Bear in mind also that, while Saddam was certainly fairly brutal, most of his moves were based around him gaining more power and land (gassing the Kurds and attacking Kuwait, for example).
Gassing the Kurds was one of those sad inevitable things that happen from time to time. In the '70s, the Kurds figures that the Iraqi state wasn't going to like them very much, so they accepted arms from Iran (in violation of a treaty between the two countries) and started attacking things. Then Saddam took over and ripped up Iraq's treaty with Iran over the Shatt-al Arab waterway, launching what he envisaged as some kind of Operation Barbarossa surprise attack curb-stomp. The war didn't end there, and the Kurds gradually became a massive thorn in the side of the Iraqis, when the Iranians decided to use their country's numbers and staying power to launch a series of broad-front raids. Of course, a domestic insurgency is great for that, so the Kurds became a major part of their strategy in the North of the country. The Iraqis found it very difficult to combat them, because of the rough terrain, lack of soldiers, and poor Iraqi counter-insurgency doctrine.
At this time, old Uncle Sam turned up with an answer: chemical weapon the fuck out of them. Kill 'em all.
Attacking Kuwait was a result of the Iran-Iran thing. At the end of the war, the Iraqi arm was massive relative to the rest of the country, moving it towards bankruptcy (particularly since oil prices stabilised low). But domestic unrest caused by unemployment was also a major problem, so Saddam couldn't just lay them all off with their weapons (sound like someone else to you)? His solution was pretty neat- use the massive army to invade a wealthy neighbour and pay for itself. Bam, done! He asked the US first, and they gave the green light. But then, for some reason, the US changed it's mind. And refused to allow negotiation or even full withdrawal, insisting on bombing the Iraqi army flat- probably for domestic partisan reasons- needlessly killing 100,000 people or so. And then the US whacked sanctions on Saddam's arse, making the problem even worse, and killing 600,000 Iraqis (Albreicht said it was 'worth it'). And then Saddam was making WMDs, and we had to invade. And then we'd broken it so we had to maintain the occupation over Iraqi protests. And then the country wasn't a first-world oil-rich, well-educated tyranny anymore, it was a third-world, well-educated tyranny with a lot fewer living people.
This is not unlike what happened in Iran. Iran used to be one of the most progressive Islamic nations when the Shah was in power. Except, the Shah displeased the US and Britain (by trying to sell their oil for higher prices), so those nations worked with the rebels to depose him. And then the Ayatollah and ruling council took power.
I keep hearing this, but I never see any evidence for it. As far as I'm concerned, this is just speculation.
