Yes.
So is a leader who sends his own men into a war under false reasons, and leaving the country in absolute anarchy - with more casualties after the war is over officially than ever before.
And so are a lot of other leaders in the world, many of them directly or indirectly supported by the very US of A.

There are numerous countries in the world where there is a lot more than just suspicion. In fact, it is generally considered proven that the USA have a massive amount of nuclear weapons. I think something needs to be done about that.

The political situation is dangerous, and it is my belief US has a lot to do with it. Sure, North Korea is boasting, Afghanistan trained terrorists and Iraq killed its countrymen. However, US forgot to read Sun Tzu's Art of War. If you leave the enemy no chances, they will fight to the end. By naming some countries as "evil axis", in example, you have let those countries no other options than to take the offensive, than to prepare themselves for a full war, thus making life inside those countries even worse than before. I believe that simple speech made our world go back ten or fifteen years. Even if you or me don't feel it, those countries are right now living in Cold War.

As for nuclear weapons, there has been only one country that has effectively used nuclear weapons against citizens of another country. First, no countries had them. Then a bunch had them. Then a treaty was created to prevent those weapons from being researched by other countries. Right now, there are as many non-recognized countries with nuclear weapons as those recognized. And again the double moral of "No, you can't have nuclear weapons" yet look somewhere else when other countries like India or Israel are accused of having them is ridiculous. Of course, the political context justifies their behavior, but in the end, you promote terrorism.

Please educate me. Do they spell it Husein in Iraq instead of Hussein?

Maybe in sligthly Orwellian oriented society you can't hear that comment anymore (you've been always at war with Iraq, we know), but in the outside world it is still heard and it's a target of laugh. Your leader is target of laugh, your second Vietnam is target of laught.

Sure I can tell you something: when you fought a war in Korea in fifties, you lost. The war ended by armistice and division of Korea to an Soviet and "prowestern" region => instability in that region. In Vietnam you left after 7 or so years of conflict, because you were unable to fight with guerilla. You left that region under Soviet influence and quite instable after the war. It was up to those people to overthrow the regime. Few years ago you invaded Afghanistan, overthrew a regime that trained terrorists, but to this very day that region is unstable, there are still terrorist groups operating.

Same applies for Iraq. It is 3 years since war and there is literally civil war underway there. The reason why Bush sr. didn't overthrew Saddam in nineties was, that he didn't wanted that region left unstable. That's just what you achieved today. So please if you want to leave Iraq now, do it so that the region is not left unstable - that is pretty much unrealistic, so "Good bye my sweetheart, hello Vietnam..." (the beginning of Full Metal Jacket). And for future please, learn how to fight against guerilla, because it seems that you miss the crucial point: if somebody weak stands against much bigger and stronger enemy, he will surely fight to the bitter end (as someone said above) and he'll use guerilla warfare, and maybe he'll win, because standard military doctrine cannot cope with it.

Phew that was a long post, maybe the longest I've ever made.

EDIT:

cough*George Walker Bush*cough

No doubt. But to label someone as evil, you need to present proofs. As far as I remember, the proofs presented in the Iraq case (links with bin Laden, massive destruction weapons, etc) were not consistent. That has harmed the credibility of US to a great point which many still don't understand. The fact that they decided to go against the UN, and then were demonstrated they were wrong (even though they changed their speech in the middle to speak about country freedom), is a very bad precedent. So, in one point we have a set of countries labeled as evil, and in another, an accusing country that, apparently, has not the best reputation nor knowledge about the situation of those countries. It is a dangerous mixture, that ended in a full civil war in Iraq. I don't see that it will be different in Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or any other country in the evil bag.

Hanging is such a waste. Why not put him to good use instead?

They spell it maddaS.

No one has the right to kill another. If death punishment is in the constitution, they have the obligation to kill a man with death sentence. The laws must be followed. Killing Saddam is not fulfilling someone's rights. It's only fulfilling a sentence given by a court. I don't know if the sentence is in accordance with the Iraqi constitution or did they just use some kind of international justice. In any case the sentence must rely on laws.

Whether death punishment is right or wrong no one can tell. Everyone can speak for themselves. And vote for their own constitution, directly or indirectly, if one lives in a democracy.

A teacher at secondary school usually gave us multiple choice tests, ten questions, five answers for each. Checking the right answer was +1 point. Choosing none was 0 points, and checking the wrong answer, -1 points. Since you approved with 7, choosing 2 wrong questions put you out of the test. So, since pretty young I was taught that, no matter the situation, choosing the wrong option once is already too bad. Thus, terminal sentences are not justified: the first time you fail in one, you will be already in the bordeline. Choosing wrong twice, and no matter how many times you have been right when issuing a terminal sentence, you are already a failure.

Sure, the people in the power needs to choose. We have all seen 24, where the president or Jack must choose between one or a few to counter a menace that would slay millions. And sure, if I am really pressed (say, family in danger, gun on the table, assassin running at them), I will probably kill him in a rush. But I would not do that if the assassin is tied, lying on the floor. Sometimes, I see leaders (not only US, mind you, but everywhere) to choose things in a rush, even though they have options. In a court, the judge will sentence based on experience, precedents, evidence and law. I don't question the fact that Saddam is guilty, and that according to their law, the penalty for his acts is death. I question the fact that the law states death is a valid penalty. As I said, that is barbaric. Even more barbaric than a mad leader asking his army to mass murder people, because you are supposed to be more civilized than those dictators.

Oh, I disagree with many of their beliefs. I disagree with many of our beliefs. I disagree with many topics about capitalism, communism, even free software. However, it is the ability to choose a bit between all those beliefs that I appreciate. I feel pity for those who are not able to enjoy freedom in any way, being that speech, act, or thought. However, that freedom I cherish is the same freedom that promotes terrorists and dictators. That is why there is law, there is police, and there is jail. I respect their beliefs. Some can't choose? I feel pity for them. But it is not our task to free them. Remember the Crusades, when Christianity took the freedom role? Remember America colonization, when European countries came to "civilize" these lands? When someone picks such a role, many are bound to suffer. If you can say "Yes, the death of thousands because of my command will be worth for those left", then sure, you can act. But my moral does not allow me to say that without feeling I am doing something wrong. The only way I would feel right is if I am there, sharing the responsibilities with those suffering, with those dying. So, to put it simply, I would lead a pack of soldiers to rescue someone, but I would not sit down in a chair and order others to do that for me. I would spy some lab and report back, but I would not ask someone to do that. The fact that I can't do everything, that at one point I will have to tell someone to do that for me, is what does not make me qualify as a leader. And before you say something, one thing is asking someone to write a function you will be using later, and another very different is asking someone to either risk his life or take the life from someone else

I share your opinions. Those things you've been talking - crusades specifically, I think we should learn from them. Yet we haven't.

The great power requieres great responsibility. But also you have to have strong moral. And I'm kind like you, I'd not be able to send somebody to kill someone else and risk life, no matter how holy the objective would be. I'm not even able to say if I'd be able to do it myself, to be in a group of soldiers.

It's not moral to do this. I was thinking about it when I was playing Operation Flashpoint. I was thinking about families of those comrades who have fallen on the battlefield. I was thinking that it's not right to them, to know that his son/father died in the war for someones order, who is sitting in some office, smoking cigar and risking only a cancer, or choke up pretzel. And then I also began to think about families of those I was looking at with the sight of my rifle. And I thought everytime I pulled the trigger that that man has family too, and surely they'll be very sad with his death. Because the death was unnecesary, it was only from a command of somebody higher. You may think that it's silly to think like this just about polygons rendered on PC. But I think that even this can be very educational and I found about myself that I'd not be able to be a soldier.

Thanks. I didn't know that. All media here in the western countries spell it with two s as far as I know, which isn't the same as it being the right way. I consider myself corrected and educated. (Also thanks X-G for pointing it out above.)

The UN also adviced the Iraqi government not to execute him.