That may be, but the principle still remains - a nutjob with an itchy mustard gas finger needs getting rid of. Any loss of life is a tough one but compared to what he would have done in perpetuity? I'll get rid thanks.
Just because it didn't work, doesn't mean we should stop trying. And of course we have the responsibility to spread it - the ability to choose how one is governed and by whom must be the most basic of human rights. Without it, nobody has any method of appeal/control to gain the rest of the basic human rights people should be afforded.
I agree to some extent with that although I don't think it's quite as cynical as you make out. The UN has to hold much of the blame here as far as I'm concerned.
They sit on their hands for so long, desperately trying to please Russia (who are usually busy arming those we are trying to rid the world of) whilst millions are dying when we have the ability to stop it. See Rwanda as a perfect example. If there was ever a need for outside help that was it yet the UN spent all their time side-stepping the word 'genocide' so as not to be obliged to step in.
Compared to what he would have done? We've killed more Iraqis now through sanctions, second gulf war and the civil war we unleashed than Saddam had killed Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis. Funnily enough, we didn't care about Saddam when he was launching his crazy war on Iran. In fact, we actually supported him. And his use of chemical weapons.
I'd have thought this war would have been your worst nightmare. We've gone from a secular Arab Nationalist, a brutal one for sure, to a civil war based on sectarian lines, a vice president on the run for running religious death squads and a country that is electing and splitting far more along religious lines.
Wait, what? Einstein saw insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. How many times are we going to fail doing the same thing before we realise that it doesn't work? The Western democracies were allowed to develop their democracies internally, over a long period, building up their own civil society, going through their own violence. Now its apparently 'our' responsibility to spread democracy. In countries we've spent a long time raping, who've only gained their independence recently, who are still working things out. They are not given the same opportunities the West was given. Now, if they're not fully functioning multi-party democracies, with an impeccable human rights record, free media and speech, equal rights for women, minorities, LGBTs etc within 10/20 years, they're a failed state. And the West, the knight on the white horse, has to swoop in and help out the poor locals. Usually by bombing the brick out of them. Usually when they're not wanted. Where's the democracy in that?
Of course democracy is one of the most basic of human rights. It is the basis for advancing a country properly. Life is also a fundamental human right. How many have dies because of the two Bushes and Blair? As I said, its very easy for people to calculate over a million losses of life, hundreds of thousands of those children, when you're sitting comfortable on your sofa in England. Go and speak to Iraqis, both in Iraq and in the diaspora, and find out their opinions. Consider that many of the diaspora left because their family was especially affected by Saddam's brutality or the sanctions.
That has nothing to do with Russia or the UNSC, the USA refused to get involved, calling it a 'local conflict' and refusing to call it a genocide. Where were the International community when my country, Sierra Leone, was going through a terrible civil war? In fact, I believe Taylor worked for the CIA at points in his life. Pol Pot? Mengistu? Biafra? Angolan civil war? Well, that became a nice little proxy for the big powers to play their games. Suharto? Supported by us. I could go on but it gets boring.
I think its every bit as cynical as that. Look at the Middle East for example. How often do we hear the human rights record if the 'enemy' Iran mentioned? Despite the fact that they tolerate and have many different minorities in their country? Saudi? No worries, just as long as the oil keeps flowing? Bahrain? No problems, just keep that naval base open for us. Does democracy matter there?
If your dictator is brutal but your country is of little importance, no-one gives a fudge. If your dictator is brutal and you have resources or threaten a western ally, suddenly you're a huge threat and need to be sorted out, militarily, to provide democracy.
Country with a brutal dictator who provides us with natural resources? Carry on repressing your population. Not providing us with natural resources? We're coming to ahem liberate the population.
As an aside, the percentage of the British population who supported the Iraq war without UNSC backing and without the UN inspectors having found a shred of evidence for WMDs (as was the case) was 22%. Not quite what I'd call democracy.
