Looking back, were Ghedaffi and Saddam Hussein really that bad for the West?

[montelatici]

I don't know, but it seems to me that the West's invasion of Iraq and the no-fly and other support that enabled the rebels to overthrow Ghedaffi, did not work out so well.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The rebels didn't overthrow Gadhafi! Hillary Clinton overthrew Gadhafi, and armed our enemies in the process. Libya is in the shape it is in today as a direct result of her and Obomb. Just like Egypt. And I'll bet dimes to donuts, that Benghazi was a set up. They knew too much. They had to be eliminated.
Gadhafi was not only not a threat, but was amenable to keeping the peace, as was Egypt. So ask yourself, why did we remove an ally in favor of radical Islam? Answer that and you have the answer to why our ambassador's mouth had to be permanently shut.
They knew this administration was gun running, and not just to Mexico.

 

[montelatici]

Doesn't answer my question, but go girl.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Then no, Gadhafi, was not bad for the west. He was actually an asset. He helped keep the tenuous peace in the Middle east, that this administration is working so hard to undo. So did Egypt.
Hussein was rough on his own people but neither here nor there to the west.

My turn, Is Iran building the bomb/s good or bad for the west?

 

[montelatici]

Probably doesn't matter. Pakistan and India have nukes already and so does Israel. I don't think it affects the West. It may attenuate Israel's propensity to attack its neighbors with aplomb, but it doesn't affect the West.