A pretty good write-up on what crimes Saddam is believed to have been involved in is found ...

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq1.html

The article is by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, "... a political analyst and human rights activist based in London. He is Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and a Researcher at the Islamic Human Rights Commission."

The article discusses a lot of the alleged offenses by Saddam, although, I doubt all. This was truly an evil man. Whether you were for the war or against it ... there really isn't much doubt that Saddam had really no socially redeeming value.

To be sure, there are good arguments to be made both ways about the war, it's conduct, and the aftermath. That discussion is good and doesn't have to be filled with hate.

I'm not really sure the war was really ill-conceived, although anticipation of the fanatical extremist reactions after the war wasn't as well planned for as it probably should have been. Of course post WWII in Germany also faced fanatical Nazis for a while although we seldom hear about that.

Anyway, I seem to recall that a major part of the US discussion on initiating the war, was that the United Nations had for years been paying lip service to sanctions and that if the UN was to mean anything, it needed to enforce the sanctions it advocated. The Security Council passed resolution after resolution that did nothing. They apparently didn't even care that most or a lot of the oil funds that were to provide food and aid to the people were being siphoned off ... to enrich Saddam and his cohorts and to pay corrupt UN officials and others who thought it was an easy way to bilk money.

I know that concern over WMD was part of the reason for the attack on Iraq, but it wasn't the only reason and I don't really think it was even THE major reason. And, I think we forget that the UN, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and many others also believed Iraq was working on obtaining these weapons. In fact, I don't recall anyone seriously doubting he at least had chemical and biological weapons. It wasn't just the US that thought this. Many still think Iraq was working on these, but sent the technology out of the country when the attack appeared intimate (Syria being mentioned most often as the recipient of these things).

I think it's fascinating to talk to troops returning from Iraq. We see the headlines of people dying, but, the men I've talked to said the vast majority of the country isn't that way (they say 75% plus) and that most of the people they've met are grateful for being liberated. Most recently, a guy I know returned for two weeks before returning to Iraq, and he noted he was surprised by US coverage of the war. It sounded to him like the coverage was about someplace else. There was nothing about the schools, hospitals, road and infrastructure improvements that had been made; the assumption of local governmental units of their responsibilities in governing their people, etc. No doubt he'll be glad to get home to his family and friends, but he was actually looking forward to the rest of his tour of duty there. He talked about visiting Ur on a weekend pass and seeing where Abraham is reported to have been born. Abraham is revered by Muslims, Christians and Jews. He hopes to get to Babylon before he finally comes home. He said it's a marvelous country filled with friendly and good people who are excited by their liberation. It's only one person's view, of course, but it sure wasn't the same as our media portrays.