No matter what we think of Saddam Hussein, saying he is a tyrant and an evil-doer is not enough of a reason to invade his country.

Here's why.

The motivation for any leader of any country is to stay in power. The position of leader is never thought of as transitory. Whatever it takes to stay in power is generally accepted as status quo by the leader of a country. (George Bushes position during the Florida recount proves this point)

So the question now becomes, could Saddam Hussein have been a kinder, gentler, fairer leader, and remained in power?

But that question was never asked by our "leaders" because the answer would not have please us. The answer would have been NO!, Saddam could not have been benevolent, kinder, and fairer, and still retained his place as leader of IRAQ.

Some other faction or group would have seized
upon Saddam's niceness and done whatever was necessary to take control of Iraq.

The Fact that the mood in Baghdad is so overwhelmingly anti U. S. means something. It means that it is much easier for Iraqi citizens to show anger rather than gratitude, hostility rather than appreciation.

Why the preference of Iraqi citizens to demonstrate hostility rather than gratitude is not for me to understand or explain, it just is.

We have interceded in a domestic dispute, and in the process we have upset all of the family members.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 26, 2003 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Super-8mm ]</font>