Good god, frogman - you miss the point entirely. Of course Saddam was an evil dictator: we (meaning America) made and wanted him that way, this is the case with many of the "client state" governments we have installed. You are naive if you believe that anyone in the West (other than the peaceniks you loathe so fiercely) gives one damn about Iraqi civilians or liberty or peace; that much is clear from the amount of military assistance we gave him up until 1991. You are even more naive if you think this war is about anything other than global power politic and economic growth (reconstruction contracts, weapons manufacture, et al), which include, of course, oil. That Iraq could ever have been a threat to the mighty West is, in any sense, laughable.
There is a much larger picture here than just the dictator-of-the-moment, but apparently you haven't read much history, and certainly have no clue as to how global capital markets work. Or, perhaps more likely, as many folks who support war, you have an enormous capacity for cognitive dissonance and an ability to wholly ignore your conscience, all in the name of self-service. Might is right.
The west has made its bed in the Middle East by depriving the population of its most significant resource, making tiny groups overwhelmingly wealthy to ensure the constant supply of oil and capital while impoverishing the rest, creating fundamentalists, extremists, and anti-West sentiment. Now you wish to ignore this inconvenient fact and claim the moral high-road with the waging of more war. As you wish that peaceniks could suffer under the regimes which they defend (though it is not the regimes, but the continuation of large-scale historical injustices which they decry), I wish you could suffer the same under those murderous regimes which we have supported. (Chile, Haiti, East Timor, Palestine, to name but a few.) And most naive of all you would be to genuinely believe that war is the only solution, or worse, believe that those who oppose war are naive because "war is and will always be necessary due to the nature of man." Rubbish.
I could go on and on here, with any of the thousands of arguments that fuel these blogs, but it all comes down to the two, ever eternal opposing views, the militant and the passive, the conservative and the liberal, the power-hungry and the live-and-let-live. I won't convince you, nor you me, but I might ask you to consider who history treats best: warlords or proponents of peace.