to attack the English were the English engaged in war with France. When the French and English signed the 'treaty of perpetual peace and friendship' the English turned on the Scots with devastating effect (luckily for Scotland Edward I ultimately died and was replaced by an incompetant). It's pretty well the same thing. The kurds were allied with Iran and actively supporting them. Can I ask you what you'd have done under these circumstances? and especially when you had weapons at your disposal to bring about a relatively painless (for you) solution, rather than undertaking a very high risk strategy of sending people into a mountainous border region to pacify a beligerent
I think you can argue that Saddam's use of chemical weapons was indiscriminate and undoubtedly killed plenty of non-combatant civilians. This is true, but then it's hardly unique in warfare. America's use of atom bombs over Japan wasn't that discriminating either, any more than any aerial bombardment normally is. War is messy, real people get killed unjustly. I'm afraid that's just the way it is. It's horrible
You can play body count numbers too. Since 2003 the IBC have been documenting incidents of civilian deaths resulting from American/ Coalition activity. It's not massively different to what Saddam accounted for once you average them out over time served
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
IBC totals are normally felt to under estimate the figure and lag the Iraq government accounts. IBC only confirms incidents through media reporting and is able to name 40% of all victims (that's quite impressive given how fractured the lines of reporting are) it seems reasonable to assume that there have been plenty of unreported deaths in more remote parts of the country. IBC also make no attempt to count indirect deaths. We can only guess at these, but it seems reasonable to assume that people have died as a result of sanctions and the unavailaibility of medical treatments or electricity etc Similarly, you could argue that ISIS deaths should also appear in IBC totals as they're pretty well the product of a post, non-Saddam intervention
Lets try and do a simple scoreboard based around ISIS and Saddam
brutal regimes killing civilians? (both tick yes)
threats to wider region (both tick yes, albeit I think Saddam could probably have dealt with in the name of pragmatism)
threats to the west (yes for ISIS, but yes for Saddam only if you believe a 45 min claim in a dodgy dossier)
I'm not sure what you obsession is with nuclear weapons all of a sudden Clive, as it's the second time you've mentioned them now with reference to their oblique use in the middle east in last 24 hours. I thought it only fair to arm you with another WMD alternative though which could be more effective and perhaps you can pedal that one instead.
It is possible to code germ warfare weapons to latch on to certain DNA or other biological signatures in a persons constitution (the 'technology' was developed in South Africa) where it was designed to attack people by ethnicity. Since then it's become more refined where by you can attack strands of DNA which are pertinent to tribes etc (in theory). I don't know if an Islamic fundamentalist gene has been discovered yet though!!! Perhaps you could code something that wouldn't attack if it recognises the existance of alcohol in the blood stream? That way the only way to defend yourself would be to get pissed and stay in a perpetual state of incapacity
