I in no way support Saddame Hussein and his death was not a bad thing. But now the country is falling into civil warfare and honestly it does not look good for the current Iraqi government. Post-Iraq War was probably the "better" period but now, I would say Iraq is worse off.
Hussein was justified; he was able to hold power for a long time and he had a perfect secular Ba'athist government which compromised between the religious divisions that one has observed in Iraq nowadays. Economic development was growing, and although demised, Iraq still has the abilities to come back economically. A Ba'athist State is clearly more "defined" or justified than a Sharia Theocracy of the Taliban.
Of course. Though it never should have been a soverign nation to begin with. It has for over 1000 years, been a region split into three sects. Saddam managed to control the region with genocide. Which is why America supported him prior to his encroachment on our oil interests in Kuwait. And again, the American right rushes to the aid of our conglomerates and corporations, during Desert Storm. When we fight these proxy hegemonic conflicts, we create more enemies than we defeat. Proxy wars have long been a tactic of global powers seeking to control their spheres of influence, but since the dawn of the industrial revolution, these proxy wars have contributed to the cultivation of a radicalism. Nationalism, dogmatic adherence to unchallenged economic philosophies, religious extremism, have all been bolstered by hegemonic overreach on the part of western, colonial powers.
I'd say yes. I am certainly not a supported of Sadam. He was an authoritarian ruler that oppressed his people. However, his regime was relatively secular, not an imminent threat to the US and much of the Western world, and was orderly. After his demise, we wound up with an oppressive regime that was somewhat loyal to the US, albeit unfair to the Sunnis. As of right now though, we have an Iraq with three different factions trying to obtain power. One of these groups is composed of radical Sunnis and Sadam loyalists, one is ts the aforementioned oppressive regime, and the third is a bit less worrisome. We might have gotten rid of a horrible leader, but we ended up with new dangerous factions that threaten to not only hurt our relationship with Iraq, but to destabilize the entire region.
No doubt in my mind.
I know Saddam was a tyrant, but he wasn't so bad that we (our gov't) didn't repeatedly do business with him back in the 80's. The cold, hard fact is ... he ran Iraq efficiently. Perhaps, that's why people didn't welcome our troops with open-arms ... or join the fight ... or even rise-up against him? I don't know. But the place has been a d*mn mess, ever since the U.S. rolled in back in 2003!
Is it currently in a worse situation? Yes. Was it worse off while the Iraq War was settling down? No.