<What proof can you offer that Saddam has or would "hold the the region hostage to his lunacy"?

Saddam HAS attacked and invaded neighboring nations with the intent of annexing them to his own nation. He DID this. This is called "proof." Iran managed to hold him off. We had to save Kuwait's bacon, and there is little doubt in most people's minds that if we had stayed home, and Saddam had absorbed Kuwait, that Saudi Arabia would have been next. The Saudis sure as hell thought so.

If he had possessed nuclear weapons, and the assurance that the outside world would maintain the "hands off" policy the Left is so firmly supporting, do you have any doubt he would have used them in these efforts?

And what about Israel? If Saddam winds up controlling most of the Arabian peninsula, how long do you think Israel would hold him off if he had his own nukes?

This "what evidence do we have about Saddam's ambitions" is as ridiculous as saying "what evidence do we have that Hitler had territorial ambitions?"

To simplify:

--Saddam has a proven history of actual territorial invasion.

--Saddam has publicly proclaimed that he should be the ruler of the Muslim world. Note that Saddam's vision is not that of bin Laden, which should not be forgotten.

--Saddam has a proven history of attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

--Saddam has a proven history of total ruthlessness towards his own people, never mind non-Iraqis.

--Saddam has a proven history of breaking agreements and lying in his teeth about anything that suits his agenda.

BTW, I notice these issues somehow got left out of Tom Tomorrow's cute little cartoon.

And having read the link I posted above, has anybody noticed that the Sorbonne apparently turns out psychotic monsters on a regular basis? I mean more than most universities?