[Cronos]

I am serious. Saddam was on the US's side fighting against the Ayatollahs 1980-1988.

There was no threat to the USA from Saddy. in fact leaving him in charge would have meant no 9/11, no Iran nuke threat, no Islamik state, etc.

[jdsteel]

I am serious. Saddam was on the US's side fighting against the Ayatollahs 1980-1988. There was no threat to the USA from Saddy. in fact leaving him in charge would have meant no 9/11, no Iran nuke threat, no Islamik state, etc.

You may be serious but you are very foolish. Saddam was most assuredly NOT on our side. Yes, we sold them arms to offset the Soviet Unions support of Iran. The phrase used at the time was “I hope they both lose”. Saddam threatened the free flow of oil at market prices. That, as I said, was a vital national and global resource. Your fantasy that there would have been no 9/11, Iranian nuke threat or Islamic State is quite delusional and 100% conjecture.

Even worse than that, you are uninteresting.

[mac_truck]

There was no threat to the USA from Saddy. in fact leaving him in charge would have meant no 9/11, no Iran nuke threat, no Islamik state, etc.

Interesting take...