> Because they were fascist states trying to dominate the world. They
> were true global threats. SH's Iraq is not.
Saddam's no threat to the entire world, true; and he's no real threat to the continental US, obviously. But he is violent and will cross borders if he thinks he can get away with it -- a small scale imperialist, but one all the same. And if the WWP crowd had its way, Saddam would be free to develop all manner of weaponry, no inspections, no check whatsoever. That is why the leading organizing force behind the "antiwar" movement cannot be called antiwar at all (for this and other reasons). But that's another discussion.
> And most of those casualties happened while SH was Washington's
> friend, from the Commies he hanged with the help of lists drawn up by
> the CIA, to all the people killed in the pointlessly bloody war with
> Iran. So if he's guilty, so are his imperial masters.
Well, the Iran war wasn't pointless from the US/Iraq/Israel perspective. Made perfect sense. So you are right about the complicity of Saddam's masters, who remain his masters, and who are mulling the option of their thuggish client retiring peacfully in exile. This notion, advanced by some, that the US is "hostile" to Saddam and have demonized him are missing the obvious point; and that report I posted from the WP give us some insight as to how Saddam is really being viewed by the Admin.
DP