In general, Teribus, I reckon you're put upon by unwarranted knee-jerk reaction from, well, a number of posters who ought to be above such things. However:
"Exactly when did the good old USofA "use" him (Saddam) as a hitman by the way?"
Hitman may be too strong a word, but you've acknowledged the existence of the cold war, yes? You surely can't deny that the US used Iraq for its ends & without any particular consideration for its people? It supported Saddam in times past, in the interests of what it considered its best interests. Not world peace, Ter (or Doug if it comes to that! *g*). I don't blame them for that. I don't believe in the innate generosity of human nature. OTOH, I also don't have much faith in the long-term view of the average politico either!
But your expression of your p-o-v is not aided by absolutist & pedantic choice of arguments (I read the "business ethics" thread last night - sorry, but LH (if I've remembered correctly) had you bang to rights when he said "if water is necessary to life, it does not follow that the purpose of life is to drink water...").
On the whole, I tend to agree with you rather more than with, say, Bobert (sorry Bob! *g*), but your position often lacks pragmatism and/or balance. Implying that the US didn't use Saddam is foolishness. Splitting hairs over the use of the word hitman is no different. Your points would be far better served by a more realistic & gracious assessment of your opponents points, than by nitpicking & pedantry!