I don't have time to converse today. I have just read your post. Thanks for the reply. I agree that it would have been nice to topple Saddam the dangerous. Supporting a military coup would have been good. But Saddam was a very "talented" dictator, in the sense that he created a very solid and reliable internal security organization. (Actually, a few organization.) I was worrying for years about Iran, and not only in the nuclear sphere. It was a zero sum game between Iran and Iraq. Now Bush gave supremacy to Iran. It is very conceivable that Iraq will break up and Iranian influence will extend to the borders of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. You could say: the US will protect them, but the Iranians don't need to invade in order to gain influence. It can be done by kidnappings, assasinations, etc., destabilizing the oil states regimes this way. We will be in trouble, and this can happen now with the Baath regime gone and Iraq dominated by Shiites. For this scenario I was hoping a strong man like Saddam (but not necessarily him) should rule a united Iraq. The neocons have caused a yet immeasurable damage.
Biden says cannot say yet whether he will mount White House run (Reuters)
from the article: What to do with Ahmadinejad