sosuemetoo: yes" technically he was a good leader, with respects to how he weighed relations to Iran.
Then, Iran was afraid to attack Iraq, as Iraq had beaten them on their eastern front, time and time again.
Now that Saddam Hussein is out and the border remains uncontrolled, the Shiite militia, can freely fraternize with their Iranians counterparts, all they want.
Arms, military plans and the like, can now stream in from Iran into hidden sectors of Iraq.
Remember, at one time, even by the U.S.e's own volition, Iraq, was considered a worthy opponent and in some measures, respected their army.
Now that Hussein is out of the way, there is nothing to stop the hidden influences of the Irians clricks, into parts of Iraq.
Having Saddam Hussein taken out of power, even when many advisors had advised president Bush not to occupy Iraq, has turned into a royal nightmare.
I didn't say that I respected Hussein. All I said, is that while he was in-place, he did serve as a control over the fundamentalist's sects.
And look at the possibilities for start-ups of U.S. and British based businesses.
Can you imagine what the attrican rate of missing foreign workers would be, if conditions remain as they are and such places, as auto-plants and the like are established in Iraq?
Saddam Hussein was the middleeast bad boy and by some told, a complete monster, but removing him, was this a told and shown success on the general area of Iraq and did this act now consolidate needed businesses in Iraq?