I do not believe that anyone really thinks that Saddam is a good guy and I have not seen any post on this board stating this directly. Of course, I do not read the chit chat threads that often, so I might be wrong. The fact that people are against this war does not automatically mean they believe that Saddam is a good guy. Reality is much more complex, it's not governed by binary logic, but by some sort of fuzzy one. And your phrase 'to that effect' sounds a bit as an attempt at a convenient interpretation of things you read. Either someone stated this explicitely or not. Interpretation and facts are two different things.
I've never heard of anyone suggesting this idea that the US could or should have sought UN approval for a new set of war aims in '91. There is no reason to believe that non-coalition Security Council members Russia and China would have endorsed such a move. Indeed, though the Russians declined to oppose the Gulf War resolutions - with a veto - they maintained cordial relations with Iraq throughout the period, and were very active during the lead-up to war in seeking a diplomatic out. Whether coalition members Britain and France would have approved of extending the war aims is also uncertain, and especially dubious in the latter case. It is much more likely that one or more UNSC members along with numerous members of the coalition would have accused the US of hijacking the entire enterprise. In addition, even if obtaining UNSC approval for a new resolution to take Saddam's regime down had been a political possibility, it would have been impractical. The notion of "going all the way to Baghdad" didn't become a popular idea until after the Desert Storm objectives had largely been achieved or were on the verge of being achieved. Until that time, there had hardly been the stomach to contemplate the much-dreaded ground war in Kuwait and southern Iraq. In order to embrace a new idea of proceeding toward Baghdad, yet pause for UN approval, the American forces would have had to stop in place while waiting for these, to say the least, uncertain discussions and negotiations to proceed. Numerous military-logistical complications would also have to have been handled, even while the Iraqi regime re-organized its defenses. That you repeatedly express absolute certitude on this totally unrealistic notion speaks volumes, in my opinion, about your presumptuous approach to many aspects of the current situation.
Optional, In large part I agree with your last couple posts. I definitely agree with your thoughts on the limits of dualistic thinking: The negotiation of good v. evil I think illustrates you point, but I also think it a dangerous dualism to employ. I believe this because good and evil are so emotional, often religious, words. Also, there are many that would argue good and evil simply do not exist. Maybe pleasure v. pain or dominance v. obedience would have been better. No need to quibble though, I think I got the point. Am I suspicious as to whether the holocaust occured? No. Do I suspect the scale to which it occurred is exaggerated? Yes. My reason is this: As a german officer running a concentration camp, one would have reasonable incentive for exaggerating the number of executions. I hope nobody views this as an attempt to minimize the awfulness of the holocaust. It is merely a reflection of my inderstanding of human nature. Very few people will out and out lie about something, but very many will exaggerate without thinking twice, sometimes without even knowing it. It is based on this and on the tendency for people to promote their own interests rather than the reality of a situation, that I question the motives of Bush/Blair et al, media coverage of the war, and any other party telling me what this war is about, why we are fighting it, who will win...