There is some credence to the argument that the world is a safer place without Saddam. WE aren't any safer here in the U.S., but it's entirely possible that fewer people have died since Saddam was toppled than would have died if he hadn't been toppled. The problem is, we don't really know how many people Saddam was executing on an annual or monthly basis. Yes, there are the mass graves, and you can count the skulls and get a rough estimate, but the REAL numbers, we'll probably never know those. It was a lot though, and I do suspect that there are fewer deaths now. Of course, the downside is, the country is pretty much in chaos, whereas Saddam more or less kept things under control, even though he had to do it at the point of a gun a lot of times.

In retrospect, I wish we'd never invaded Iraq, simply because WE aren't any safer. Hell, we don't even have cheap gas prices. I don't think this will end up being a successful mission to spread democracy in the Middle East. I think this will end up being a 1 or 2 trillion dollar ripoff that has made us LESS safe, that we will regret more and more as the bills come due.

Inevitably, as our taxes rise to cover the costs, we will start the comparisons: did invading Iraq do more for us than providing all of our citizens with medical care? Did invading Iraq do more for our country's security than spending a trillion dollars on security HERE would have? Did invading Iraq do more for our country's prosperity than a brand new set of interstate roads and a new electrical grid would have? The answer to all of those questions is: probably not.