Replies

The problem with removing a cancerous dictator is you don’t really know what will come in next to fill the void.

Better the devil you know. Same argument could be made about Saddam Hussein. Or Bashar al Assad.

Khadafi learned his lesson when Reagan put him on notice.

When we went after Hussein, he handed over his nuclear weapons program. He got the message.

For that reason alone, Iraq may have been worth it. Imagine Khadafi with nukes.

Hussein was a known pariah with his own people. He gassed the Kurds and killed other citizens on a whim. He and his sons were notorious.

As for Assad, he wasn’t my favorite, but he seems to have been fairly decent to his people. He got pretty vicious when the fighting started intent on toppling him, but what government around the world would act differently?

Hussein, I’m pretty much on board with removing. Iraq is a better place for it, and it’s neighbors are better off.

Assad? Khadafi? We should have kept out of those messes.

Khadafi had done plenty over the years to earn a ticket to the glue factory, but he had settled down and wasn’t a problem.

It wasn’t my belief we would gain by letting terrorists take over. Egypt didn’t by it either, after the fact.

The problem with removing a cancerous dictator is you don’t really know what will come in next to fill the void.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually that’s EXACTLY why the CIA removes/kills foreign leaders - because they know who will replace them (that’s the goal...) Witness the ‘unexpected and we just can’t defeat them rise of ISIS across the ME.

Weird huh? or exactly the plan...

Saddam had to be made an example of. He could have given some nasty stuff to terrorists to attack us. Fear is a very potent motivator and demotivator. He had WMD’s and the Russians disposed of them or transported them before the invasion. The Russians do what's in their own interest.

But killing Khadaffi simply sent the message to dictators that there's no reason to make nice with us.