"There is a lot of undertones to the discussions about Saddam that I have with liberals that basically imply a "white male megalomaniac" is more dangerous than a "swarthy male megalomaniac.""

Thats such a crock. What is dangerous is when ANY meglomaniac is in control of a significant protion of the earths landmass by conquest.

"That somehow Saddam is too dimwitted to be evil on a large scale enough to be compared to Hitler or that his people are too dimwitted to be as effective a weapon as the Germans were."

No, the difference is that Saddam is in a neat littl box with a gun to his head, and that has kept him in line for a decade. While HITLER was executing his lunacy (and lots of people) over 3 continents.

"This is a totally mistaken assumption. Saddam invaded another sovereign nation, successfully - until we forced him out. WMD even the playing field dramatically. Any dictator with a few nukes can wield more power than a well trained army without one."

And saddam did not use his WMD in gulf one or during the 12 years since, do you know why Tech1? Please tell me, and in stating the truth you will destroy your argument entirely.

"I truly believe Saddam IS more sadistic than Hitler, that he enjoys watching and inflicting suffering far more than Hitler ever did. Hitler loved power, thought he had been annointed by God, but visiting torture chambers was beneath him and not with his temperament. Hitler was the snivelling type of megalomaniac not the hands on type megalomaniac Saddam is."

6 of one half a dozen of the other. Saddam is the moral equivalent of Hitler- MANY people are and have been. There is a HUGE non-trivial difference though between Hitler and Saddam, and that difference is the reason there is no demand for war like there was in the 1930's and 1940's- Saddam is in the box and Hitler was out of the box. A good portion of the Worlds leaders are not much better than hitler... Its good to keep that in mind.

Davin L.