Vivek788 said:
With America in middle-east everythign goes wrong becoz 'Nothing can be right when the motive itself is wrong'
Even if the motive is right, the ideals are wrong. US of the illusion that the Lincoln type of democracy is the perfect form of democracy. They are drunk in this idealism and try to push it on every country at its whims. The Arab countries have existed among themselves for thousands of year, the Iraqi civilization in existed since Mesopotamian ages while US is only a few hundred years old and far from perfect even though it is powerful and rich.
Democracy is the best form of government when you take certain points like freedom of religion, expression, etc while it creates anarchy in some cases like minority rights, hampers judicial procedure, leads to biased majority, etc.
Saddam was the only leader in middle east who ensure woman's rights, discouraged extremist Islamism, considered diplomacy as a foreign policy instead of religion (its FP with India). Whereas in Middle East the situation is reversed. There can be no democracy in a Middle Eastern country when religion is supreme, instilling democracy means freedom of speech, freedom of religion, women's participation on par with men - something Islamic countries would find hard to digest. The condition in Iraq would get worse than it was under Saddam, US should have realized there are people who have different ideals than secular democracy and left them as such. Iraq posed no threat after the Gulf War of 1991, its fangs were broken.
saddam deserved but why the U.S.A interfere every where or pak or india. Too many people r died in the war of iraq
