Now that the dust has settled, what was his deal? Was he a good guy?

He wasn't good, but he was necessary.

Compared to Gaddafi though, what could we say about him? Did he fix his country like Gaddafi or was he just pure iron fist and no remorse?

>>131367066

>removing the leader of another nation
what a time to be alive

>>131367160
Compared to Qaddafi, he was worse for the region and for everyone but his inner circle and their 3rd degree sphere of citizens, from everything I can understand.

>>131366963
He threatened the petrodollar

>>131366963
he was good for keeping terrorists/radicals in line in his country.
>>131367160
not a fan of gaddafi. he funded and armed way too may communist terrorist across africa in the hopes of killing and then letting them overtake white-led countries such as rhodesia and south africa and other portuguese "colonies".

File: Saddam Hussein (2).jpg (341KB, 1904x1440px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1904x1440px

>>131366963
He was the hero Irak deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we hunted him. But he couldn't take it. Because he wasn't our hero. He was a violent guardian, a wrathful protector. A dark knight.

He was The Ba'athman

>>131366963
Under his rule Iraq was under almost all of the time under constant pressure of war:
the first Gulf War (Iran/Iraq), civil war in the north (Kurds) and South (Shias), Kuwait crisis and the first US intervention, the US backed sanctions regime (arguably the hardest burden for Iraq), ...
Now you can say that these hardships existed because of Saddam but considering these burdens he actually did a pretty decent job of ruling his country. It also helps to understand why used violence so mercilessly and also why he failed to comply with the US demands prior to the 2003 invasion.

>>131366963
He's was the hero we deserved, but not the one we needed.