Is America better off with Saddam gone ? [View All]

Bush and his supporters are forever saying Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam gone. So, the US is still part of the world, isn't it? Are we really better off. I don't think so.

Previous to invading Iraq, we had Saddam under control. He was pinned into his little kingdom around Baghdad. We already had control of the top third and the bottom third of his country. He was not threat to us. We also knew that he had no weapon systems that could threaten us because we had inspectors over there for years. We knew how many soldiers he had and we knew how easy or difficult they would be to defeat. Before the invasion, most of hte world supported our efforts in fighting terrorism.

However, after the invasion, we lost the respect and support of most of the world, including our long-time allies, such as Germany and France. It was proven that Saddam was not a threat to us or his neighbors because of WMDs or nuclear weapons. We marched straight into Baghdad with not a lot of resistance. But, that's when the problems began. Insurgents and former Saddam supporters went underground and attacked our troops with car bombs, roadside bombs, snipers, rocket-propelled grenades, etc and our casualties mounted.
Now we find ourselves in a quagmire, hoping a government of puppets we have put together from former CIA helpers can govern that country and we can slip out - at least give the appearance before the November election.

So, is America better off? No, I don't think so. How could any sane person argue that? Is Iraq better off? Perhaps? But it is still to be seen. Is the world better off? We should ask how and why? Saddam was not a threat to the world. But now, terrorism that did not exist before, may be a threat to the world for years to come. It appears at this time in history that George W Bush has created not only a problem for America, but also, for the rest of the world.