To answer your question regarding the use, by Saddam Hussein, of WMD - he didn't use them on either occasion because he couldn't deploy them. My reason for saying that is based on his previous use of those weapons and the preferred method of delivery.
Little Hawk's contention regarding the reason for lack of use during the 1991 conflict is only partly true, as it forms one part of a chicken-and-egg discussion. It would be equally correct to contend that had Saddam Hussein used his WMD capability in 1991 it would have escalated the conflict and prompted a full invasion of Iraq by coalition forces. WMD, and their use, would not have saved Iraq or the ruling Ba'athist regime, from total defeat in 1991 and Saddam Hussein and the Revolutionary Council knew that.
Little Hawk,
I would dearly like to know your grounds and reasoning for making the statement that - "The idea that Saddam could possible pose a serious threat to the USA is so ludicrous that it surpasses the nonsense Hitler used to justify his attack on Poland!"
I ask that question assuming that you meant to say, "The idea that Saddam could possibly pose a serious threat to the USA...". I don't find it ludicrous at all, and could think of many ways in which Saddam could have posed a serious threat to the USA, its allies and the middle-eastern region. You on the other hand rule it totally outwith the bounds of possibility.
My "general emotional committment" as you put it, is more geared to challenging statements and arguements that I believe are flawed, or based on information that I know for fact to be incorrect - not to any great loyalty to "Empire". When taught to study History, I was taught to take any particular incident and look at it from all sides, in terms of background, the aims and objectives of the policies adopted, the reasons for those aims and objectives, rational behind the conduct of policy and ultimately the effects of pursuing that policy. A classic example of not following this advice is obvious when reading threads on this forum relating to the history of the British Isles, i.e. England/Scotland, England/Ireland. In studying the history of the British Isles it is essential that that includes the history of both Spain and France with regard to aims and foreign policy - it is glaringly obvious that many haven't.
As to - "I'm just saying that you are analogous to a loyal Roman who defends and justifies the conquests of the Empire, while I am analogous to a free Briton or Gaul who detests the Empire." - all that sentence indicates to me is that you tend to see things in black and white. I tend to see more shades of grey and I believe a review of our posts would bear that out.