And he stayed a European ally all during the 1990s. Yet, because of the deeply idiotic US President of the 2000s, the call to stop Saddam was largely opposed by the global human rights community

I don't know about the US, but the European left was pretty vociferous in its condemnation of Saddam and was then hugely nonplussed by the US invasion which they knew was for all the wrong reasons but which offered the prospect of doing what they couldn't do - actually get rid of him.

South African whites, Apartheid era, were often hugely angry at the "western" condemnation of Apartheid when the deaths and suffering paled in comparison to an Idi Amin.  I argued at the time that the reason for this apparent double standard was that South African whites claimed to be European, Christian, civilised, democrats, and Europeans could not admit their claim to relative legitimately without admitting that racism was ok in Europe as well.

If this analysis is even partially correct, then Milosevic was more harshly judged because he too acted in the name of a European, white Christian, democratic country.  There are plenty of ethnic tensions in and around Europe which could be stirred up if his claim was to be allowed to stand.  Very few (in my neck of the woods anyway) could name the leaders of Croatia, Bosnia, or Kosovo by comparison.

You need a "face of evil" if you want to market an intervention, and Milosevic had the misfortune to become it.

notes from no w here

Are you serious about that?

By far the most people, that died under the rule of Saddam in Iraq, died during the Iran/Iraq war. In this war, in which Iraq attacked Iran, the West in general, but under strict leadership of the USA, supplied Saddam with all the stuff, that later was cited as WMD.

There are credible hints, that Saddam were given hints, that he can attack Kuwait, without Western reaction. Saddam asked the US for permission for that war. My best guess, as to why this was allowed, is, that after the end of the cold war, it wasn't convenient any more to have a strong military Iraq, but the West wasn't able to attack under international law, if Saddam didn't attack first. A political masterpiece by Bush I.

At the end of the 90/91 Iraq war, the US gov't got out the message, it would support an insurgency against Saddam. A lot of Shiites tried, but as the US of course didn't want to strengthen the archenemy Iran, there was no response, when Saddam did revenge for the insurgency.

The weakened Saddam had to keep WMD or at least the rumor, that he would have WMDs to keep in power. Even without any military strength, this was used to implement sanctions, that killed up to 400000 people in Iraq. France demanded to give up the sanctions, but the US vetoed together with Britain against all other members.

The couple of 10000 people that were killed by Saddam's order without consent of the USA really shouldn't justify an intervention, with as much or more dead people, even in the best case - we know now, that the best case wasn't the case that came true, but the justification for any intervention on humanitarian grounds in Iraq is highly questionable at best, when the millions of dead were with the consent of possible interventionists.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers