text: sadam killed kurds wanting to seperate. we fought the civil war to keep the south. so who is right? how can we call sadam a criminal for killing kurds that were wanting to seperate from their country when the u.s. government fought the civil war, which killed 10's of thousands, to keep the south a part of it's country? buy the way, lincoln was neutral on the salavery issue until well into the war so don't assume that there was any other reason other than keeping the union whole. you are leaving out a lot in your comparison, which is a far stretch at best.  saddam was a dictator.  there was no form of government to break away from.  there was no forum for the kurds' voices to be heard.  many women and children were intentionally killed as a result.  the civil war came after many years of differences between the north and south that was kept together through compromise.  it was a slow, pain-staking series of events that led up to it - didn't just erupt.  every state agreed to a pact, this union, when they accepted the u.s. constitution and were annexed.  the reason for war was much different.  it wasn't one race or religious sect against another.  it didn't have anything to do with "ethnic cleansing" like the situation in iraq.  you can't be serious that you're comparing the two.  i think your question is just meant to stun...