Was Mahatir correct with his speech about the situation in Iraq, and in his assessment of the military actions by the US and UK military ?
Did Saddam Hussein, his sons, his Generals, his Security Services and Republican Guards killed more Iraqis or did the US and UK military actions in Iraq ?
Were the US and UK military actions killing more Iraqis, or were the suicide bombers killing more Iraqis ?
Was Mahatir skewered in his opinion simply to gain the attention of the Islamic World ?
Right or wrong, the mess has already happened in Iraq, and the removal of Saddam Hussein will provide the Iraqis the prospect of a better future that is in their hands.
To resolve the current difficulties in Iraq, perhaps the US and UK should take a leaf out of Syonan-to, the name for Singapore when under Japanese Occupation from 1941 to 1945.
Strict military administration by the Kempetei Military Police had brought law and order, all gangsters or anyone with tattoos were rounded up and machine-gunned at the beach or make shift execution ground.
Saddam Hussein ruled with the ruthlessness and fear that he instilled into the Iraqi population, much like Singapore has maintained law and order throughout its history of independence - although with a much lighter touch than Saddam but no less ruthless with the 'help' of the Judiciary.
Do liberal democratic principles have any place in the developing society such as Iraq, when law and order is yet to be established by the US Military, who seem helpless and lost in such an environment ?
Even in New Orleans, the Military Commander - who commanded the relief team and aid to the victims of Katrina - had declined the responsibility of re-establishing law and order in New Orleans.
It will seem that the soft touch can hardly command respect in the macho Arab world - only the rule of the strong hand that knows when to clench in a fist, and open it palm to rule with magnamity, can control the Arab World.
Singapore - 1942http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fall_of_singapore.htm