"John Cairns" wrote in message
et...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All correct... where's Bin Ladin? Ooops. Bush invaded Iraq instead of
dealing with the real threat. Saddam was a dictator who brutalized his
people, but he wasn't a threat to the US or his neighbors at that time.
He might have become a threat, but there was no need to split our
effort. Did I mention poppy/heroin production is back on track in
Afganistan? I guess we don't have enough troops to deal with that
either.

There seems to be some pretty good evidence now that Saddam was a
stabilizing influence in the Middle East, rather than the destabilizing
force we thought him to be. After Iran overtakes Iraq, the Muslim civil
war that will likely ensue should be a whopper.

Wonder if he'd like his old job back?

Max

There was pretty good evidence back in 1990 that Saddam was preferable to
the alternatives, credit to George I. Remember, when George II was asked
if he consulted his father re/invading Iraq and toppling the regime, he
stated that he consulted with his "other" father, his "earthly" father was
probably telling him that it was a huge mistake. War is peace.

When one fails to listen to voices of reason, hindsight tends to be 20/20.

Max