Nahh. Saddam was actually quite liberal, in the original meaning of the term, to women, Christians and other religious minorities, etc.
He was an authoritarian, not a totalitarian.
IOW, he went after people who were or who he thought might become, a threat to his rule. He didn’t go after, for the most part, people because of who they were.
A very evil man, but what has replaced him is not necessarily a huge improvement.
I find this sad, because one of my axioms used to be: There’s no such thing as a bad reason to overthrow a dictator.
Well, turns out there is. What replaces him might very well be worse.
I’ve thought for a long time what you just posted. And that going into Iraq was a big mistake. But this article says Iraq was drifting away from secularism towards fundamentalism. If that’s true, there is more of a justification for the 2003 invasion.
The article claims Saddam was just as bad as ISIS. And ISIS is not launching scuds at Israel. Or invading Kuwait, just yet. They are repeating Saddam’s war with Iran though. Think we now know why Obama and McCain were arming the group that later became ISIS.