The World would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.

Saddam may have been the lesser of any number of evils. But he was still EVIL. I don't see the statement of him being the lesser of any number of evils as important at all... would you rather be shot once or 5 times? It's immaterial... 1. It was not Saddam with some high minded ideal against al-Qaeda that kept AQ out of Iraq. The fact is, that Osama bin Laden has never liked the Iraqi government. Historically, al-Qaeda has seen no need to even be in Iraq - Saddam did a fair enough job killing infidels, as well as Muslims, so why would al-Qaeda perform terrorist activities in Iraq? What's more - although it has never been PROVEN - there was a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, Iraq, which later became the seat of Iraq's chemical weapons research projects. In the mid 1990's, there was a group of terrorists training at this facility on how to hijack jetliners (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Coincidence? I think not... 2. "Sectarian violence was only waged by Saddam himself"? I suppose he dropped the bombs and flew the planes over Kurdistan, and personally executed dissidents... Obviously this is not the case. Sectarian violence was waged by Saddam's entire regime, and by the people he oppressed - should they not defend themselves? Secondly, your estimations of death tolls, while correct, are also misleading. The estimated death toll from Saddam's regime is 300,000. However, there is also the small matter of the war Saddam started with Iran, a war that cost some 1.7 million lives. Your figure also discounts the three weeks at the beginning of the war wherein Iraq's near-400,000-strong military was defeated. Furthermore, the 600,000 figure only counts excess deaths, not where the responsibility lies. When Iraqi insurgents kill Iraqi security forces, that's not an excess death as a result of the invasion - that's civil war. So, by my count, even keeping with your figures, 600,000 more people have died in a revolution freeing an oppressed majority of the Iraq population, as well as another oppressed minority group. This figure includes sectarian violence between Iraqi sects as well. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein is responsible for some 300,000 genocide and oppression-related deaths, as well as some 1.7 MILLION deaths in a war he started. 3. "Iran is dominated by shiites and while so is Iraq, they were under the rule of Baathists which are Suni. This kept a puppet government from forming in Iraq." This utterly baffles me. This point considers an oppressive government led by the minority, and in power as a result of a military coup to be legitimate, while the current democratically elected government by the majority is representative of a "puppet" government? I'm quite confused. Iran was not intimidated by Iraq... they were attacked without notice and repelled the attack. Then they went on the offensive for six YEARS of the Iran-Iraq war. Sounds REALLY intimidated to me. >> "While I don't deny that Saddam was a horrible dictator, statistically there was less horror and carnage during his reign than there is currently during this Maliki administration." Your entire argument concerning the lesser of two evils hinges on discounting the statistics from war when applied to Saddam's reign. It's no small wonder that statistically the current model causes more deaths - they're in the middle of a WAR. If I consider a 5-year slice from Saddam's reign, then the current administration becomes the lesser of the evils because of the 1.7 million deaths from WAR during Saddam's reign. If you want to consider these two administrations comparable, you have to wait until this administration is stable. At the moment, it's simply a case of revolution - the fact that a government has just been overthrown and is practicing insurgency in no way implies that the previous government was legitimate, better, OR just! You also have to take perspective into opinion. Do you suppose the Shiite or Kurd populations prefer Saddam or the Maliki government? I'll tell you right now - the Kurds are THRILLED. Why? They happen to be not dying anymore... >>"Also, there was not a threat of a puppet government or an invasion from Iran. This leaves one of the biggest threats (if not the biggest) to international security unchallenged from taking over the entire middle east." This is quite simply false. Iran may have nuclear bombs, but they lack the ICBM delivery systems. Consider - if Iran attacks someone - they're going to either attack US forces in Iraq or Israel. This isn't particularly smart. Either Israel or the US will almost certainly nuke them in return. Iran only has the capability to successfully nuke one target at this time. Either of their potential targets has the capability to destroy EVERY SINGLE CITY IN IRAN. Iran is not a threat to international security, nor have they been historically expansionist. >>"Keep this in mind as this debate truly comes down to the lesser of two evils, which unfortunately was Saddam." Yes indeed, keep that in mind. The debate concerning statistical "evils" is not relevant - the numbers depend on when you take the data from. You can't compare a long-term regime over decades of peace and war to a short-term regime during civil war. It's simply inaccurate - while the numbers may be correct, they do not give an accurate depiction. Instead - consider this: Would you rather live under a genocidal dictator that kept the peace with fear, or under a democracy during civil war? Would you rather have the chance to defend your home, or would you rather the government simply take your property at its will? Regardless of what evidence is presented in Saddam's case - social programs, national unity (sort of), etc... One CANNOT escape the FACT that he has perpetrated genocide in the past, and been oppressive to the people of his country. That is certainly not better for the world.