Talk:Saddam Hussein

This article has lots and lots of half truths. It is not fare (Mrak Sandowsky (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Archives

---

Higher numbers refer to more recent archives.
Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3
Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6
Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9
Archive 10 • Archive 11Archive 12

---

• Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming contains the collected discussion on the naming of Saddam Hussein. Please do not attempt to change the use of Saddam's name in this article without reading and understanding the archived discussion. Thank you. The archive includes the following issues:
• "Saddam" vs "Hussein" vs "Saddam Hussein" as the short form of the name in the article.
• Whether there should be some form of disclaimer regards which is "correct" on the article
• Transliterations: Husayn vs Hussain

Does anyone else feel sad that this guy is no longer with us? I know he was a terrible guy and all that but he was still a human being and no person deserves capital punishment. I guess the only reason I say this is because he has very little to no sympathizers. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.70.12 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawyers shot

During the course of the trial, seven of the people who worked as lawyers for Saddam were shot. Four of them were killed. This should be worth a mention in the article, since it's blatant proof for biased circus, whereas none of the lawyers for prosecution were threatened or harmed in any way. For the sake of history. Jei (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this curious and shocking info.84.51.86.42 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chair

Hey in regards to the picture of Saddam sitting on a chair; the chair is referred to as a throne. It is not a throne, but rather a chair. By calling the chair a throne this article is misrepresenting Saddam as a monarchist.

In regard to the Iran-Iraq War the article asserts, "The pretext for hostilities with Iran was this territorial dispute, but the war was more likely an attempt by Saddam, supported by both the United States and the Soviet Union, to have Iraq form a bulwark against the expansion of radical Iranian-style revolution." No evidence for this assertion is cited and, so far as I know, none exists. It should be labled as an unsupported speculation rather than presented as fact. Will O'Neil 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

where is the discussion old pages? there should be imho. I mind the unsupported remark in the sub : modernisation, about 'carrot and stick ' tactics. There is no doubt at all political manouvre consists of carrot and stick tactics, but this small chapter only mentions carrots, so it seems a bit on the look for nasty things to say about S. where there are not..(prejudiced or partial in effect)77.248.56.242 11:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Conventional wisdom says that both of those rationales have since been discredited by U.S. intelligence agencies for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, though at least 800 WMD shells (according to Newsweek) were found and hundreds of members of Saddam's inner circle and regime have been found in cooperation with al-Qaeda since 2002 (see [www.regimeofterror.com])[citation needed]."

Why is this here? Tcaudilllg 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Who is "regimeofterror.com"? How is this a credible account of the WMD issue? I charge bias. Tcaudilllg 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Even my grandmother has such old fashion chairs and she isn't a Queen :) Deliogul 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I organised this under a heading for simplicity's sake, hope that is okay. SGGH ^speak! 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else called it a throne, and I concurred (it's certainly looks golden and luxurious) - sorry, I don't remember any more. 172 removed the picture of Saddam sitting on it from the "Secular leadership" section of the page rather than move the picture to the appropriate place, and then did not answer this question. I would be pleased to reupload the picture with "sitting on a golden chair" or similar replacing "on his throne", if only we could find the right place in the article, whether that be "Secular leadership" or another section. I got the picture from http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/gifs/saddam.jpg, as displayed by Saddam Hussein. It or a similar picture may have been using Template:PD-Old regime Iraq - I don't remember. What suggestions do you have as to what name to use for the picture and where in the article to place it? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming response, I restored it in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, where is your WP:RS that asserts the caption of the image? I checked this and the caption does not mention the date the picture was taken in. Imad marie (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I based the date on the flag's use and the fall of Baghdad. Per Flag of Iraq#1991.E2.80.932004, the pictured flag was used starting on 13 January 1991. Per Saddam Hussein#2003_invasion_of_Iraq, Baghdad fell on April 9 2003. I harmonized the date formats. I don't think it's reasonable to assume the picture was taken much before 13 January 1991 (perhaps a few days earlier as a publicity shot for the flag in anticipation of the Gulf War), and I don't think it's reasonable to assume he had sufficient resources, good health, and black hair to have it taken after the fall of Baghdad. I regret that I haven't had the time to research the dates in more detail.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, first you need to find the RS that asserts the information. Second, the caption has to go along with the context its being put in. Saying: "A smiling Saddam Hussein sitting easily on a golden chair " is definitely not related to the context of "Gulf war" it's being put in. Imad marie (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "Saddam Hussein with his flag of Iraq that flew during the Gulf War[1]"?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I believe it's also worth mentioning that Saddam changed the flag during the war. Imad marie (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed how? Got a WP:RS?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a fact, do we need a reference? anyway it is cited in the same references you have provided. Imad marie (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought he changed the flag before the start of the Gulf War, based on the language "an attempt to garner support from the Islamic world in the period immediately preceding the first Gulf War" at [2], but now I see that you're right, he changed it on 13 January 1991, five months and 11 days into a war that started 2 August 1990. Thanks for the clarification!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for the iraq war

"The rationale for the Iraq War the U.S. gave was because of failure to abide the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, an alleged Iraqi weapons programs, and supposed links to al-Qaeda. Pre-invasion intelligence from both the U.S. & British intelligence services reportedly validated these concerns. Conflicting reports have subsequently been produced regarding these pre-invasion studies by U.S. intelligence agencies regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, though at least 800 WMD shells (according to Newsweek) were found and hundreds of members of Saddam's inner circle and regime have been found in cooperation with al-Qaeda since 2002 (see [www.regimeofterror.com])[citation needed]." Since when does wikipedia accept a personal opinion citing a personal blog as proof? Its a little embarrassing that this slipped into a semi-protected article.

I can't find this that you refer to in the article anymore, but if it still exists please message me and I'll removing anything uncited or poorly cited that I find. SGGH ^speak! 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image sources

Many of the images used in this article as tagged with (the deprecated tag) {{PD}}, and the reasoning given is that the image comes from "Iraqi News Agency". As no verifiable source information was added, many of these image have been tagged as no-source. Also, I'm not sure that images from "Iraqi News Agency" automatically qualify as fair use. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

British Tabloid and Saddam

Why was this paragraph removed: "A British tabloid named The Sun posted a picture of Saddam wearing white briefs on the front cover of a newspaper. Other photographs inside the paper show Saddam washing his trousers, shuffling, and sleeping. The United States Government stated that it considers the release of the pictures a violation of the Geneva Convention, and that it would investigate the photos [3]." ?

This is a clearly notable incident since it caused a major controversy regarding who released the pictures and how well Saddam was treated in prison.

More likely how poorly he was treated in prison. One must check the logs to see that this page has probably been edited many times by American Government stooges70.19.23.83 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no article about Saddam's incarceration, so I do not see why this should not be included. WhisperToMe 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MisInfromations

There are clear spots of Information and knowledge mishandling in some parts of this article outlined below, Could someone please correct them:

A.In section Iran Iraq War Its written " Iraq and Iran entered into open warfare on September 22, 1980. " CLARIFICATION: It is completely wrong, the truth is Iraq ATTACKED Iran on that date. REF[4] Final Ruling. B.In section Iran Iraq War Its Written "Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the twentieth century, with atrocities committed on both sides" CLARIFICATION: The sentence implies that if it was the fault of Iran that Iraq was bogged down in a war of attrition which is completely laughable as Iran was only defending its territorial integrity and Iraq was the agressor party responsible for the whole fiasco and humanitarian disaster which had been caused by it. Furthermore absolutley NO source is cited for the last part of the sentence regarding atrocities comitted by Iran though Iraq is well known for its atrocities under Saddam. Please Cite sources for atrocities comitted by Iran or Clear the sentence. C.In section Iran Iraq War Its written (Halabja Massacre)" Dissenting opinions dispute the numbers and have said the incident was actually a battle in the Iran–Iraq war where chemical weapons were used on both sides and a significant portion of the fatalities were caused by the Iranian weapons." CLARIFICATION: Another attempt to make Saddam alittle more benign has been made by making the anouncement that Iran had used the chemical weapons against unarmed civilians which is not true and to say the least is an attempted black propagada on a hijacked issue on this website which again needs and I have to say this again needs to cite its authentic sources. Iran never used chemical or biological weapons against Iraq or anyone else in fact it was Iranian Media which covered this atrocity comitted by Iraqis as alittle research would elaborate. If it was not for Iran the world would have never known about Halabja and all the civilans murdered by WMDs provided and financed by USA and European countries. No American and European media covered the event as their respective Gov. were neck deep in the atrocity along with Saddam. These same media outlets with the help of their respective Gov.s tried to put blame on Iran but were unsuccessful as UN investigation clarified matter. REF: 1.See items 6, 7, and 8 of the UN Secretary General's report to the UN Security Council on Dec 9, 1991 2.[5] 3.[6] 4.[7] 5.[8] 6.[9] 7.[10] 8.[11] 9.[12] 10.[ http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=39470] 11.[13] 12.[ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068535/site/newsweek] 13.[14] 14.[15] 15.[16] 16.[17] 17. "On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement" 18. According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians. 19. Gary Sick. Iran, Iraq, and the legacies of war. 2004, MacMillan. ISBN 1-4039-6450-5 p.153 20. Gary Sick. Iran, Iraq, and the legacies of war. 2004, MacMillan. ISBN 1-4039-6450-5 p.156 21.Understanding Iran. 2003, ISBN 1-59257-141-7 p.190 22. UNO and current Gov. of Iraq along with US and coalition have not been able to find a single shred of evidence regarding the use of WMD by Iran against Iraq. No Victims No Documents No materials No nothing. 23.[18] 24.[ http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/uscorpsiniraq.html] 25.[19] 26.[20] 27.[21] 28.[22]

In light of these sources cited on no other website other than wikipedia itself there remains littel doubt that USA and Iraq under Saddam were the monsters attacking Iran and using WMDs against Unarmed civilians including children babies and pregnant women with no regret at all. Furthermore it is also a fact that Iranians were victims of these barbaric acts. Since an encyclopedia must reflect truth not mere propaganda of those involved in this atrocity against whole humanity therefore its hoped that humainst truth warriors will tend to the article more turthfully and reflect the whole truth not just a whitewash of the more tolerable facts to certain powers. For example the whole article doesnot include the fact regarding the extrajudicial disappearances of people during his rule neither there is any mention of the fact that he took part in terminating whole villages and shifting all the inhabitants to unmarked mass graves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplerelationship (talk • contribs) 21:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but if you are going to criticse this articles supposed lack of a neutral point of view you might want to examine your own lack of neutrality and your bias first. SGGH ^speak! 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Which Bias? I dont see any. Everything I have said is completely backedup with citations and sources. Further research would be enlightening. And ofcourse the truth is always bitter. Specially if you have been involved with it on a negative side directly or indirectly. All I am asking here is SOURCES AND CITATIONS so that we can get the PROPAGANDA out of this article. I dont see any bias in that. No offense but it seems you are afraid of a rational discussion backed up by truth, citations and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplerelationship (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of anything, and I have no thoughts one way or the other. I am merely pointing out that you are asking for a neutral point of view while having a point of view of your own "little doubt that USA and Iraq under Saddam were the monsters attacking Iran and using WMDs against Unarmed civilians including children babies and pregnant women with no regret at all" words like "monsters" and such accusations are hardly NPOV, while the events may have taken place, using such anti-Saddam and the UU language is a way of adding your own point of view, and that is what I was refering to. Also "atrocity against whole humanity therefore its hoped that humainst truth warriors will tend to the article more turthfully and reflect the whole truth not just a whitewash of the more tolerable facts to certain powers", not the most neutral statement ever written. I apologise if what I said upset you, unfortunately that is a drawback of trying to maintain 100% objectivity or as near as possible. SGGH ^speak! 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This image

Could we expand the caption on the article page to include anyone else who is int he photo who is notable? (if there are any) and also in the image caption highlight which one Saddam is for those of us who can't tell? SGGH ^speak! 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1993 June 26 U.S. attack on Iraq

At a couple of points in its history, this article has indicated that the U.S. attacked Iraq's intelligence headquarters on 1993 June 26 in retaliation for repeated violations of the no-fly zones. That's understandable, but I think it's incorrect. I've found no evidence to support the claim and a lengthy newspaper article about motivations for the attack that doesn't mention the no-fly zones. I took the liberty of altering this article to include the citation and to remove the suggestion that the 1993 June 26 attack was a response to violation of no-fly zones. John G Bullock 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put the above reflist in so your citation will work :) SGGH ^speak! 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[23] This is my own personal autographed ace of spades card. You'll have to scroll down to the lower right hand corner to see the pic. I got it 48 hours after his capture. I was rotating with three othr Ranger medics and got one signed for a buddy of mine too. We sat in a room with him on 8 hour shifts. Anyway, don't know how toi add it.

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if I didn't know any better, from reading this article, I would have thought Saddam was a wonderful progressive leader who brought Iraq from the Dark Ages into a modern world of freedom and progress where, as the authors so carefully point out, women have rights and Iraqi social welfare is the best in the Middle East. The only problem is that I know that Saddam was a brutal dictator with absolute power over his country, enforced by a vast network of secret police. How come this is all conveniently left out. Where is the discussion of mass graves of Iraqis? Of thousands tortured and murdered in prisons and mass graves? Even the gassing of the Kurds was painted as a "battle" between Iraq and Iran rather than genocide and blatant disregard for human life and rights. I will not change anything - but this article is ridicously biased in favor of Saddam. I did not think one could be pro-Saddam in light of what we know about his regime. But apparently, anything is possible when biases are involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.22.15 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess Saddam was fine for Sunni/nationalist Arabs but the most interesting thing about this debate is that we discussed it even before he was hanged, again on this page, and I'm sure you can find it in the archives. Deliogul 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked reading this article as well. It's whitewashed beyond comprehension. Can you imagine an article on Hitler only speaking about his accomplishments and unification of the German people, then casually mentioning things like "Germany had disagreements with other nations"??? 67.167.189.167 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also shocked/facinated by the omission of this ruler's sadism from this article. Even if the story of people being thrown in plastics shredders is false there are plenty more which aren't. Also there were his two sons, one of which murdered someone at a party with a steak knife. Plenty of the documents are now available from his regime. For example, there is a prison in the north, near Kirkuk, where 10,500 prisoners died. Executions weren't done there; they all died by torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Saddam's most famous quote!

In August 2002, saddam said:

‘Please come, I have killed enough people, somebody do the world a big favor and kill me’

Saddam is Dead, I hope everyone who supports him die the same way he died, so that the world might become a better place. I hope anyone who supports saddam that God sends them a dictator 10 times worse than saddam and shove it in their behind...................... I am an Iraqi, I will betray Saddam and his alikes, he betrayed the Iraqi people since day one, I hope he burns in hell along with his former and current supporters hahahahaha

What a famous sentence which everybody now knows all around the world. Why isn't this mentioned in this article?

Please put it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.25.71 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This or that way, Iraqis betrayed him and supported a foreign invasion force. Even the wildest dictator can't predict such a thing, at least at this extreme degree. I guess Saddam felt like Stalin when he realized that he is under the attack of Germany. Therefore, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was just a piece of paper and the crowds supporting Saddam were just sound waves which lost in the depths of the universe. Deliogul 22:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the use of the paragraph above. It simply states an opinion, and though perhaps a pretty piece of poetry, it appears to me that it does not belong here. 5:58 PM, October 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.205.126 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That quote sucks. It is simply a less refined version of what Churchill said 50 years ago: "We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We will never surrender."

Hyperion395 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Execution of Saddam Hussein December 30, 2006.JPG

Image:Execution of Saddam Hussein December 30, 2006.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

Unfortunately, I believe that there is a gap in the information in this article and some of it incorrect. According to the Washington Post, Saddam Hussein became an "assassination in training" in 1957, but fails his attempted assassination of the prime minister Abdul Kassem, and flees to Syria and then Egypt, where he attends an Egyptian law school (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/saddam.htm). The article does not mention any of this information, and claims that Saddam Hussein attended an Iraqi law school. It also says, in the "Rise to Power" section, that "Saddam returned to Iraq," without ever mentioning he left the country. It seems like another article is required between "Youth" and "Rise to Power" to explain why Saddam left the country and his whereabouts when he did so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.205.126 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the entire section on Saddam's alleged connections to the CIA should be erased, as it is just Leftist propaganda. The Ba'ath Party was Socialist and Pro-Soviet. Communist? No. But from Day 1 of their power Soviet Advisors were present, as well as Soviet equipment. Remember the famous incident of 1966 where the Iraqi Christian pilot defected to Israel with a MiG, I believe a MiG-19. Ba'athist Iraq was a Soviet Client State and Socialist (even if not Communist in the strictest sense). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoUticensis (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the statement by George H. W. Bush re "What is at stake is more than one small country it is a big idea a new world order . . ." the article states it was made on March 6, 1991. This is untrue. All you need to do is check your sources! It was made on January 29, 1991 in his state of the union address. see http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3429 for instance. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.125.67 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indexing by Saddam or by Hussein

A recent editor has changed the DEFAULTSORT to "Saddam Hussein" rather than "Hussein, Saddam", with an edit summary that it is based on a comment to index it that way. I have not followed this article, and may just be behind on recent events. But this seems odd to me. Of course, it may also, unbeknownst to me, be the standard way of indexing Arabic names - I doubt it however, seeing that his sons were named Hussein, not Saddam, indicating that Hussein is indeed the name to index. However, before I do any reverting, I'll see what everybody says about this. I'll also ask the editor in question to comment on this discussion. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 07:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He was sorted by his given name until a couple of months ago when you changed it.[24] I'm no expert on Arabic names but it seems natural that since our article uses Saddam to refer to the man that we should also index him that way. Hussein is a patronym; his father was named Hussein 'Abid al-Majid. His sons were named Qusay Saddam Hussein and Uday Saddam Hussein, carrying both the name of their father and their grandfather. I see that our articles are at Qusay Hussein and Uday Hussein. I have no idea if that reflects what they were actually called in Iraq or if it is some sort of Western media convention. In any case Western media usually did refer to Saddam Hussein with his given name rather than his patronym. For other presidents sorted by given name rather than patronym we have e.g. Isaias Afewerki and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir. Haukur 08:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Way Too Little NPOV In Intro, Huge Editing To It Is Now Necessary

In the intro, there is only very brief mention of the amount of murders during Saddam's harsh, brutal and near-fascist regime, and when it is given a tiny amount of coverage here only one incident is mentioned and even that is presented in toned-town form. Only the most relevant information should be displayed in the intro and this is indeed very relevant. Plenty sources can be cited that this blood-thirsty and vicious tyrant's murders go above and beyond what the intro mentions, and so I believe clean-up is now essential. If - and only if - someone disputes this, I will put my editing on hold. But if nobody disputes it after a while, I will change it to fit to everyone's liking. 172.216.221.176 16:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to be cautious about it. This is after all about him, not his regime, and if you're going to take the line that he's blood-thirsty and vicious, it sounds like you're planning more than a clean-up. The article needs to have an accurate account of the person's life, and he personally did many things while he was alive besides preside over the widely reported actions of his police/military. 81.96.164.105 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

These edits need to be made: please make them. We need more than a cleanup here. Despite what the user above me says, this article is deficient in discussing Saddam's regime, which because he was a dictator, belongs in this article. We need extensive discussion of the horrors he inflicted on his own people throughout his time in power: to leave these out is to actively seek to make Saddam appear less brutal. Accurate documentation of the murders, arrests and activities of the secret police (including the use of torture) is needed. It is not in dispute that he was a vicious tyrant. That's not a "line", that's a fact.58.160.66.242 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a little "pamphlet for the kiddies". WP is not censored for anyone. I'm obviously not going to directly say that he's blood-thirsty and vicious, I'm merely asserting that the more despicable aspects of his regime should be reported as well as the other parts! You're absolutely right that it should be a neutral account of his life, that is why I'm asking for ALL the information to be covered, not just SOME! there are plenty of sources for this, and all "accurate" information is conviniently left out! Let's have the truth, then...172.189.155.111 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

Footnote 47 to The Guardian is broken. I don't know if anybody knows of an alternative? DoyleyTalk 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Raisin Bran versus Fruit Loops

I don't understand why my proposed language regarding Saddam's preferred foods while incarcerated keeps getting deleted? The article which forms the basis of it is one of the more interesting ones I've seen regarding his incarceration, giving some insight into his living conditions during that period and his personal interactions with U.S. military personnel.Spirogyra 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been added and removed several times now, so per WP:CONSENSUS, it should be discussed here. For my part, this seems to be rather trivial material, and certainly not encyclopedic, therefore I'd prefer to not see it in the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is incredibly trivial. What is next, listing his favorite brand of socks? --OuroborosCobra 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what "encyclopedic" means. I suppose it means "I don't like it." Is the issue that he was eating "Fruit Loops" and "Raisin Bran" which sounds to some readers juvenile? Would it be better if it said he was served "grapefruits and tea," which wouldn't sound so "silly"? The significance of this information is not necessarily what his favorite cereal was, but that it reveals something about his condition and treatment while incarcerated. Clearly they were feeding him those Kellogg's individual serving cereal boxes for breakfast, and you can imagine something of what transpired in his cell -- how he would probably curse Fruit Loops, and the American tastes that support it, every time they put it in his cell. Yet at the same time, he developed a love for Doritos, another similarly tacky American snack. The contradiction is fabulous and it reveals something of his desperation that he was reduced to gorging on Doritos, something he would have never ever touched during his time as President of Iraq. I had omitted some information I had previously included about marriage advice he was giving to guards. I actually thought that information was interesting, since it showed how he was developing personal relationships with guards and it also revealed how he viewed himself as an expert in all things, including matters of love, but I thought some PC thinkers might have found his comments sexist and so that might be why it was being deleted. Personally, I'd put that back in, but that's just me. These are details that make his story *interesting*. Spirogyra 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with something written, say, by a psychology professor agreeing with you that this gives any insight beyond that he just happened to like one cereal over another, that is almost entirely original research in an attempt to give something trivial notoriety. I must ask what would be next, noting that he wears Fruit of the Loom underwear, but uses deodorant made in North Korea, thus giving us some other deep insight into his psyche? I seriously, seriously doubt anything was being deleted because of "PC", but most likely because it didn't come off as anything but trivial. I don't think we have his conversations with his Imam either, or what he said to his mother on his 5th birthday. --OuroborosCobra 08:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You can't clutter articles with trivialities like favourite food. However I do agree that there is a little interest in the fact that he seems to have asked for Western-style snacks. But since we don't know what he normally ate or what choice he had, or how often he actually did eat those things, it's not substantial enough to go in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually think this paragraph adds some level of being human to him. Even Hitler is not just a monster. This portion is what eventually led me to stop believing blindly that the coalition forces, specifically the usa, did not lie to justify the invasion. Though I agree that this fact is not encyclopedic, I wish for a way to keep it. Monsters are human, too.74.67.17.22 (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What cereal he ate did that? You need to go back to logic classes... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[http://www.ioffer.com/i/74224721?store=1]== Saddam capture ==

I think Wikipedia shouldn't simply be a rehash of aggregated CNN and Fox News exerpts from over the years and should actually include less favourable media information. The fact that there were dates growing from the palms around Saddam's "spiderhole" when he was supposedly captured on December 13 (a time when Bush was focused on re-election) has become yesterday's news by now and is common knowledge. As are the many facial inconsistencies (notably the eyes and teeth) between the captured Saddam and the real one. I hate to say it but the newer slim-toned Saddam with the ovular headshape and the mysterious never-before seen-mole above his left eye was a fake. Anyway here are two very interesting links. The first one is unique because its probably been banned from television and the second one is nothing short of shocking if you listen closely. Below that is what should give this legitimacy from a mainstream standpoint. Also if you google Dieter Buhmann you can find tons of information regarding the reality of Saddam's doubles.

I'm not asking for Wikipedia to be a cosy little corner of cyberspace for conspiracy theorists to dwell in, but I do expect it to present an accurate overview of world events. That of course, would be a little more difficult.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SffdvpNGQBs

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nSG-f-rdC3w

According to Yahoo, a respected mainstream news provider, the body double theory has "credence" -

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070412/139/6egz2.html

I wouldn't have called Yahoo a respected mainstream news provider. And while you say that Wikipedia has rehased CNN and Fox, you have just given us a rehash of sensationalist news stories about conspiracies, and told us that we should take those news stories as fact over CNN's and Fox's. I'm not being hostile, I'm just pointing out how weak some news stories and sensationalism can appear. Credit can be given to the body double theory, because one does exist, and I believe it is given in the article. However "the reality of Saddam's double" in his trials, well... reality is your opinion isn't it. :) SGGH ^speak! 11:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And the line that no double was used, and the real Saddam was tried and executed is also someone's opinion. If there are objective reasons to call this into question, such as the mole feature mentioned, then until that's looked at and discounted scientifically, the matter is open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes its all good. As long as the matter is open and we're not too quick to dismiss scientifically backed ideas as conspiracy theories (which I know can get annoying), then all is fine. I should probably have included the now fairly well known report regarding Saddam's wife from the Russian newspaper Pravda and other several other news outlets. What I sometimes get unhappy with is not the fact that our mainstream news media do not believe these reports, but that it pretends they do not exist. This particular report I had to find via detailed searches on google, whereas it should have made headlines when it was published in April 2004. Here is the link -

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/366/12494_saddam.html

--80.175.110.17 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased

Why are the editors of this article so silent about the genocidal crimes and htared of Saddam towards Iranians? It is very biased. And of course Al-Jazeera ommits his last racist remarks towards Iranians. Of course. Al Jazeera is itself an Anti-Iraniast Pan-Arabist source. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Omitted/fabricated information

Among other issues, this post neglects to mention that Saddam spent years as a torturer prior to assuming leadership. This is crucial to his later leadership methods, which routinely involved torture and extensive use of secret police. But I guess since the article doesn't mention THAT either, the writer didn't think it would be a problem.

The section on infrastructure seems to be mostly fabricated. There is extensive evidence that Saddam rerouted most of the power to Baghdad, and failed to maintain or build infrastructure outside of the city. Furthermore, it is blatantly false that he "modernised" the economy, since they had no economy to speak of despite being rich in natural resources.

This article is incredibly biased and needs to be completely rewritten.58.160.66.242 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA involvement in 1963 assasination

I believe "Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963." Should be changed to "Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963, aided by the CIA." Since they didn't have a chance without the CIA's help. I think it should be shown somewhere in this article that the CIA had an essential role in Saddam's rise to power.

source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,817834,00.html "A few years later, Quasim was overthrown in a CIA-assisted coup." I'm having trouble finding a news article more specifically concerned with the 1963 events. But CIA's involvement is Historical fact, backed up by CIA officials.

I think the coup is important in Saddam's life because: 1) He participated in a failed assasination attempt earlyer (some say he was the gunman, he himself admits to having kept the weapons) 2) That's the major turning point in Iraqui history that lead to him taking power.

I'd rather let someone else do the editing, as there may be more to discuss regarding this issue. --140.77.129.149 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for a CIA link except that they certainly had eyes on the ground. Saddam was certainly no western tool as he had strong communist links with Russia and had nationalized Iraq's oil assets shortly after seizing power. 81.208.106.64 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is horribly, horribly, BIASED!!! FIX!!!

Jesus Christ, it is nauseating to find such an bias, non-NPOV, article like this on Wikipedia. The ammount of half truths, misconceptions, and weasel words on this page is ridiculous.

Who wrote this ...? A triumvirate of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore ...? I'm not a republican supporter but this article doesn't even seem to attempt to present a neutral point of view, making it read hard for me to take Wikipedia seriously at the moment. Looking only at the introduction..., there is absolutely no mention of Saddams cruelty and tyranny, zero mention of the hundreds of thousands of civilians he directly perpetuated the death of, no trace of the the proven geonocide, chemical attacks and nuclear weapons research he was involved with. Why? Why? Why?

The best part about the intro is that it's wrapped up with this nice, little piece of garbage "his execution aroused controversies and protests all around the world." Gee, that about defines weasel words. His execution obviously aroused controversies and protests all around the world... events with worldwide repercussions seem to have that effect. This closing sentence gives the impression that the execution was widely condemned all over the world... which it very well might have been. However the execution was also celebrated all over the world, and was probably found acceptable by a huge, silent, majority of global spectators.

Apparently the people who have the ability to edit this article would rather pervert knowledge in the interest of their own political agenda rather than providing objective information in the spirit of Wikipedia. Way to go guys keep it up.

Hyperion395 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the man himself, not how he ruled a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.136.78 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One could easily make the arguement that it is your above statement that is "horribly horribly BIASED". One must always be aware that, if one sees something to be biased, ones own position may be equally biased in the other direction. Your statement "addams cruelty and tyranny, zero mention of the hundreds of thousands of civilians he directly perpetuated the death of, no trace of the the proven geonocide, chemical attacks and nuclear weapons research he was involved with. Why? Why? Why?" is probably more POV than most of this article. SGGH ^speak! 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not only a heavily biased article but has also been heavily edited by conspiracy theorists and anti-western ragtags. 81.208.106.64 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a very interesting opinion, 81.208.106.64. Would you perhaps be willing to provide factual evidence? 75.189.132.215 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How many hundreds of thousands did the Americans kill (directly or indirectly) in their recent invasion? 84.9.33.11 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, roughly 1.2 million less than the regime itself did. @@@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.45.206 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since far more than that fled the country after the invasion, they couldn't be killed there. Lars T. (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Video

I am doing a long term study on death, suicide, and other death related things, so could somebody give me a link to an uncut version of any videos relating to his death? Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Jimmy666 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Letter

I have removed the letter since the only apparent purpose of it to show the dictator in a "more Human light". I realize this will probably be reverted in the next minute or so (in fact it probably already is as I'm writing this) and I know the people who usually win "edit wars" are the ones with the most time on their hands (no pun intended) and as such I'm not even bothering after my first edit, but I ask others to consider this for a permanent change to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.78.148 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

lols ironically your comment share an uncanny resemblances with Sadam's. i see death in your near future. may you fade into nothingness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.143.116 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FBI Interview

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html read this article. in it an FBI agent who interviewed saddam on his mindset before during and immediatly after the war. I think its very relevent information. but i was wondering where to include it. do i put it in the 2003 war segment? or maybe make a seperate section for it? any thoughts? Gailim (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say place in an existing section, or perhaps on the section of his capture (seeing as interview took place after that). SGGH ^speak! 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bush's successor

Hi this might just be me but there is a paragraph which doesn't make any sence to me, currently it is written in the article:

"Bush's successor, U.S. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001)"

I looked in the Dictionary and it says that a successor is "a person who follows next in order"

So isn't it the case that Bush is the incumbent (i.e. has no successor as yet) and that Bush's predecessor was President Bill Clinton?

Meaning that the paragraph should be written:

"Bush's predecessor, U.S. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001)"

Apoligies if I am wrong! But maybe it might be better to clean up the paragraph to make it clearer anyway? 193.35.129.161 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of "George H. W. Bush"? The father of George W. Bush? The PREDECESSOR of, Bill Clinton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.182.96 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In a section called '2003 invasion of Iraq' wouldn't it be better to be less ambiguous about which Bush? does seem unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fen croft (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the huge majority of people to read this article would be aware that Bush Snr. was the president for the first gulf war, and Bush Jnr. for the second, by process of elimination anyway, but it may be good practice just to be specific. SGGH ^speak! 11:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Morris, Roger, "Remember: Saddam was our man",

Does anyone have a copy of this reference: Morris, Roger, "Remember: Saddam was our man", New York Times, March 14, 2003 ? (Imad marie (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

totalitarianism

This is a loaded and disputed concept, and its application here is POV. I don't think WP should take a stand endorsing the concept, at all. This goes for all the articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question/comment about the "main photo" of Saddam Hussein.

I wonder why the article's "main photo" of Saddam Hussein is the one from his capture? It should instead be a photo that is more general/neutral. This one is not, and to be fair it's one of those that doesn't really shows how he looked like. And what people in general think of when picturing him ("man in army-uniform and/or man on trial with beard.")194.52.183.204 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Saddam is most known as the president of Iraq, his main picture should show him as a president. (Imad marie (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

I changed the pic to one showing him as the leader of Iraq (Imad marie (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

A leading member of the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which espoused secular pan-Arabism, economic modernization, and socialism, Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup that brought the party to long-term power. As vice president under the ailing General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam tightly controlled conflict between the government and the armed forces — at a time when many other groups were considered capable of overthrowing the government — by creating repressive security forces. In the early 1970s, Saddam spearheaded Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had long held a monopoly on the country's oil. Through the 1970s, Saddam cemented his authority over the apparatuses of government as Iraq's economy grew at a rapid pace.[6]

As president, Saddam maintained power through the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and the first Persian Gulf War (1991). During these conflicts, Saddam repressed movements he deemed threatening to the stability of Iraq, particularly the Shi'a, who were pro-Iraqi but sought to overthrow the government; and Kurdish movements who waged war in the hope of gaining independence. While he would remain a popular hero among Arabs for standing up to the West (from 1990 onwards) and for his support for the Palestinians,[7] Western leaders continued to view Saddam with deep suspicion following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Saddam was deposed by the U.S. and its allies during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Captured by U.S. forces on December 13, 2003, Saddam brought to trial under the Iraqi interim government set up by U.S.-led forces. On November 5, 2006, he was convicted of charges related to the executions of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites suspected of planning an assassination attempt against him, and was sentenced to death by hanging. Saddam was executed on December 30, 2006.[8] His execution aroused controversies and protests by some and praise by others all around the world شبابه ********************************** Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti was born in the town of Al-Awja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.252.122 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton used inspectors to try and kill Saddam

This article is American propaganda. The Washington Post knows that the US tried to kill Saddam in 1995, see [25] 100s of likely loyal Saddam followers died at his hand. Non-Americans will tell you that the UN inspections were infiltrated by American spys to do this (that's why the fuss about "inspecting his palaces"). It just makes it really obvious how slanted and pro-Israel you are if you leave out such important information - even when it's in your own newspapers. 86.155.142.129 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're article makes none of your claims. It doesn't even have the word "inspector" in it. The article discusses a 1995 bombing campaign and some of its goals, it says nothing about inspectors being used to find targets, acting as spies, etc. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is obvious American propaganda, that doesn't even bother to mention that America attempted to trigger a major coup against Saddam. The American newspaper doesn't connect the dots or say anything about the abuse of the UN inspections (was it Scott Ritter who turned out to be CIA or was it someone else?). You're not going to allow any references from the Middle East, no matter how reliable, to insert information, in order you can pretend the US's hands are clean. 86.155.142.129 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything, but you have not presented a source, Middle East or not, that backs up your claims. The funny thing is that this article tends to be called propoganda by both sides. Americans and such feel that it doesn't talk enough about Saddam being a genocidal tyrant in the vein of Hitler and Stalin. You and others think that it is pro-American. That says to me that in fact we don't have either pro-American or pro-Saddam propaganda, since neither side thinks it defends their point of view. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Saddam the writer

Does someone know anything about his litterary work?Mitch1981 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Saddam was not a writer. Please don't claim that. --212.99.225.66 (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein - Romance Writer (Who'd have thought?) Lars T. (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Modernisation

Why do we have two sections: Modernisation and Modernization program ?? Imad marie (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes by User:172

172, stop making bulk changes, they are uneasy to track. Imad marie (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub article

I created a test sub article of this article: User:Imad marie/Saddam and CIA

Any suggestions for the title of the sub article? I was thinking of:

1. Saddam and CIA
2. Saddam and USA
3. Saddam and USA collaboration
4. United States-Saddam relations

Imad marie (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created the sub article: Saddam Hussein - United States relations. Comments are appreciated. Imad marie (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Shahada

The link to shahada is incorrect, it should be Shahadah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.51.144 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a fairly moot point as it was all in Arabic and Arabic spelling uses a different script. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "socialism".

The second paragraph of the article reads "A leading member of the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which espoused secular pan-Arabism, economic modernization, and socialism, Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup that brought the party to long-term power." Two sentences later, the article discusses Saddam's nationalization of resources and rapid economic growth.

This is much more in line with state capitalism. - signed by an anon IP

Nancy.paras (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FIRST gulf war??

The gulf war involved all the countries of the gulf. Saudi arabia, qatar, kuwait, uae, jordan and so on fought against iraq. The more recent American invasion of Iraq was in no way a gulf war. The saddam hussein article refers to the 'first' gulf war which is historically and factually incorrect. Someone please correct it. Take out 'first'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.235 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. All wars have near numerous different names, which someone wouldn't like. Unfortunately, this article is filled with so much nonsense that is far more pressing than the naming of a war, more than I can even list here. I can't even read much of it, but thankfully wikipedia isn't my sole source of information. --MercZ (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gulf War" refers to the location (the Persian Gulf), not the combatants involved. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Saddam" vs. "Hussein" on second reference

It's common for the media to refer to him by his first, rather than second name. But in an encyclopedia reference, what is the precedent for using his first? I realize there are Stalin and Lenin, for example. I'm wondering if, in this case, it's more appropriate to use 'Hussein'. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andaroocorp (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• See, "Hussein" is the name of Saddam's father - it is a patronymic. In any case, people in the Arab world prefer to refer to him as "Saddam," so we use that. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Saddam feared getting AIDS

Someone should get an update again, because I have news that Saddam feared getting AIDS and venereal disease while he was in prison. Read more about it here. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where or why this is needed, as everyone fears AIDs or any STD. 146.235.66.52 (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC) MPA

Marrage

This article uses the word "Marrage" quite a lot, there is no entry for this word in a dictionary. I think it should be "Marriage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.56.164 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Changed. Lars T. (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue transcript between Saddam and his executioners is incorrect and unsiurced

Despite the video of Saddam execution is published everywhere, the transcript published on this article contains tow lines that were actually never enunciated:

• [Voice] You have destroyed us, killed all of us, our nation is ruined.
• [Saddam] I helped you survive. Iraq is nothing without me!

This dialogue has never taken place anytime during the conversations Saddam had had with his executioners before the immediate hanging. The article says the source are BBC and Aljazeera websites, however, no sources were provided.

Here's the BBC article on Saddam's last moments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218875.stm

And from Aljazeera English: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DD8B7E9F-7FCA-4AD6-B67C-EE5A98530946.htm

Nowhere on these two sources it's cited that Saddam has said:

I helped you survive. Iraq is nothing without me! --Sabotage (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the whole section until someone can provide a source. The al-Jazeera link you provided does have the following:

“ By several accounts, Saddam was calm but scornful of his captors, engaging in a give-and-take with the crowd gathered to watch him die and insisting he was Iraq's saviour, not its tyrant and scourge.

Munir Haddad, an appeals court judge who witnessed the hanging, told the BBC: "He said we are going to heaven and our enemies will rot in hell and he also called for forgiveness and love among Iraqis but also stressed that the Iraqis should fight the Americans and the Persians."

Another witness, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, told The New York Times that one of the guards shouted at Saddam: "You have destroyed us. You have killed us. You have made us live in destitution."

Al-Rubaie told the newspaper that Saddam responded: "I have saved you from destitution and misery and destroyed your enemies, the Persians and Americans."

”

Those last two lines sound an awful lot like the passage you say doesn't exist; my best guess is that this was a original translation of the video by someone that was never published anywhere. My guess is that the above last two paragraphs are the sentences that were translated that way in Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. The two lines I proposed to be removed were never spoken in the video that was spread all over the world. Mowaffak al-Rubaie wasn't present in the execution room, at least visually in the video, nor he did speak with Saddam while he was on the execution deck. The conversations that are reported between them are said to be held in another room where many of the then Iraqi government officials has met him and had had heated discussions with him.

Bottom line is, the actual video of execution, which that paragraph was a transcript for, has never contained a discussion between Saddam and Mowaffak al-Rubaie or any other man regarding those specific two lines[26]

I do agree, however, that the whole transcript translation was rather poor. I suggest that we make efforts to provide a better translation and put it back in the article, or maybe move the whole transcript to the specific article on Saddam's execution. As a native Arabic language speaker, I propose this as an accurate translation:

• [Saddam] God is Great. Palestine is Arab (This was also never spoken in the video. It should be removed as well)
• [Voices] May God's blessings be upon Muhammad and his household.
• [Voices] And may God hasten their appearance and curse their enemies.
• [Voices] Muqtada [Al-Sadr]...Muqtada...Muqtada.
• [Saddam] Muqtuda? (sarcastically) Eeeeh.. is this manhood? (better than bravery)
• [Voice] Long live Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr.

• [Voice] To hell.
• [Saddam] The hell that is Iraq? (Arabic: جحينب هو عراق Ghihyneb hew A'raq)
• [Voice] You have destroyed us, killed all of us, our nation is ruined. (This was never spoken)
• [Saddam] I helped you survive. Iraq is nothing without me! (This was never spoken)
• [Voice] Please do not. The man is being executed. Please no, I beg you to stop.
• [Saddam] (Recites Shahadah) There is no God but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah and I testify that Muhammad... --Sabotage (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can publish an original research translation. Also, even if you disagree with al-Jazeera's interpretation of events, the fact that it is published in a reliable source means it can be used in Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that transcript translation which you now claim (truly) to be original research existed for months in the article. Actually this article has lots of original research, like the translation of Saddam's last letter, to which the source link is dead! Anyway, I also wasn't disagreeing with anyone, whether Al-Jazeera or BBC. Once again I was stating the simple fact that these two lines:

• [Voice] You have destroyed us, killed all of us, our nation is ruined.
• [Saddam] I helped you survive. Iraq is nothing without me!

were never spoken or heared in the video. I say "the simple fact" because it's based on a video footage, which is spread all over the Internet, and which there's a global acceptance that it represents the actual last minutes of Saddam's execution; unless someone brings a reliable source that the video was fabricated.

There's a big difference between claiming that some conversation has took place somehow, somewhere, during the execution and between saying that it was spoke and heared in the video. This article did a great job in analyzing the different transcripts from different sources. None of which contained the above two lines. Sabotage (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Since I am a new user, I cannot make any edits onto the article, so can someone cut and paste the following which it doesn't say anywhere on the page:
Saddam's goals were:

• The ellimination of ethnic Shites
• The persecturion and gassing of ethnic Kurds
• The wanton destruction of their property
• The establishment of a Sunni-Arab ruling class
• No elections except for Bath Party candidates

Please thanks! X Ray Tex (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason why new users are not allowed to edit this article. All of your above points must be referenced to actual reliable and unbiassed documentation which showes that these were Saddam's actual goals as opposed to being things that he did while in power. For example it could be pointed out that there was a Sunni-Arab ruling class before Saddam came on the scene, the "elimination of ethnic Shias" assumes that being a Shia is an ethnicity rather than belonging to s religious belief system. Until you learn some of Wikipedia's basic rules and beliefs, e.g. Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) and need for references etc., you should not edit controversial topics because you could be accused of being a vandal. Discussing your issues on a Talk page on the other hand is not only acceptable but is the correct thing to do with any potentially controversial edits. Dabbler (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Even so, there wasn't so much a Sunni ruling quarter as their was Arab; Arabs of course being the predominant ethnic group with regards to numbers. The confusion surrounding Saddam wasn't so much that his trustees were all Sunni Arabs, but that they came from his home town of Tikrit and many were also relations of some kind. Tikrit in turn lies in a region of Iraq in which the majority of the population is Sunni. But if anyone followed the events in Iraq, particularly at the top, they'll know that the Ba'ath Party (with two "A's" Mr.X Ray Tex) is indeed Pan-Arab but not alligned to a religious group: two out of three of Saddam's Prime Ministers in the 1990's were Shi'ite; Saddam's former information minister is Christian; one of Saddam's last remaining cabinet allies, active when the Ba'athists were ousted, who had been a founder member of the party was Kurdish. The Iraqi Ba'ath Party was in any case formed by Shi'ites from the onset. Outside of Iraq, the Iraqi branch of the Ba'ath Party in the Lebanon was headed by an Arab of Greek Orthodox faith. Away from Iraq completely, the Syrian Ba'athists are led by Bashar al-Asad, who, like his father from whom he inherited the seat, is a member of a relatively minor faith which identifies as Shia Muslim (even if not wholly accepted by the wider Shia community), this despite nearly 80% of Syria being Sunni; as for Bahrain, a largely Shia country, no fewer than two political groups among Shi'ites have been in alliance with their local Ba'athists. There is no need to add all that extra communication just to create provocation. Evlekis (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Mister, you may know how to spell the party name but you are talking nonsense. I don't care about your so-called "non-Sunni Arab" part of Saddam's deal because it is a plain known fact that any non-Sunni Arab didn't so much "serve" the regime but rather collaborated so as to save himself from the dangers of what happened to the rest of the ethnic group. Elvekis, do you know about Halabja mister? Most probably not, so I'll tell you - it was a war crime in which Iraqi government war planes flew over a town populated by Kurds and spray-gassed the population with a nuclear substance. He killed 10,000 in one day, is that not Mass Genocide?? And what if they were Kurds? They were Iraqi Kurds - so they were his OWN PEOPLE. It wasn't just Iran he went towar with, and Kuwait he was invading, but he waged a war against the Kurds who he couldn't assimilate into Arab - and then he went to war with the Shites when they tried to revolt against him. He crushed the revolt and killed tens of thousands - he held a country of 30 million hostage, food shortages, starvation, collapsed economy, NO OIL exportation, and what did the idiot do? Develop WMD cuz his intent was to destroy the Earth. What you say about other countries - Mister. You get the Labour Party in the UK and the Labour Party in other countries - it's not the same one, it is just a name. But whilst the majority Shites and Kurds lived in Shanty Town Iraq, some left with no houses, how about Saddam's minority? Living in palaces and luxury hoes with the breaze of the Mediteranean flowing through. Saddam's son had a passion for BMW and Mercedes whilst Iraqi's rode camels. And did you know that not all of Iraq is even Muslim? How must life have been for the poor Christians of Iraq subjected to Saddam's Islamic Sharia Sunni-only hostility. You cannot even imagine the carnage that Iraqi Christians suffered at the hands of that animal. You want to learn your facts before you go defending tyrants. X Ray Tex (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)