Iraq IS certainly better off with Saddam Hussein gone. But Iraqis would have been better off with him gone in the 1980s or preferably even before. But in the 1980s Reagan supported Hussein (sending Donald Rumsfeld over there in 1983 to welcome him back into the world community) as part of US strategy to counter fundamentalist Islamic Iran. The US fleet was even sent in when it looked like Iran was winning the Iran-Iraq War. And don't forget France and Germany's deals with the Iraqi dictator. The US and other self-styled democracies don't necessarily export democracy. They tend to export regimes they can work with. In some cases they can be democratic. In other cases, a one-party state or military despotism will do fine. Saddam Hussein's problem was he simply became dispensible.

David
I'm glad you are observant :) "welcome to the real world".
I get rather annoyed when people (not you) point to 'they supported so and so tryant before' when all they have to do is read history to find that EVERY empire or world power has done that when it suited their strategic advantage. Though, in the case of Iran/Iraq, it was pretty clear that one didn't have much to work with, it was either a socialist dictator or a megalomaniacal Mullah/Ayatollah who would do who knows what in the name of his religion. I guess they elected to go with the lesser of 2 evils.

Of course, the Reagan Administration and others could have supported nobody. There are the odd occasions when big powers don't take sides in a war. And interestingly, the biggest powers at the time, USA and the Soviet Union, were on the same side in 1981 supporting Iraq (the Soviets with their Muslim population were more scared of Iran than the USA was).

My main point is that governments and the ruling elites they obey look for strategic advantage first then justify it afterwards. Unfortunately that is the reality of international politics whether the players are democratic or not.

David
and people wonder why we evangelicals are always appealing to 'biblical principle' for guidance :)
When u look at the ways of the world, it doesn't seem quite as 'wierd' as the amount of flack we get would suggest.

Did Biblical guidance make the Carter Administration arm the Shah's Iran to the teeth only to find his regime fall to Islamic fundamentalists - who found they had these wonderful shiny new weapons? If so, I think the Lord was falling down on the job.

DaveJS
good point. I think that being Christian and president would be just about the toughest job on earth if consistency and transparency are used as meausuring sticks.
The President (Empororer in Romans 13) always has a responsibility to maintain peace as best he can, and must make judgement calls which will not always turn out to be correct. Peace is always dependant on power balances, this is self evident. Nations help or hinder other nations to maintain a peace which will serve their own interests and the peace which guarantees their own freedom. I think if we looked hard enough, we could find umpteen examples of where Christian presidents made 'unwise' (in retrospect) judgement calls. Please bear in mind, a Christian president is not a Christian government. He is also pressured by various interests and cannot make unilateral 'Christian' decisions in isolation from the rest of government.
Your comments are welcome

So, the emperor in the Book of Romans refers to the US President? A rather creative reading of the Bible. I would suggest whoever wrote the Book of Romans may not, infact, be referring to the leader of a country not even conceived of until over 1,500 years after the time of writing. I would also suggest the current US President, who obviously has issues with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", is less guided by religious beliefs and perhaps more guided by US ruling class strategic interests. That may account for his ability to get on well with Central Asian dictatorships which, although have not intention of becoming democratic anytime soon, have an awful lot of oil and are handily located near China and Russia.

DAVID....
I was referring to the PRINCIPLE ennunciated in Romans 13... not as in a prophecy. That is the passage of the NT which deals with the head of state. His role and obligations.
"You shall not kill" should be translated 'murder' because contextually that is what it means. God commanded the killing of sacrifices etc and punishment of some sins by execution.
The US president would have LOADS of challenges in MANY areas of policy and life and in attempting to weave it all together with Christian Principle. But the one principle I mentioned in the previous post is to look after peace and 'deter the evildoer' (Romans 13:5 ) And it was Paul the Aposlte who wrote it.

I am reminded of John Barron in "Whoops! Apocalypse" when he said to the US President - "If the Lord had meant us to be consistent he would never have given us Milton Friedman."

So true.

Dave..whether "woops" or.. the real thing.. r u ready ? :)