Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 8

Senate panel declares no ties to Zarqawi

A recently updated bit. [1] Perhaps someone here can better articulate this revelation. It's certainly being seen as the final nail in the coffin for the Iraq war by many. --AWF

Birthday?

Saddam is listed as being born on 4/28 in the text of the document but born on 4/16 in the picture caption. Which is correct? User:anonymous 10:32 18 July 2006 (CDT)

He was born on 4/28

President in a Spider Hole?

Is it really realistic to say that Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq until he was pulled out of a spider hole on December 13, 2003? Surely his de facto presidency ended some six or more months earlier. I know it's hard to put a finger on the exact date when Saddam was effectively removed from power, but surely it was well before December 13, 2003. Loomis51 14:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Under international law, he is still the president of Iraq.

Indictment

Regarding the notation that he's been indicted for crimes against humanity; it would be helpful to include who/what organization indicted him. From the reading, it is not clear if a charge of 'crimes against humanity' is something that a national government files or if it requires an international organization.

The Name Issue

I hope (and I think) I'm not violating the above directions by asking a simple question regarding the "name issue". It's been pointed out that "Saddam" is referred to as "Saddam" rather than "Hussein" because "Saddam" is his given name, and "Hussein" is merely the given name of his father, not a family name in the English/Western context. It's further stated that this is due to Arabic tradition. Fair enough.

Why then is it that pretty much every other Arab leader is invariably referred to by their second name as if it were a family name. For example, I have not once ever heard of "Yasser Arafat" being referred to in western media as "Yasser". It's always "Arafat" or "Mr. Arafat." Same goes for Hosni Mubarak. Has anyone ever read a news report referring to the Egyptian leader simply as "Hosni"? Is this truly an Arabic thing or is it peculiar to Iraq? Loomis51 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of a name is to distinguish one person from another. Don't let the formal rules cause you to lose sight of the larger picture. If you call him Hussein, there are several other people you could confuse him with, including the Shi'ite saint and the former king of Jordan. "Saddam" is what Iraqis call him, both supporters and opponents. It's also common in English, so it isn't trailblazing. Rafsanjani is often called by his given name, Hashemi. We don't call the king of Saudi Arabia Mr. Saud. Palestinian leaders are often refered to by a nom de guerre (Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, etc.) You make exceptions when it makes sense.Kauffner 19:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As best as I can recollect, it's not common in English. Saddam Hussein is most often refered to as "Saddam Hussein", Mr. Hussein, and (Ex-)President Hussein. Trailblazing is forcing a foreign language construct on the English language. He should probably be refered to as Hussein on the English page and whatever is appropriate on the Arabic and other language pages. -- Markspace 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did a Google search for Saddam Hussein. There's a BBC article where they refer to him as Saddam Hussein at first, but switch later and refer to him as just Saddam later. I think they refer to him as Saddam three times, and the rest Saddam Hussein. [[2]]

By contrast, an article on the NY Times refers to him as Saddam Hussein only once, and the rest of the time as Mr. Hussein. [he is an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!erence%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2fHussein%2c%20Saddam|//www.nytimes.com/2006/06/12/world/middleeast/12cnd-hussein.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2fHussein%2c%20Saddam] So there might be differences in the British vs. the U.S. use of the name as well, but living in the US the latter is definately more familiar to me. Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding US. vs Brittish spelling or usage to help us with this? -- Markspace 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

just to clear this up a little, it is not iraqi custom to call Saddam Hussein, Hussein as this is his fathers name, Yasser Arafat is called arafat, as this is his surname same for Hosni Mubarak. Saddams family name/surname is Al-Tikriti however this can also be claimed as a surname by all inhabitants of Tikrit, also Saddam himself banned surnames so as the neoptism in his governance would'nt be so obvious, anyway in Iraq he is known as Saddam Al-kalb (or Saddam Sagbab)

eh ... just btw, "kalb" means dog, so this name is a huge insult. (i don't know what sagbab means) Benwing 07:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

Just some small comments for the reflexion on the NPOV-Status of this article:

• There are some pictures of Saddam together with other important person: Its the current president of France (picture from 1976) and the general secretary of the United Nations in 1990. No picture with, for example, Mr. Rumsfeld or other important figures of the U.S.

• There is a an "illustration" of a "bench grinder". This is just absurd for biography (as long as the person is not a shoe-cleaner or something in that direction) ---Please define 'illustration of a bench grinder' a little more specificly, or was that one already fixed? ECH

• There is no say that the story of Saddam hidding in an earth hole is questioned not only by saddam itself but by other sources (including the rumors about a soldier who was wittness and say otherwise). [last sentence makes no sense, following is little better, I can't quite follow them to correct them. ECH] Instead the story is reported at the entry of the article (as would it be an important information, where Saddam excatly was captured) Even if he was captured in hole (which is really not verfiable) it's not relevant. Clearly POV. [why is a statement that something happened, however controversial, a point of view issue? Either it happened, it didn't, or we don't know; POV is like, is the glass half full or half empty kind of stuff, right? ECH]

- Perhaps, in this story, it should be stated that it was reported by all major news agencies that he was found in a hole

- Could also add the statements from other sources but it must also say, as you say, that they are rumors.

• Reading the article you get the impression that saddam was in "full" power since around the seventies. De facto he had to share power most of his presidency with other influence groups and persons. 212.254.138.164 03:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    "Videotapes showing the brutality of the regime are difficult to watch and should not be seen by             
    children" blatent POV -deleted-

Tweak edited by Eric C Helm, or ECH, Feb 16, 2006 20:52 (-8:00)

Misinterpretation/Misrepresentation

In the article there appears this statement:

Chomksy wrote: There were no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam’s gassing of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988; on the contrary, the U.S. and UK extended their strong support for the mass murderer, then also "our kind of guy."

In an attempt to verify the quote in order to use it elsewhere I found the original writing Rogue States and while correctly attributed to its author (though the name is misspelled, the actual spelling is "Chomsky") it is dually misrepresented to both seem attributed to political statements by both the U.S. and UK in 1988 and to make it seem as if the quote was referring to Saddam. The original text indicates the contrary:

Perhaps the most relevant case is Indonesia, which shifted from enemy to friend when General Suharto took power in 1965, presiding over an enormous slaughter that elicited great satisfaction in the West. Since then Suharto has been "our kind of guy," as the Clinton administration described him, while carrying out murderous aggression and endless atrocities against his own people; killing 10,000 Indonesians just in the 1980s, according to the personal testimony of "our guy," who wrote that "the corpses were left lying around as a form of shock therapy."

In fact the statement is attributed to the Clinton administration thus precluding it having been said at any point close to 1988 and clearly the alleged statement is referring to General Suharto and not Saddam. General Suharto is in interesting man with a colorful and violent history, but he has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Therefore, this passage should be removed from this bio unless someone can show alternate work from Chomsky that points the "our kind of guy" reference at Saddam and not Suharto. --Matt 12:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the Chomsky quotation just on the grounds that his opinion does not belong in this article. He is not a Middle East specialist. Chomsky's opinion does not belong here any more than (say) Ann Coulter's opinion. 172 | Talk 15:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)He died November 5th, 2006.

Too Many Emotional Statements?

I am concerned that there are far too many emotionally charged statements either about Saddam or his regime, but this to appear to be an objective piece of literature.

Furthermore, the depiction of legitimate sovereign, with his hair and beard shabby is utterly irresponsible.

If the people who put the charged words and the picture don't modify them (or delete the picture of captured Saddam) by the end of the week, I will do so.18:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)~MPA

Fair warning. Do so at your own risk. A lot of people have strong opinions about every aspect of this article. Obviously, you do as well (referring to Saddam as the legitimate sovereign and so on), I would be careful revealing your own POV so quickly. It will hurt your chances at making any accepted changes to the piece. Also, threats ("If the people who put the charged words and the picture don't modify them (or delete the picture of captured Saddam) by the end of the week, I will do so" are not received well either. I for one, strongly support the picture as it was the famous picture of Saddam right after his capture and that makes it more than notable. Taking it out to show "respect" for Saddam is POV by omission. I may be wrong, but hey, it wouldn't be the first time. Fair warning, good luck and have fun! I don't care to fight you, so I don't plan on responding to anything. It's Labor Day here and I have some relaxing to do.Gator1 19:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Saddam is being ill treated or not being given the respect he deserves should read "Mayada: Daughter of Iraq" by Jean Sasson. It may put some light on the man's character for you.

To both the final paragraphs above: The issue is a very sensitive one, photos of people captured during a war situation are contrary to the Geneva Convention. I note that the first or penultimate paragraph, the writer refers to Labour day, suggesting an American writer. I would say that there are several continents in this world, with billions of people with different points of view. To brush aside fundamental human principals and human rights is a very sensitive issue to many, not least a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. The editor of the page has to consider whether the image serves significant relevance to the article or is gratuitous. But most of all as Wikipedia is a German project, German Law has to be considered and respected too. Germany is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Psudo prolonged medical examinations of captives are also a breach of the Conventions. Before anyone attacks me for saying the above, I am not a fan of the guy either!

The image seems reasonable due to its high prominence at the time. The opening section however is very emotional and is not supported either within itself or by the article as a whole. IMHO it would benefit from the removal of the political rhetoric.

The Geneva Convention obligates only the governments that ratify it. There is nothing in the convention that prevents a private party like WP from publishing photos or the results of medical examinations. Unless you think Saddam was still head of state when he was pulled out of the spiderhole, the issue would be one of domestic Iraqi law rather than international law.Kauffner 11:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlock Page

Please can someone unlock the page? It's extremely annoying otherwise for those of us who wish to vandalise it with hilarious references to death and/or hanging. Thankyou--84.67.151.236 04:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

haha....oh dear, if only wikipedia was run by majority, then the vandals and their "hilarious" comments would have their way. Plebmonk 05:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.activitypad.com/online-games/hangman/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

More talk about US arms sales to Iraq?

An issue of interest in the history of Iraq and Saddam's reign is the irony in the support that the US provided him and his regime. Some of this is already pointed out in the article, where it is mentioned that the US provided support during the Iran-Iraq war, and discussion of our statements to them before the conflict with Kuwait. But, there are many sources that describe the extent that the US sold weapons to Iraq. Citing some of these reputable sources would show some interesting things about how difficult it can be for a superpower, or any nation, to choose international policy. Would this be welcomed, or at least a reference or link to the wiki article "Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990"? Forga 07:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For a biographical entry, I think this article already goes into enough detail on U.S. support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. If you are interested in adding detail on this mater, there are plenty of related entries on Iraqi history and U.S.-Iraqi relations linked to this article. 172 | Talk 01:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's major revert

I reverted several edits--all edits performed on Oct 1, because of some major vandalism. The following text had been introduced in the opener:

• and former President Bill Clinton's good friend and "significant other".

I apologise to editors who made changes after that. Please feel free to restore good faith edits made in the interim. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I just restored 172's edit deleting the totalitarian dictators cat but forgot to edit summary. It is a controversial one and my restoration isn't an endorsement of 172's position, SqueakBox 01:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be controversial. In comparative politics Iraq under Saddam is generally classified as an extreme form of patrimonialism-- as a "sultanistic" or "personalistic" regime-- not as a totalitarian regime. 172 | Talk 01:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

My meagre understanding of Saddam is that it is you how describe it, 172. But by controversial I actually meant that this particular category has been the subject of controversy and edit warring in many articles, and I am sure it will continue to be so because the category is by its nature controversial, SqueakBox 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the big revert. I just saw that this major vandalism had gone unnoticed and didn't feel like checking every other single edit. I thought it best to let people know what I'd done and why, and let them restore their stuff. If I were a better editor I would have just deleted the offending text. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Incarcaration"

how the hell does this 'underpants' episode deserve its own h2-section? If it must be mentioned, just make it a subsection of 'pursuit and capture'. 81.63.63.37 13:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The underpants incident’s authenticity can also be questioned since tabloid newspapers broke the news. If there is one world figure that has many doubles and mock photo’s its Saddam Hussein. The incident is also very insignificant and could be moved to the Capture section to maintain objectivity in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagees (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 January 2006

wiki news link

Can we have a link to the wikinews articles about his trial in the trial section? 82.38.60.227 06:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Abou Rabeh

has the Abou Rabeh story been discussed before? de:Saddam Hussein has it, but there are a number of conservative blogs 'debunking' it; still, while the original story was carried by UPI, the debunking appears to take place exclusively on blogs, so I'm not sure about which version has the greater credibility here. 83.79.189.191 15:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am quite unsure about the merit of that story myself, and took good care to link to a critical discussion for npov. I have tried to find an unambiguous official debunking of the story. I could only find statements in conservative blogs of users who claimed to have searched Marine personnel databases, claiming that Rabeh either never served, or wasn't near Tikrit at the time of the capture. I found no such statement from an official source. Apparently, "Pentagon officials dismissed as 'ridiculous' and untrue a report that the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was staged" www.infowarscom/articles/iraq/saddam_capture_story_not_fake_pentagon.htm (if you listen closely, that's a non-denial denial; obviously the actual capture wasn't staged, as they really did catch him; what may or may not have been staged is the pulling-out of a spider-hole). While you should think it would have been easy for the Pentagon to figure out whether Rabeh was part of the raid, they apparently didn't deny that. The video linked to from diaryland is a classical soundbite and open to interpretation. The commander appears to be phased in in mid-sentence, explaining to his men that "he was living like a pig; literally hiding in a hole. ok? Again, nobody mentions anything". The CNN speaker goes on to say that he was adessing the troops who had just taken part in the raid. Why he would need to tell the men who just pulled Saddam out of a hole that he was living in a hole is anybody's guess. So from the evidence I've scraped together here, I really cannot decide which version to believe, as both sides seem to have both motive and opportunity for presenting a false story. 83.79.189.191 16:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

thank you for you instruction, User:172. I just wasted an hour researching the thing because wikipedia doesn't cover it. This is a story reported by UPI. I didn't claim any of it was true, I reported the story as published, plus the official reaction. Where, pray, was I guilty of conspiracy-monging, there? It is also beyond me how this is "Anti-U.S" conspiracy. Anti-Pentagon, maybe, but if anybody claimed that Senate, Congress, and McDonalds, Hollywood, Elvis, PETA or the Illuminati were behind this, it must have slipped my attention. Could you maybe take the trouble to reply here, on talk, rather than telling me I have no idea what I am doing in your edit summary? thank you. 17:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Good ol' Saddam

Wow! This article is very sympathetic to Saddam! It's good to know Saddam still has fans! Babajobu 12:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove this because it was "contrary to my point of view" I removed it because... Well look at it, it has nothing to do with nothing. It neither offers support for its conclusion nor seeks any remedy to the purported problem. --Matt 21:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It points out that the article is very sympathetic to Saddam. That's worth noting. Babajobu 22:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to quantify that, or shall I just take your word on it? You are aware that something can be neither supportive nor negative; the absence of one does not necessarily infer the other. For example, the article on Hitler presents strait facts of Hitler's life without sitting around and spouting off how evil he is. Is that, under your definition of sympathetic, a sympathetic article about Hitler or rather just a neutral objective article where one can draw one's own moral judgment? --Matt 01:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Giving facts" does not guarantee that an article is neutral. Omission and tendentious selection of facts is also a means of expressions POV, as the Sage of Ages Noam Chomsky has instructed us. This article seems far more interested in Saddam's involvement with Western powers than in the massacres he carried out against Iraqis. Babajobu 08:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Objectively, Saddam Hussein's involvement with Western powers is far more significant for the history of the region than the death of 5000 people. Rama 08:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL @ "5000 people"!! Call that lefty math! Wildly overestimate deaths caused by people you dislike, wildly underestimate deaths caused by people for whom you have sympathy! No bother, you can have this article. Peace. Babajobu 08:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu Mat and others are trying to contribute a "balanced" view. Slinging comments around about "lefty mat", which to anyone in the English speaking world outside of the USA means "Left of Centre Politics" and "Mathamatics". It is aboudantly clear you are not engaging from a NPOV perspective. Infact your lefty comment has probably offended about half the population of the world, whose countries have Socialist or left wing governments. It is not a crime to be left wing just as it is not a crime to be right wing. Can you limit your arguements to emotion free, intelligent comment please.

You would be well-inspired to leave you pre-conceptions as to what my personal beliefs are to the door. I do not recall making wild guesses about your convictions myself.

5000 is the estimate I read about the gas attacks against Halabja poison gas attack. I you are alluding to the Iraq-Iran war, I think it is quite relevant to mention that Saddam Hussein was seen as the wall of secularism against muslim extremism, that he was encouraged to wage war against Iran, and that he received ample material support from the whole West to do so. Rama 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The gas attacks in Halabja killed approximately 5000, yes, but this was only a small part of the larger Anfal campaign, which was itself only one part of Saddam's butchering of Shi'ites and Kurds. Saddam was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Shi'ites and Kurds. Whether that's as relevant as his shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld I leave to your discretion. And the West supported Saddam in his war on Iran, but they didn't cause it. Babajobu 09:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that Donald Rumsfeld would shake hands with a "butcher", as you say, and provide him all means to carry on, is quite relevant indeed. Instances of massacres like Halabja are examples of the sort of repression the regime was willing to use if necessary. Support by the Western powers is significant of a whole geo-political strategy on a global scale.

As for your "the West supported Saddam in his war on Iran, but they didn't cause it", that's the sort of things that I would not say so lightly. It is very possible that for some values of "cause" (like "not exactly signing the declaration of war but doing everyhting you can for that to happen"), you could be proved very wrong. Rama 09:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Support by the Western powers is significant of a whole geo-political strategy on a global scale." And this is the point. This article is supposed to be about Saddam, and its content shouldn't be determined by your fevered speculations about the West's "geopolitical strategy on a global scale". Babajobu 13:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the support from the Soviets and their satellites was considerably more important it would make equally more sense, not to mention NPOV to include that. PER

You know there is room for both pieces of information... or should I call the inability to handle two facts at a time "righty math".--Matt 20:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There's really no need to debate whether U.S. policy was right or wrong at the time. It's just going to become an ideological debate creating unnecessary acrimony. To Babajobu, there is already lots of detail on the human tool of the Iraq-Iran War here. Further information can be found in the articles linked to this page, as it is a wiki. 172 | Talk 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has a serious problem with burying the bad parts of Saddam's reign. The human toll of Saddam's actions is discussed in a tiny part of this article, compared to paragraph after paragraph about how Saddam stabilized the ethnically diverse country of Iraq and was respected for standing up to America. Try reading from the beginning of this article and compare how many paragraphs make Saddam sound like a relatively benign Castro-like leader vs the brutal murderer of hundreds of thousands that he was. We could at least drop a death toll range in the opening section to give people a basic idea that we're not talking about some tin-pot Carribean mildly repressive despot. I think this article needs serious work. Example: I couldn't even find mention of the internal security tactics used by Saddam's mukharabat to suppress internal dissent, nor the fact that they lead to a steady stream of people disappearing into prisons where they were tortured and killed, ultimately resulting in hundreds of thousands being killed for suspicions of anti-government activity (or for being relatives of someone suspected of anti-government activity, or for catching Uday Hussein's eye). This is a gross and glaring omission. 64.229.105.232 10:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again we have a lengthy (75Kb) article in which his connections to terrorism are mentioned in passing mentioned once or twice, only to be brushed off as they were unproven allegations of no importance. No mention of Abu Nidal, although this link is undisputed. NPOV doesn't mean you use only unbiased sources. Such sources are few and far between. It means you use sources with differing biases to get a balence result, which is most emphatically what we do not have now. Even the stuff I referenced to Foreign Affairs has been repeatedly deleted, so I don't see the "biased source" arguement as anything other than sheer hypocrisy. To repeat a point that has been made several times, but which no one has addressed: Even if you think Saddam is innocent, the allegations played a major role in shaping US policy toward Iraq. If your only source of info was this article, you could not figure out why the guy is no longer president.Kauffner 06:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Portrait

I noticed that SqueakBox had made the photo of Saddam at his first hearing the portrait photo at the top of the page, stating that it is standard to include more recent photos as the portrait. I disagree, however; standard seems to be including photos of leaders when they were in power, not afterwards. It is from the pictures taken during their rule that the more recent photos are chosen. In that sense we have a recent photo of Fidel Castro, who is still in power, at the top. For Augusto Pinochet, who is also alive, an older photo is found at the top of the article, as he has been out of power for more than 15 years. 172 | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, SqueakBox 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Where's the Outrage?

Saddam Hussein getting a Trial!!, the Butcher of Iraq who gave nobody a trial when he ruled the country, but instead instant execution? There was more outrage over the American Servicmen & women who mistreated Iraqi POW's. 23 October 2005

Outrage is not objective; you won’t find emotional judgments of a figure such as Hitler in an Encyclopedia Britannica or other such portals of information. If your desire is to have opinion pre-rendered for you there are many political web forums that serve that purpose. I don't care if the man ate 50 babies the goal is to convey information, not judgment. The vileness of his acts should be self evident from the factual information presented. If it's not that's your own issue or a discrepancy from the way a man is portrayed in popular opinion as opposed to factual occurrence. I don't have to be told someone is bad I can see if he's bad or good from looking at the information presented. Is information such as this not sufficient for you:

As president, he developed a pervasive personality cult, ran an authoritarian government, and maintained power through the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) and the first Persian Gulf War (1991), which were both devastating to Iraq, lowering living standards and human rights. Saddam's government repressed movements that it deemed threatening, particularly those from ethnic or religious groups that sought independence or autonomy.

Must I hammer a reader over the head by further saying Saddam is a terrible man or can I simply infer that people are capable of making quite obvious judgment calls based on this information.--Matt 01:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, your right Matt, this site isn't for Political beliefs or Political discussions , it's for recording Factual Information. I apologize for my emotional outburst, furthermore if it seemed I was suggestiing Others didn't care or weren't outraged, then again I'm sorry. Thanks for responding and explaining. 25 October 2005

Seperate Factual Section on Saddam's War Crimes and Atrocities, is missing. Seperate Factual Section on Saddam's gassing of thousands of Kurds is also missing.

These are worthy of distinct sections-- they could be purely factual, but they are so significant that this article appears slanted without them-- even if it is not fundamentally slanted in it's intent

If this were an article on Hitler, there would be a section on crimes against humanity without a doubt. Saddam was just a smaller despot by comparison but his crimes were gross enough to merit special focus nevertheless.

I think this article is fundamentally sound in it's intent-- but is dispassionate to a fault.

No one would do a wiki article on Hitler without creating a section on his crimes against humanity. Even though it is done factually there is a value of human life in the editorial choice to write about Hitlers crimes in a special section--

Not doing so in this article about Saddam has the appearance of caullossedness rather than dispassion (perhaps not the intent author but the unintended result of striving to an unbalanaced extreme of dispassion).

Phil

168.103.71.65 03:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

168.103.71.65 03:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

United States Support for Iran-Iraq War

I removed several lines in the article regarding United States support during Iran-Iraq War. It is misleading to discuss the support of one country without mentioning all the coutries that supported Saddam during the war. Saddam received substantially more support from European countries than from United States, yet there was no mention of this fact. Also, precursor to chemical weapons were not provided only by United States. Furthermore, being that this is a contentious issue, any mentioning of support should be backed by sources.

I removed the paranthesized Ronald Reagan after United States, because it doesn't make sense there.

The money transfer between United States and Iraq, was done through proxies. Therefore, the sentence saying Saddam was embarrased for borrowing money from United States is not believable.

Wpedi 13:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi Debt

The article says that Iraq owes United States $40 billion in debt. This seems extremely exagerated. First, the total debt Iraq incurred during the Iran-Iraq war is put at $75 billion. Further down, the article says that $30 billion of that is owed to Kuwait. That makes US the biggest creditor, and the rest of the countries holding only $5 billion of Iraqi debt. The $75 and $30 billion figures seem roughly correct. The United States figure should be somewhere in the low single digits. Here is a link to a breakdown of the debt: http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/130P511.pdf

Questions

1. This article says that Kuwait deliberately slant drilled. Has this ever been comfirmed?
2. Also it says that Saddam was motivated to invade Kuwait for post-war reconstruction money. But just a few paragraphs before that it says he got billions of dollars of foreign economic aid from the US and other countries. Therefore, would this not be a contradiction?

CJK 14:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) The slant drilling stuff if generally accepted. When two oil-exporting countries border each other and are experiencing political tensions, allegations of slant drilling are just about inevitable. The lead up to the Gulf War was one of those situations when any trigger could have set something off. It's kind of like asking whether it was a cigar or a cigarette that started a forest fire.

If this is just an allegation then it should be noted as such. Otherwise some evidence would have to be presented. CJK 21:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what the article is doing. It's reporting that Iraq brought evidence to the attention of the U.S. and the UN. The article does not verify the claims. 172 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(2) Iraq had been during the war. But the Iraq-Iran War was so devastating (the most devastating conventional war since World War II) that Saddam's regime was still on the brink of default.

If that is true, then it should be noted that somehow those billions of dollars Saddam got did not pay for post-war reconstruction. Also, when it says "one can surmise that..." it has a somewhat POV tone. It assumes that Saddam only wanted to invade Kuwait to "stabilize" his country while ignoring other possible reasons. CJK 21:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

He was getting money for the war, which was by then over, but next to nothing for postwar reconstruction. I'd be interested if you can cite some sources offering an account that goes overlooked in the article. 172 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Saddam got mostly economic aid, which you are right, enabled him to divert resources to the war effort. The aid continued until the invasion of Kuwait. Some of this is outlined here [3].

By next to nothing I meant that aid did not come close to making up for the cost of the war to Iraq's economy, which was estimated in the hundreds of billions at the time, though I appreciate the link to the interesting article. As the war ended, Iraq's debt topped US$50 billion, forcing Saddam's regime to introduce austerity measures in order to cut costs and reassure international creditors, or else default. The economy and indeed the entire country was left a basket case. [4] 172 23:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, CJK, on that note I have a good debating point that you might be able to use offline. I assume you support the president's policies in Iraq, right? If you're taking to a someone calling for an immediate withdraw because the U.S. troop presence has destabilized the region, you could provide some historical perspective and point out that however tragic the death toll from the insurgent attacks is at the moment, the humanitarian toll of the war overall since 2003 is nowhere close to the impact of war in the 1980s. 172 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind if a debate comes up. CJK 21:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the introduction completely leaves ou the fact that Saddam was a dictator. The current wording suggests that he was elected. And the article mentions US support in the Iran-Iraq war without explaining how Iraq was losing the war and the US didn't want Iran in control of the country. International support from France, China, Egypt, and the Soviet Union is completely ignored. Worse, then it gives editorializing space to Noam Chomsky in order to spread his conspiracy theories. Furthermore, where is the evidence that the entire international community believes that Iran carried out the 1988 gas attack? That may have been spread around initially, but today? CJK 22:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The intro says that Saddam created "repressive security forces... cementing his own firm authority over the apparatuses of government," developed "a pervasive personality cult, ran an authoritarian government," maintained his rule during a period "devastating to Iraq," worsening "living standards and human rights," and "repressed movements... from ethnic or religious groups that sought independence or autonomy." The intro doesn't need to identify him as a dictator; it's already obvious. In the same sense, if an article cites crimes committed by the person, by definition that person is a criminal, so there is no need to say that someone 'is a criminal becuase he committed the following crimes.' Regarging the other point on Noam Chomsky, I agree. I removed that reference myself ealier. I did not realize that someone brought it back. I'm going to go ahead and remove it again. Chomsky has no business being cited in any article related to Iraq because he is not a Middle East expert. He isn't even a social scientist or a historian, but rather a linguist. 172 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics IS a social science... shows what you know. Anyways, Chomsky is a well-respected commentator on geo-political affairs. He doesn't spout conspiracy theories, and anyways the particular quote in this article is misquoted. Palenque 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It says "repressive security forces" only after "many groups were considered capable of overthrowing the government". It should mention somewhere that he "ruled Iraq between 1979 and 2003". But I see your point. How about the rest of my issues? CJK 00:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hum, I hadn't noticed those other issues. I assumed that the section already mentioned Soviet and French support because I had inserted material on those facts long ago. Then I took another look at the section and found that it was not left how I remembered it. Apparently the section got mucked up, with relevant information disappearing as Chomsky worked his way in. I guess I failed to notice with the large volume of daily traffic on this article. Good work spotting those changes. 172 02:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There are still some other issues which I am going to edit as alid out above. CJK 20:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have a problem with the Rumsfeld-Saddam photo. It implies that the US was Iraq's #1 international supporter, when it was not. And why is "post-war reconstruction" being mentioned so frequently? The fighting in the Iran-Iraq war was confined largely to the Iraqi-Iranian border and away from major population centers. CJK 21:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) Actually, I tried to remove the Rumsfeld photo myself a long time ago. While I don't think that it implies anything other that the fact that he was sent to Iraq as an envoy by the Reagan administration, I objected to it on the grounds that the meeting would have been forgotten had Rumseld not been brought out of retirement by George W. Bush. My attempt did not go over well. There seemed to be a pretty clear consensus against my removals... Postwar reconstruction is being mentioned because the country's infrastructure and economic structure was devastated by the war. The U.S. Libary of Congress account, e.g., states the following: "Apart from the need to replace lost armaments, the war imposed a heavy reconstruction burden on Iraq. To rebuild the infrastructure and to prevent disaffection among the population of the south who had suffered particularly, the government gave a high priority to the rebuilding of Basra .... The negative economic consequences of the war extended beyond the reconstruction of cities and war-damaged infrastructure to include postponed development projects." [5] 172 23:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Where is this so-called "consensus"? 2. That may be true, but it does not have to be stated over and over again. The area around Basra was damaged (and Basra itself was never captured) but the rest of the country was hardly touched. CJK 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) Buried in the talk archives long ago. [6] I'd be on your side, but I don't want to get involved again. My proposal didn't fly then, and I doubt that it'll fly now. (2) CJK, this was the nastiest conventional war since World War II, with a economic cost estimated in the $200 billion dollar range, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis left dead. It wasn't just Basra that was affected. 172 23:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You were opposed by two users and supported by one user, and then you changed your mind! The only reason it's in there is to embarrass Rumsfeld and Bush. So I did not see a "consensus". Reconsruction does not=cost or dead. Reconstruction is rebuilding physical aspects, of which mainly the Basra area was affected. Anyway, I don't see why we need to keep assuming that Saddam "just wanted reconstruction aid" without paying attention to other motivations. CJK 00:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) Why be so argumentative with me? I have been reiterating most of what you have been saying here... So perhaps "consensus" was not the best word for me to use. Still, the number of Wikipedia editors has doubled multiple times over since then; back then any two editors had more of a say than any two editors now. Cut me some slack, okay? I was going on memory from more than a year ago... I gave up because I was getting reverted and getting nowhere in the conversation with the editors who wanted the photo; I did not "change my mind," as you just accused me of doing... If you want to remove the photo, more power to you. I'll stay uninvolved, though, as I was getting nowhere last time, and I don't care to get involved again. (2) The term "postwar reconstruction" does not just refer to infrastructure. Hence the fact that the postwar reconstruction of Western Europe under the Marshall Plan refers both to rebuilding infrastructure and economic recovery. (3) Re: I don't see why we need to keep assuming that Saddam "just wanted reconstruction aid" without paying attention to other motivations. Neither do I. Nevertheless, I do not see that assumption underlying text. The text focuses on postwar recovery insofar as it was a strategy to stabilizing Saddam's rule. Many Western experts at the time thought that Saddam was on the verge of losing power because of the postwar economic crisis. (Iraq found it increasingly difficult to get hard currency through foreign exchange. As what political scientists call a "neo-patrimonial" dictatorship, Saddam's regime was finding it increasingly difficult to use its control over resources in order to secure loyality from certain sectors of the population.) 172 02:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(1)Still, the number of Wikipedia editors has doubled multiple times over since then; back then any two editors had more of a say than any two editors now. It was two vs. two, and you gave up. (2) Point taken. (3) Little attention is paid to the Arab nationalist movement or manipulating OPEC. Nothing that you said was implied. CJK 20:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) Whatever. It was a long time ago. I don't remember getting any backing in the revert war, where I was outnumbered. Still, it hardly matters. If you want to take issue with the photo now, I wish you better luck. As I said earlier, the most compelling arugment for removing the photo is the fact that it is only notable in public discourse in the context of getting reproduced on many websites following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not because the event was such a big deal or considered such a big deal during the time of the Iran-Iraq War. (3) Huh? I remember lots of detail on Arab nationalism and OPEC-- because I added it long ago. I'll take another look at the article. Maybe this is another case of information I had added to the article getting removed without me noticing. 172 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember the following being in the article, and it turned out that it was: Kuwait spearheaded the opposition in OPEC to the cuts that Saddam had requested. Kuwait was pumping large amounts of oil, and thus keeping prices low, when Iraq needed to sell high-priced oil from its wells to pay off a huge debt. So strike OPEC off the list. Regarding Arab nationalism, I recalled adding something like the following long ago but did not see it in the current version: The deperate search for foreign credit would eventually humiliate the strongman who had long sought to dominate Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East. So, I just went ahead and inserted the said sentence. 172 00:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I see. I must have missed that. But I'm taking the Rumsfeld pic down. CJK 01:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mazel tov. FYI the same image file appears in Donald Rumsfeld, where it is also stuck in with questionable relevance. Also, the same photo uploaded in a different image file (Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg) appears in Iran-Iraq War. IMO the same grounds for the removal of the picture here apply in those other articles. 172 04:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

First Gulf War?

The article refers to: "the first Persian Gulf War (1991)"

To my count, that was the 16th invasion of Iraqi Persian Gulf by either the US or the UK or both in the last 100 years.

My intention here is not a political one in a subject currently frought with emotion. My intention is accuracy.

Clarity is needed for our own and future generations.

Richard

Similar arguments are made that the Seven Years' War should be referred to as the first world war. It simply isn't referred to by that name by anyone, so it shouldn't be referred to as that in Wikipedia. People refer to the 1991 war as the Gulf War and the current war as the Second Gulf War (among other names), whether that's accurate or not, it's not Wikipedia's place to try and change how society refers to such events. TastyCakes 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

ABC Link

RonCram is spamming all the pages where it is tangentially relevant a RealMedia file of an ABC report that looks to be from the late 1990s that makes the now-discredited speculation that Saddam would have worked with al Qaeda. It hardly seems relevant on some of the pages (e.g. this one) and it is misleadingly presented as current even though the specific meetings mentioned in the video have since been refuted; even one of the people in the video, Vince Cannistraro, no longer believes such a relationship existed. I won't remove the video - he will likely accuse me of censorship - but I think it should be noted that it is from the 1990s and that the claims made in it have been discredited. (Note - I made this exact point at Osama bin Laden, where he is also spamming the link).--csloat 09:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Section Removal

Considering the questions that have been raised about the following material, should it still be included in the article?

Former U.S. Marine Nadim Abou Rabeh in March 2005 testified that the "spider-hole" image had been fabricated as a piece of military propaganda, and that Saddam had in fact been captured on December 12, in a house in a small village, and not in a hole at all. According to Abou Rabeh, Saddam was only caught after a fierce firefight in which Saddam himself fired at his captors. Abou Rabeh's account has been dismissed as "ridiculous" and untrue by Pentagon officials. Soldiers involved in the capture also question the Marine's account as no US Marines were involved in the operation, as it was clearly outside any Marine area. US soldiers do find the Marine's account entertaining, if completely fabricated.

Considering that Rabeh’s name does not appear on the Marine Corps Uniform Board, which it should had he been given a Combat Action Ribbon, the part of his story where he says a fellow Sudanese Marine was killed, and that the DOD cannot verify that he was an active duty Marine. TDC 18:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I lost track of the number of times I removed the above content, and reverted quickly afterwards. I suppose that it's worth trying again, though. 172 11:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the content, along with the rest of the recent POV creep, seemingly coming from both opponents and supporters of U.S. policy on Iraq. I think that there's a good chance that the Rabeh matertial will be restored, so some backup will be helpful if I am reverted again. 172 12:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Saddams step father

What ever happened to saddams abusive step father? Did he live to see his step son come to power? Did he gain an office? did Sadam take retribution on him?

Illogical reason for avoiding "Saddam"

Note 2 says 'Some observers have argued that referring to the deposed Iraqi president as only Saddam may be derogatory and academically inappropriate, considering that Westerners often mispronounce the name "Saddám" as "Sádom," ...'. Some observers may have argued that, but it is quite illogical to argue that mispronunciation of a name makes it inappropriate to use it pronounced correctly. That sentence should be removed, or modified if it is a mangled attempt to say something different. Nurg 11:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to have an audio sample added for correct pronunciation. (similar to the entry on Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) --Navstar 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Saddam as written in english is written Sdam in Arabic - there is no 'a' between S and d and there is only one d.

Vandalism

I removed "HE LOOKS LIKE A MONKEY!" from the first paragraph. 216.249.144.14 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why no mention of CIA support of Saddam in his early years?

Saddam had the support of the CIA when he tried (and failed) to kill Quasim in 1959, yet this has no mention at all in the article. Surely this is pertinent in understanding his relationship with the US?

UPI article (with some named sources and unnamed CIA sources): http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

Or is this disputed as fact/not relevent?

Please see Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power, at: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

There is a wide range of evidence supporting the view that the CIA were instrumental in helping Saddam Hussein to power, a fact that deserves the upmost attention when the case for war in Iraq is justified on the basis of deposing a terrible tyrant.

Pretty much all the evidence regarding CIA involvement with the Ba'athists in the early 1960s is recollections of individuals who claim they were involved, there's (AFAIK) virtually nothing in the documentary record on this other than it seems likely the CIA passed lists of suspected communists to the Ba'ath when they first took power. Personally, it seems likely that the 1963 coup had at least some CIA assistance, but when compared to similar actions in Iran or Guatemala, on which entire books have been written, the evidence is extremely sparse; and, also unlike the other two, the CIA itself hasn't disgorged anything. As for Saddam himself, he was actually a minor player at that point. The claims that he visited the US embassy in Cairo or that the CIA specifically contacted him have little to either prove or disprove them. Arburish's bio of Saddam doesn't treat them as definitively true or untrue, and that's probably the best bio available in english.

Mattm1138 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

+++ I just updated the article with that info:) It doesn't happen by itself, you know... Boo 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The evidence of CIA backing for the Ba'ath assasination attempt during the sixties is flimsy to say the least. It's based on an email which in its turn is quoting organizations that campaigned for the repeal of the sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Upon reading the email you will find the accusation that the OSS paralleled the SS and that both were primarily concerned with fighting Communism. This is questionable for the SS who were more concerned with Jews than labour organizers and a distinct untruth about the OSS which cooperated with Communist partisans like Tito and Ho Chi Minh against both Nazis and Japanese. It continues to claim that the coup followed standard CIA procedure in which weapons are shipped in, glowing reports are written and US investors are invited, none of which happened in this case. Iraq continued to cooperate with the Soviets who supplied both weapons and economic development.

Furthermore, the UPI link doesn't lead anywhere, whether that means it never existed, has been dropped as bogus by UPI or actually really existed is beyond my capacity to ascertain.

To summarize, this source has all the signs of propaganda. PER 213.80.1.30 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation is baseless and you cite no sources. The link works fine for me. If that link doesn't work, try this one. There is also this source and this one saying the U.S. helped in the successful 1963 overthrow of Qassim. --Mr. Billion 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You duplicated your post, and you were referring to an earlier link given above. Please don't copy/paste your messages all around the Talk page. Makes things messy. I've erased the second copy of your post. --Mr. Billion 18:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

South Park!

I vote for removing the section on South Park. It's just a weird irrelevant thing to have in the article. --Vjam 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I complitly agree! - Daniel 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted.....

What an silly thing to do. There are now links to this page from South Park articles (that I just clicked on). Just create a new article for the well established character Saddam Hussein (South Park) or how about using the already existing Saddam Hussein in U.S. popular culture (although the idea of that article doesn't sound right). How are the pop culture references for a (in)famous person irrelevant? The LA Times obituary fo Rick James even mentioned the famous Chappelle Show skit. I will go so far as to bet that the South Park version of Saddam will come up in the writings about his death. Bobak 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have re-edited it to the page.Eddy643 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it has been moved to a seprate article.Themasterofwiki 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Deletions Should Stop

Some editors attempt to prevent inclusion of information in order to preserve their POV. Recently, an entry of mine was deleted with the comment that Deroy Murdock's website was a "hack site." Murdock is a Fellow of the Hoover Institute and nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service. I admit the website does not have a professional look to it but the information in the site is accurate and written by a well-respected man. The main point of the entry was that two million Iraqi documents were seized and translated. Many of them Saddam's support for Islamic terror and will soon be released to the public. The same editor also restored the inaccurate claim that the ABC News report linking Saddam and Osama was erroneous. Actually, the link has not been refuted and the news documents show Saddam's support of terror. RonCram 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A reasoned analysis of evidence concerning Saddam Hussein and terrorism would be welcome in the article, I think. However, an analysis beginning "Saddam's ties to Islamic terrorism have been well established" is clearly going to be controversial, and must be considered deletable as POV, particularly without reputable sources. It's normal on Wikipedia that disputed material is not included in an article until a consensus about it can be reached.

Here is the paragraph I am removing:

Saddam's ties to Islamic terrorism have been well established.[14] The question of the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda has been debated with evidence supporting both sides of the debate. Without question, Hussein and Osama bin Laden had competing ambitions and distrusted each other. On the other hand, both may have put those concerns aside to attack the U.S. as a common enemy. Additional evidence for the relationship is expected to come out soon when the U.S. government releases more Iraqi documents. Some two million documents were obtained after the fall of Baghdad. The documents had to be prioritized and translated. The priority at the time was weapons of mass destruction. One official familiar with the captured documents stated: "As much as we overestimated WMD, it appears we underestimated [Saddam Hussein's] support for transregional terrorists." [15]

Here are my reasons for objecting:

• The phrase "Saddam's ties to Islamic terrorism" is misleading. Although there may be links, there is no evidence (I would suggest) that Saddam funded or organised any terrorrist activity. This should be made clear, but isn't.
• These links have not "been well established". A certain amount of evidence is available but, I would suggest, nothing conclusive.
• The discussion of Saddam and Bin Laden's releationship is speculative and POV.
• "Additional eveidence..." (additional to what?) "...is expected to come out soon...". Who is expecting? What are they expecting? What basis do they have for expecting it? This is weaseling - I suggest that there is no basis on which to think such evidence exists.

More credible sources are needed. Derek Murdock appears to be a right-wing columnist with a personal website. He is not a historian, expert on the region or a mainstream news organisation. It is fair to say, I think, that any serious evidence linking Saddam to terrorism will have been printed in the mainstream media, and it ought to be possible to Google this.

Please do not restore the paragraph until the above issues have been addressed. Thanks. --Vjam 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

vjam, the issues were addressed.

• Want other media sources? How about ABC News, Newsweek, Novosti, al Quds and many others.
• Deroy Murdock is a mainstream member of the media. His website quotes other mainstream media. Did you even bother to read through his references at the bottom of his website? You are simply trying to prevent readers access to this information.
• The discussion of Saddam and bin Laden's relationship is not speculative. Many others have said exactly the same thing.
• Additional evidence to the evidence in Murdock's website. The additional evidence is the Iraqi documents. Did you read the article?

If you had really had concerns about the wording I used, you could have edited the entry. But deleting the entry that is well-sourced for purely POV reasons is just wrong. Please do not delete it again. RonCram 01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ron has been on a jihad to insert stuff like this on every page where it is vaguely relevant. The place for details about the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is the page Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. There is a timeline there examining each piece of evidence one way or another. If Ron or anyone else has actual reference to specific meetings or documents not mentioned on that page, please add it there, but there is no reason to add nebulous details to this page or other pages when we have a main article for that discussion. On this page it would be appropriate to indicate that the conclusion of every major investigative body has been that there is no evidence suggesting an alleged link to al-Qaeda, and then linking to the proper page for anyone who wants further specific details. Thanks.--csloat 01:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

POV additions should stop. --Mr. Billion 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My entries simply bring balance. Although my wording may seem strong to some, my entries are always well-sourced. I never attempt to delete information from sources published in English. I only with others disliked censorship as much as I do. RonCram 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Have removed paragraph speculating on eveidence that may be discovered in the future. This is baseless. Also removed reference to Ansar al-Islam, which seems tangential and isn't very clear. How does spying on a group amount to "links with" that group? Why is it remarkable that Saddam spied on a Kurdish militant group? --Vjam 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The entry does not talk about evidence that may be discovered but evidence that has been discovered and is about to be released. Ansar al-Islam was not just spied on by Saddam (although some of that surely happened), Saddam also helped fund the group. RonCram 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of Ansar-al-Islam being supported by Saddam or having ties to al Qaeda. It's a bizarre point here. This is a Kurdish group. When the evidence is actually released we can take better stock of it; in the meantime there is no reason to tear apart wikipedia to give undue prominence to every new article that comes out in a discredited right-wing magazine, in an article by an author who is known to have lied and distorted the record over and over. This guy Hayes is on his own personal jihad about this topic, which is fine for an opinion rag like the Weekly Standard, but is not really useful to Wikipedia. It will be easier for me to believe there is something to this story when it gets picked up by a reputable news source, which so far has not occurred.--csloat 02:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

oops

sorry, my last edit was meant to delete RonCram's bogus paragraph but because Vjam did that at the same time I wound up accidentally reverting the wrong info. Thanks for fixing that :)-csloat 01:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem - it actually prompted me to find a source to back up my own edit, thinking it was me that was being challenged, so Wikipedia is the winner. --Vjam 01:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year Ron

I also refuted this paragraph; just above and in my previous edit summary. This is not the place for reference to specifics on this question; we have a page already that addresses each specific piece of evidence or speculation in turn. There is no reason to raise specifics here beyond the conclusions of every agency that's ever analyzed the question and a reference to that page if anyone wants specific details. If you have specific documents please go to the proper page and make a new entry on the timeline. If Delroy has specific documents perhaps you can find specific analysis of those documents rather than vague generalizations and speculation about what the documents might say. The paragraph here is just random rumor-mongering; it doesn't belong anywhere in wikipedia. If such documents really exist surely they would have been picked up by some media outlet besides the Weekly Standard. (And even if not, surely Delroy can offer more specific information about them). In any case it doesn't belong on this page.-csloat 02:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

csloat, no matter what I do, you claim it is wrong. The fact is that articles always mention specifics such as this as a way to link to the more exhaustive article in context. Suppose someone wants to read about Saddam's connections to Osama but cannot find the article. They would naturally look in the Saddam Hussein article and expect to find such a link. You have not offered any refutation of the paragraph. Your claim of refutation is completely without merit. It is much better, csloat, if your comments stay comport with the facts. RonCram 05:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not true Ron; I did not mess with your edits on Ritter. But this is bull. If someone wants to read about Saddam and Osama but cannot find the article, all we have to do is link the article here and they can click it. But if you want to put bogus information here rather than where it belongs so it can be put in proper context, I will delete it. It does not belong here; I did refute this information; my refutation is above and you ignored it. Then you claim I ignore the facts?? Please.--csloat 10:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything I said was true. The information is true and well-sourced. A link to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda at the bottom of the article is not the same as a link in the text of the article and you know it. It is standard practice to have such links in both places.

Csloat, you never refuted the information in your post above. You insulted me saying “Ron has been on a jihad to insert stuff like this on every page where it is vaguely relevant.”

Then you make the wrong-headed claim that this information does not belong on this page saying “The place for details about the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda is the page Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. There is a timeline there examining each piece of evidence one way or another.”

Then you advise everyone that Saddam and al-Qaeda are not to be mentioned on this page by anyone: “If Ron or anyone else has actual reference to specific meetings or documents not mentioned on that page, please add it there, but there is no reason to add nebulous details to this page or other pages when we have a main article for that discussion.”

Then you add your POV view: “On this page it would be appropriate to indicate that the conclusion of every major investigative body has been that there is no evidence suggesting an alleged link to al-Qaeda, and then linking to the proper page for anyone who wants further specific details. Thanks.--csloat 01:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)”

So you see, there is not one word of refutation in your entire post. You cannot continue to claim you have refuted information when you have not. You lose credibility that way. You know me well enough to know I will point it out. What I added was a very short piece that directs people to the more exhaustive page and informs them that new information will be released. Your decision to keep this from readers is pure censorship. You promised you were not going to do this anymore, csloat. What happened to that promise? RonCram 15:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ron repeating my arguments is not the same as refuting them. If you want to add a link to the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page in the text please do. But adding speculation about what some documents might say when they are released next month is totally ludicrous, esp when you state it as definitive. Do you really think we need to repeat all the details on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page? We certainly can do that; I'm sure your paragraph will be laughable after adding a couple paragraphs about the conclusion of every major investigative body that has ever looked seriously into this stupid conspiracy theory. That's not a POV; that is a fact. So which will it be Ron? I'm sick of reverting your garbage so I'll give you a chance to make the corrections here before I look at this again.-csloat 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I was not trying to refute your arguments - just pointing out that, contrary to your statement, you never refuted the information in the entry. I am not adding speculation about what the documents might say, I am only trying to convey what government officials say is in the documents. The whole point is that these documents refute the former investigations which ignored so much solid evidence. Now, if you think my comments overreach the statements by the government officials, feel free to call me on it. But deleting the information wholesale is not acceptable. RonCram 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I did call you on it Ron. And you'll notice that I didn't delete the information wholesale. I called you on your overreaching quite clearly. The new documents, whatever they say, have not been made available yet, so it is difficult to understand your comment that the investigations "ignored so much solid evidence." That evidence did not exist yet, at least as far as the investigations were concerned. So if this new evidence does turn out to indicate anything, that will be interesting, but it will hardly be an indictment of those investigations.--csloat 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Cartoon

Someone has deleted the Saddam cartoon claiming it was not known who owned the image. The caption on the image clearly says it was used by the US government in a PSYOPS drop of leaflets. If it belongs to the government, then it can be used without concern about copyright issues. Please do not delete the cartoon again. The cartoon gives important information about the way the US dealt with Saddam. RonCram 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac the Prime Minister

Please note that some sources report that Jacques Chirac was the Mayor of Paris and not the Prime Minister of France at the time of his visit to Baghdad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagees (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 January 2006

Butler clarification

"Iraqi cooperation with UN weapons inspection teams was questioned on several occasions during the 1990s and UNSCOM chief weapons inspector Richard Butler withdrew his team from Iraq in November 1998 following advice from Washington and without the permission of the UN ."

Does the reference state that Butler withdrew because of US advice or in agreement with US advice? Thanks. CJK 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

“I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission... Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be ‘prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.’... I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq.” My inference would be that the US had reached a decision to bomb. --Vjam 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Excuse me if I am wrong, but if we are talking about November 1998, there was no US bombing of Iraq. That occured in December. In November, Saddam had refused to cooperate with UN inspectors to their satisfaction, and withdrew after the US advice. Also, most of the UN Security council supported Butler's move as the source in place says [8]. As it reads now, we would be led to believe that Butler did not return in December with a more cooperative Iraq and withdraw again, this time without "advice" and we are left thinking that Clinton forced the November withdrawal to initiate Operation Desert Fox. It does not detail that Butler's final report was after the December withdrawal, not November. That report led to the airstrikes. CJK 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, it's my interpretation that the US had decided to bomb. This isn't in the article in any case, but there's nothing inconsistent in bombing a month later than a decision is taken. What's there doesn't seem to tell the whole story, I agree, and it may be confused/misleading about the order of events. As you suggest the return up to 15 Dec should be referred to. --Vjam 13:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Shouldn't the part where Saddam failed to comply with the U.N. inspectors during November be mentioned also? Furthermore, you're changing the story. You said previously the advice was given in November. Now it says December. Which is it?CJK 20:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "failed to comply" is a controverisal point, and counts os POV IMHO. Whilst technically true, its a widely held mainstream viewpoint that the wihtdrawal was disproportionate (breaches are claimed as minor, team is claimed to have made difficult demands). The advice was definitely December. --Vjam 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The UN inspection team said they failed to comply fully which was a reason for the withdrawal. In fact, that is the widely held view. You're going to have to prove that the advice was in December now that it has been casually changed from November. The CNN article gives November. CJK 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference backing up december: [9]. I don't think there is a single "widely held view" on the issue of whether was justified on grounds of non-compliance. It's a controversial issue, and I'd say that asserting one way or the other in thre article would be POV. All we can safely say is that this is what was cited. --Vjam 23:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The source provided does not actually provide any evidence for December, it seems to mix up 2002 with 1998. But here's another thing, was the phone conversation before or after the report? Because if it was after, we would be misleading our readers by making it look like the US forced the team to leave early. CJK 00:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The source provided gives a heading "16th December 1998". I'm not sure what you are looking at when you say it confuses 2002 with 1998. I don't know whether it was before or after the report, but in either case, Butler himself makes it clear in the quote that he did act in response to the advice given to him by the ambassador. --Vjam 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But the difference is critical. If it was before the report, then it would look like the US forced the UN to withdraw before the inspection completed. If it was after the report, then of course the US is going to ask for the UN team to leave before bombing. CJK 21:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's important not to allow assumptions or exclude important details in the article. However the way it reads suggests that it is after the report (following sentence in past tense), so I don't think your concern arises. What would be interesting would be if Butler made any statement at the time of withdrawing and what reason(s) he gave, but I've not been able to find it if it exists. --Vjam 13:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Rumsfeld photo

I think the photo should stay, and I think there should be a mention of it in the article. 172 is right nobody would remember this photo is Bush had not brought Rumsfeld out of the woodwork, but he did, and since then, this photo has become infamous. I don't think it is here just to embarrass Rumsfeld. Perhaps it became famous because people wanted to embarrass him, but wikipedia is not what made it famous. The photo is real, and the meeting is confirmed; it is an established and notable part of the history of both individuals and nations. It has been on the news, in the mainstream media, and in many documentaries (not just of the Michael Moore variety). It should be kept, though perhaps with a paragraph that makes clear that it is here because it has become notable since 2001. --csloat 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What is embarrassing at all about the photo? U.S. Officials and officals of all other major nations have to meet with all kinds of despots. What'll you bet the same person who thought this photograph was significant is complaining that the U.S. desn't engage in enough dialogue but is rather too hawkish. Every nation in the world sent representatives to the Soviet Union during it's day, and for good reason. So what if we sent people to talk to Saddam at points!! What's with the lack of thinking things through here?

67.40.35.63 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo makes it look like the U.S. was Saddam's primary backer in the 80s, when it was not. I guess it could be there if we had pictures of Soviet, French, and Chinese representatives, but we don't have those. It's just is there to make Rumsfeld look devious or stupid, maybe he is, but it is nevertheless innapropriate to portray it like some huge double standard. CJK 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to re-read my comments above. The photo is noteworthy because the international media noted it. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge that decision. If there was a particularly famous photo of Saddam with De Gaulle or something then please feel free to include it too. The Saddam-Rummy photo is a pretty established part of the public record on this. We can comment on the fact that it has been used to push the hypocrisy view that may or may not have merit. But I don't think we should just pretend it doesn't exist, or that it is no more notable than a photo of Saddam with any of his other supporters. (Finally, this point is neither here nor there, but the US was in fact Saddam's primary backer in those years, though of course Saddam took from anyone willing to sell to him).-csloat 08:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The US was not Saddam's primary backer in those years, and the Rumsfeld photo makes it look so. What would be infinitely more appropriate would be pictures of the devastating Iran-Iraq war. This is not an article about Rumsfeld, the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraq War, or U.S. Iraqi relations. This is an article about Saddam Hussein and his rule, and Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand did not affect Saddam that greatly compared to other events. CJK 21:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at my comments again - the issue is not whether the US was the primary backer of Saddam (I guess it depends what you mean by "backer") but rather the fact that this photo has become iconic in relation to Saddam. Wikipedia can explain why its iconic status is not merited, as you are here, but there is no reason to cover it up. I agree that photos of the war or of Saddam's atrocities (cf Ron's comment below - believe it or not I actually agree with Ron about something) are entirely appropriate here as well.--csloat 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I read your comments again, and I stand by my assertion. If the international media has picked up on the picture, then it is because they want to criticize Rumsfeld or the war in Iraq, not because it is a notable event in Saddam's life. CJK 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But you're missing the point -- if the international media picked up on the picture, it is notable by definition. It doesn't matter why or what their motives were.--csloat 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Its notable in the international media for reasons unrelated to this article. CJK 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought this article was about Saddam Hussein. It's a photo of Saddam Hussein, and you now seem to agree it's a notable photo. So you're saying it's notable for reasons unrelated to Saddam Hussein? I suppose it's also notable in relation to Donald Rumsfeld (where it also appears) but it's hard to say it's not notable in relation to Saddam Hussein. --csloat 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because the contents of the photo affected Rumsfeld more than Saddam Hussein. CJK 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would like proof that the Reagan Administration was not a major backer of the Hussein regime against Iran. To go to and fro about whether the US was the "primary" backer is just a dodge (being #1 vs. major), the US clearly supported Saddam in the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" style. I see no political agenda in that, it's politics in all its timeless glory. Bobak 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was unquestionably Saddam's primary backer in the war against Iran. According to the well established institute SIPRI the Soviets sent almost 120 times as much weaponry as the US did during the period of 1970 to 2000. http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRQ_70-04.pdf/download 213.80.1.30 14:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC) PER
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.80.1.30 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 May 2006.

I don't know why anyone would assume that because they shook hands it means that the U.S. was Iraq's primary backer. What makes the photo interesting to me is that it demonstrates that there was a positive working relationship between the two nations at the time. CJK has introduced a non sequitur. --Mr. Billion 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The point would be that since Wikipedia publishes the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein while there are no other photos of his major backers, the Soviet Union, France and China, would misrepresent who supported him. 213.80.1.30 14:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)PER

That's ridiculous. Simply because there isn't yet any photo of Saddam shaking hands with a Soviet ambassador is no reason to censor a photo of Saddam shaking hands with the guy who later directed the military that toppled his government. This is a notable photo. You want to censor the photo using the excuse that it's unfair not to include photos of deals with people from every other country he dealt with. I have no objection to putting in a photo of a Soviet meeting. If you can find a photo of Saddam shaking hands with a Chinese ambassador who later directed the military that invaded and overthrew Saddam's government, go ahead and put it in. There is nothing at all unexpected about Saddam making a deal with the Russians or Chinese. But there is something notable about him shaking hands with somebody who later overthrew him.

Complaining that people might assume that the U.S. was Saddam's primary backer because he shook hands with an American is a very weak excuse, particularly since there is no reason why we can't put information on the relative amounts of support Saddam got from each country into the article. --Mr. Billion 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Video of Saddam's Crimes

Videos of some of the crimes of Saddam's regime has made the news recently. The videos are graphic so they will not be aired on broadcast TV or probably even on cable news shows. However, the videos are available on the web at Foundation for the Defense of Democracies website [[10]]. These videos are noteworthy and the article should briefly describe and link to them. The four videos show graphic torture and your volume should be turned down, especially if you are viewing the videos from work or around kids. I could not watch all of video #1 and I understand video #2 is the worst. Because the videos are graphic, some may claim that wikipedia should not link to them. I do not agree. People need to know how brutal Saddam was. The article is protected right now, so I did not attempt to post this myself. RonCram 11:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI this subject has its own article at Human rights in Saddam's Iraq, which you can edit at any time, as it is unprotected. 172 | Talk 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

FDD - check the link - is as far right a group as you can get. Take their videos with a grain of salt.

Philanthropy?

uhhh... This article is pretty unbiased but I notice that it does not mention saddam's philanthropy. I recall watching a 60 minutes report on a full orchestra that was supported by hussein's efforts and I just read something on him being awarded the key to detroit in 1980 for donating to some churches. Does somebody know the extent of his philantropy and is it worth mentioning? --Pgiii 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is probably what you read, right? I think it's worth mentioning. I don't remember it distinctly, but this item might have already been in this article at some point in the past and subsequently removed. Still, it's pretty interesting. I haven't heard anything about the orchestra. --Mr. Billion 05:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A Google search brings back many articles pertaining to the key to Detroit, the church donations, and the mosque in Calvert County. This history is important as it helps shed light on the complex nature of the West's relationship with Saddam. Yankoz

Removed bogus statistics.

Saddam Hussien was directly responsible for the deaths of over 1 000 000..... what nonsense. 3-4 million fled....

Show me a source

Also removed a post-capture picture.... its a violation of Geneva Convention rights....

CanadianPhaedrus 04:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

All editors should watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. Read news story here. [11]RonCram 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another news story from ABC News. It is unfortunate Tierney blames the U.S. "government" for not releasing these tapes. That term is too generic. The Bush Administration wants them released but the CIA has been blocking it.

ABC News obtained the tapes from Bill Tierney, a former member of a United Nations inspection team who translated them for the FBI. Tierney said the U.S. government is wrong to keep these tapes and others secret from the public. "Because of my experience being in the inspections and being in the military, I knew the significance of these tapes when I heard them," says Tierney. U.S. officials have confirmed the tapes are authentic, and that they are among hundreds of hours of tapes Saddam recorded in his palace office.[12]RonCram 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And you know "the CIA has been blocking it" based on what evidence? And you know that Bush wants them released based on what statements of the Bush Administration? The CIA works for the President, in case you hadn't noticed. They don't have the authority or the capability of "blocking" the release of documents the President wants released.--csloat 02:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of evidence tying Saddam to terrorists and WMD was seized in Iraq has disappeared. It was turned over to the CIA and now it cannot be found. If not for Loftus and Tierney, the public would not know about the Saddam tapes tonight.RonCram 06:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. A great deal of assertions tying RonCram to various ludicrous conspiracy theories have appeared on Talk: pages but the evidence supporting them has disappeared. It was turned over to the ArbCom and now it cannot be found.... Seriously, Ron, do you even have a cite for someone asserting this claim?--csloat 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I watched it, and there wasn't much there. Just a small segment on the tapes, none of which prove anything. I did notice that the guy they had speaking for Saddam sounded pretty nefarious, and the segment overall had a tone that Cram probably would have liked. --Mr. Billion 06:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I will tell you what was there - Saddam had foreknowledge of terrorist attacks against Americans (which most people will understand indicates participation in the planning) and he used that foreknowledge to threaten U.S. officials with WMD style terrorist attacks. This is exactly what Bush talked about before the invasion of Iraq, the fear Saddam would provide WMD and training to Islamic terrorists for attacks against America. Of course, Saddam points out that he cannot attack America himself - "not from Iraq" - because he fears retribution if the U.S. could prove he was behind it. RonCram 06:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL... Did Brian Jenkins of RAND also have foreknowledge and therefore participation in the planning of such attacks? How about Bruce Hoffman? Your reading of the phrase "not from Iraq" is stretching it. Again, you might want to see a man named Occam about getting a shave.--csloat 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: saddam tapes

Guys, I got to listen to a bit of the tapes on the radio...Nightline got to access a few of the tapes as well--but not all...

Tape #1--Terrorist talking about how easy it is to germ infest an entire city.

Tape #2--An official notifying Saddam that he had lied to the investigators!

Tape #3--Saddam states that WMD's DO EXIST; but aren't in Iraq.

ALL tapes will be officially released tomorrow!

--JJ

Tape #1 is not a "terrorist" talking but Saddam and Tariq Aziz talking; neither one of them suggests that Iraq would be using germ weapons in this manner. They simply point out - as anyone paying attention to terrorism has been doing since the 1970s - that the weapons could be used by terrorists in this way. Find us a tape of Saddam talking on the phone to Osama and we'll be impressed.--csloat 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Tapes Cause Government to Reexamine WMD in Iraq

Apparently the post-war intelligence has been as bad as the pre-war intelligence. According to a news story in the New York Sun titled Furor Erupts Over Recordings of Saddam, some in the Intelligence Community are now willing to reexamine the issue of WMD in Iraq. Wikipedia articles should reflect this new information. Here is some excerpts from the story:

The 12 hours of recorded conversations are part of a vast trove of untranslated documents, recordings, videotape, and photographs captured in Iraq during the war. Whether this information will be examined for clues to the whereabouts of WMD stockpiles is a matter of debate within the intelligence community.

The CIA, FBI, and directorate of national intelligence have resisted calls from Congress to reopen the hunt. But an interagency outfit known as the Media Exploitation Center, administered by the Defense Intelligence Agency, last month started its own search of these materials to attempt to discover the location of the weapons of mass destruction.

"There are elements in NSA and DIA that believe there is enough evidence to warrant further re-examination and a relook at all the material," a congressional staff member told The New York Sun yesterday. "This includes the imagery, documents, and human sources. They also think a more extensive debriefing of knowledgeable human sources and third party nationals is in order."

The quiet re-examination parallels efforts from the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Republican of Michigan, who is in the early stages of his own review. He told the Sun last week that he checked the authenticity of Mr. Loftus's recordings with the intelligence community and confirmed that it was Saddam's voice on them.

Mr. Hoekstra has also been pestering the directorate of national intelligence to translate and make public what he claims are nearly 36,000 boxes of captured documents and materials from Iraq that may shed clues on the WMD front.

The Defense Department now appears to be working on the directorate to make other Iraq files public as well. A February 6 letter from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Rumsfeld is working with the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, to release Iraqi files sought from the Harmony database, which catalogs material on terrorism secured since September 11, 2001.

The story can be found here.[13]RonCram 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's something Ron leaves out of the Sun story: "A spokeswoman for the Directorate of National Intelligence would not comment on the resignations of Messrs. Deutch and Woolsey. About the Saddam recordings she said, 'Intelligence community analysts from the CIA and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that while fascinating from a historical perspective, the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs, nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey Group report. The tapes mostly date from the early to mid-1990s and cover such topics as relations with the United Nations, efforts to rebuild industries from Gulf War damage, and the pre-9/11 situation in Afghanistan.'"--csloat 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for giving me the facts for point 1...

...Something is odd however about the attitude most people have towards these tapes because the fact that Saddam states that WMD's DO exist is quite amazing--especially since almost everyone thinks that they don't.

...And the fact that the "leader" tells Saddam how terrorists can infect cities in the USA, is...a...no-brainer as to what's going on here.

I mean, think about it: you're telling your fearless leader how terrorists can attack the USA--why? So that Saddam know and learns how NOT to hurt the USA?

...Saddam was one of the leaders of the Gulf War; Saddam has been causing nothing but trouble for the US (and he was a memeber of the Ba'ath party ALONGSIDE Tariq Aziz!)

...What are you...doing? Are you just trying to be "neutral?"

Yes, it would be nice if Saddam were a great and wonderful man--and all these tapes would be a fake. Not only that, he'd have a great influence on most folks and make a great role model.

However, the truth is:

1. The Saddam tapes have been verified as authentic.

2. Saddam isn't the greatest guy in the world. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfritzyb (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 February 2006

You might want to re-read the transcripts; you have some stuff confused. None of this has anything to do with whether Saddam is a "great" guy. (1) These tapes are from 1995. In 1996 the guy who talks about hiding the WMDs and lying to the UN was busted for doing just that, and the world knew then what was going on. Yes we knew Saddam was developing WMD capabilities in the early to mid-1990s, hence the constant inspections until 1998 and the UN control over Saddam's WMD facilities in al-Qaqaa and other places. So there's really nothing new on the WMD front here, as sinister as it might sound -- we knew about these weapons 10 years ago. This just demonstrates, as Duelfer appropriately insists, that Saddam had nefarious intentions regarding WMD, but it says nothing about what he might have actually had operationally in 2003. (2) Saddam's warnings to the US about terrorism were in 1989. When he was a US ally. Do you really want to propose that this conversation is part of a 12-year plot against the US who was then an ally?? In addition, the warning was no different from the warnings we have heard from everyone following the terrorist threat (cf. the things Brian Jenkins was writing as early as 1974). If anything, this suggests that Saddam considered the jihadists then as much of a threat as we do now, and tried to warn his ally, the US, about them. (3) there is nothing - not a word - in these tapes suggesting Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda on anything. Al Qaeda is not mentioned at all. Again, let's have a tape of Saddam talking to Osama and we might be on to something new.--csloat 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Childhood.

Removed info about Saddam's mother supposedly running through a village telling people to "kill the devil inside her". The source provided only indicates that his mother attempted suicide. Sources? --69.157.75.12 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Canadian Phaedrus

Captured by the US Government?

Is this the best wording? Surely he was captured by US troops? Camillus (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A whole new section has been added by me regarding the pursuit and eventual capture. As Saddam would say in Southpark "you can now all bow down to me"! It is based on a transcript from a BBC Panorama programme. James Frankcom

Bill Tierney says ABC News cut a key part of translated Saddam Tape

This news could be as big as the Dan Rather forged documents debacle. Tierney, the former weapons inspector, says ABC News cut a key portion of the translated tape to make Saddam sound much less sinister. Here is an excerpt from the news article:

"He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" [14]

Now that comment, ladies and gentlemen, should have made the news. RonCram 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it did. The conservative blogs, anyway. I'll be interested to see what develops. Tierney, of course, is an ideologue, so it's entirely possible that ABC chose not to use his translation because it was inaccurate. I'm not sure how this has anything to do with Rather or forged documents, and I'm not sure I want to hear your latest conspiracy theory about all this (did George Tenet forge the Saddam tapes?).--csloat 00:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I just noticed Cram has duplicated this same message in several other articles. Is this a form of spam? --Mr. Billion 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He's been doing it ever since the release of the Saddam tapes has gotten him all worked up. I asked him to confine the argument to one page instead of trying to put it all over wikipedia. If he thinks people on other pages would be interested, a simple link will do the trick. It's annoying to have to respond to the same comment in ten different places, and it's rude to the rest of the readers of these pages who probably want to do something other than watch Ron debate people about something only tangentially related.--csloat 02:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Any development here? If it's entirely spam shouldn’t we remove the talk section?--Matt 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reported

This article (from The Indianapolis Star, March 1, 2006) reports the "hazards" of wikipedia for eighth-grade students, because "anyone in the world" can edit. It reports (I think) this vandalism by 216.196.223.66 (talk · contribs) (inserting "he has bad breath. and likes to live in holes.") at 17:12 UTC on 28 February 2006. This vandalism was reverted in the same minute.

Hazard? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Request Semiprotection

This page has been getting a lot of vandalism and i think it should be semiprotected. St jimmy 15:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Phrase

Perhaps as a result of vandalism or correcting vandalism, there's a confusing sentence in the article: "Saddam Hussein see a link between Saddam's time in power and a lowered standard of living ..." Should it be "Saddam Hussein saw a link betwen his time in power..." or "[Someone or Something, not sure what]saw a link between Saddam's time in power..."? 211.44.218.5 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. It was "Critics of Saddam Hussain saw a link..." St jimmy 10:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish decoration

According to the Italian clown and provoker Leo Bassi, Saddam was awarded the Great Cross of Isabella the Catholic by Francisco Franco in 1974 for providing oil to Spain during the oil crisis of 1973. It has not been revoked so Saddam can ask for help from any Spanish consulate or for a Spanish lawyer!

TOTALITARIAN government, not "authoritarian"

I'm tired of an user called Comandante changing this. You know who's listed as a prime example of totalitarian? Ole' silly Mussolini. Was Saddam better than Benito? Please correcting this when noticed. Also, "restriction of civil rights of some citizens" - in Saddam Iraq there were NO human rights (starting with a right to live), so what talk about civil rights? --Kocoum 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, incorrect to say the least.

CanadianPhaedrus 22:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

What incorrect? "Common to all definitions, totalitarian regimes characteristically regimes mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political ideology, and do not tolerate activities by individuals or groups such as labor unions, churches and political parties that are not directed toward the state's goals. Further, they maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of violent and arbitary terror tactics." << everything applies, including churches - even Sistani himself was forced to declare a Shia "jihad" on coalition in 2003 (which of course everyone knew was forced, so no one listened).

Incorrect because it is too extreme for Iraq.

See Authoritarian: "Typically, the leadership (government) of an authoritarian regime is ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. However, unlike totalitarian regimes, there is no desire or ideological justification for the state to control all aspects of a person's life, and the state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be a direct challenge to the state. Totalitarian governments tend to be revolutionary, intent on changing the basic structure of society, while authoritarian ones tend to be conservative."

Furthermore, do not change the opening paragraph. Saddam Hussien restricted and eliminated rights of those who challenged the state - not everyone in Iraq. Women gained rights, access to health care and education increased. The Baath party was a socialist one. I have cited my sources.

CanadianPhaedrus 14:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Nazi party was also "socialist" one (National Socialist Party) - and so was Stalin Russia ("socialism" was "on the way to" communism, or the final utopian system) - so what? Claiming women "could vote" is a joke, since there was only one candidate (gaining 100,0% "votes"!). Mussolini's was THE totalitarian regime according to the Wikipedia - are you claiming women had no eduction and health care in fascist Italy? Please. Also, Baath was very totalitarian "revolutionary", with their "revolutionary councils" and "revolutionary courts" - and you just said something about "changing the basic structure of society", speaking about women! Authoritarian and "conservative" is neighbouring Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia.

Kocoum, please stop restoring the reference to "totalitarianism." The concept is a controversial one even when applied to the classic cases of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. Some historians and political scientists reject the concept entirely. I'm not aware of any specialists in the Middle East in the field of comparative politics who apply the concept to Iraq. Instead, Iraq under Saddam is described as authoritarian or "neo-patrimonial"/"sultanistic"/"personalist"/etc. because of the weak state and the primacy of patron-client relations, or patrimonial relations. 172 | Talk 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've got no idea why you reject the whole concept of totalitarism entirely (what about a mere dictatorship? there's not even this word used in the Saddam's article), but anyway it is widely used regarding the Iraqi Baath government and by the said "specialists". For example, BBC wrote: "Analysts have warned though that the destruction of the Baath might lead to the destruction of the vast numbers of civil organisations swallowed up by the Baath during years of totalitarian rule." [15]

I did not say that I reject the concept of totalitarianism. My views do not matter. My point has to do with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, not my own views. I do not deny that some commentators have described Iraq under Saddam as totalitarian. However, many political scientists would reject this description. So we should strive toward language that is more broadly accepted and neutral. "Authoritarian" fits the bill becuase it is a description, unlike "totalitarian," that no experts on Iraq would reject. 172 | Talk 16:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Date of end of presidency

We're inconsistent (and, I think, rather too conclusive) about the date at which Saddam's tenure as President of Iraq ended. The opening paragraph of this page says 13th Dec '03, the date of his capture. President of Iraq says 9th April '03, the date of the fall of Baghdad; the same date appears in the succession box on this page. Both of these dates are, surely, fairly arbitrary. The April date certainly marks the end of his de facto tenure; I'm sure it's open to much debate as to when his de jure tenure really ended (it seems, unsurprisingly, that Saddam believes it hasn't). We clearly should be consistent about the date, and we should footnote it (explaining why, and ideally citing some law or proclamation or something). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Has it really ended? It seems that there is some debate over whether overthrow by an outside force really counts, especially since the reason he was overthrown turned out to be false. I believe that he legally is the president, but I know he'll never be president again.mpbx 07:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that his tenure as president ended when the resolution by the UN Security Council afforded assistance and support to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq some time during 2003. I do not know what the number of this resolution was but that should be relatively easy to find out. This resolution recognised that there was a new government, for better or worse, in Iraq and I suppose then signalled the end of Saddam's presidency because Iraq was from that time (until the "transfer of sovereignty") was no longer internationally recognised as a sovereign state and as such would not have it's own head of state. James Frankcom

Objectivity Possible?

Is it remotely possible to provide an objective article here? The only info really available is horribly slanted away from the objective. This article mainly portrays him as an evil monster, which is probably more his "legacy" than the truth. I just don't think it would be possible to provide objectivity, as any opinion other than the accepted one is met with hostility, so it's probably best to give that version. For the record, those people who take the 'facts' given in this situation, should know that they are likely 'propagandised', and thus not perfect.mpbx 07:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents

These documents have already generated several national news stories and are changing the way Saddam Hussein is viewed. These docuements deserve a prominent discussion in the article.RonCram 15:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, what evidence is there that the documents "are changing the way Saddam Hussein is viewed"? They obviously haven't changed your views, and they haven't changed the views of anyone who has written about them or been quoted in an article about them. These documents have so far excited noone except some right wing bloggers. ABC and other mainstream outlets have reported on them, and have quoted intelligence experts as saying that there is little of interest here but that they are being used politically by people desperate to find a post facto rationale for the war in Iraq. Interesting, for sure, but hardly worth a "prominent discussion" in this biography.--69.234.178.114 00:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(above by csloat; not logged in, sorry).

Missing Info...

He worked for the CIA when in Egypt...

The US (in error or in strategy) lead (mixed signals) Saddam to think that the invasion of Kuwait would not be opposed...

I was lead to understand when doing a degree in International Relations that the CIA had indicated to him that if he attacked Iran (following Jimmy Carter's disasterous attempts at regieme change) he would be given a free hand over Kuwait. Sadly for Saddam he left it until 1990 and got the timing all wrong. James Frankcom

completely unbalenced article?

Why is this article so biased in one partiuclar direction, there is little or no mention of the role of suddam hussain involved in american affairs. I would INSIST the following facts be made claer(er) in the article:

-Saddam Hussein's working for the CIA -The fact he was given the role and title of president by the CIA as part of masterplan to keep the soviet threat at bay -That in 1980 the city of detroit in michigan awarded the key to the city to Saddam Hussein

GeorgeBuchanan 10:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here Here! I don't know if he did work with the CIA, all i know is that you heard a lot of talk about ak-47's during the invasion but wasn't there abrams on abrams fighting during the 1991 conflict? Either way, this article needs to be less biased WookMuff 07:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI attempts to insert anti-American conspiracy theories will be resisted vigorously. 172 | Talk 08:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

no 172, conspiracy theories are things that can't be proven. I wouldn't put anything in the encyclopedia that can't be proved, but if it was proved i wouldn't keep it out just because you think its "anti-american". Anyway, it wouldn't be anti american... it would be anti cover-up WookMuff 09:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The article already goes into more than enough detail on his relations with the U.S.-- too much, I think. Further detail belongs in an article like Foreign relations of Iraq. 172 | Talk 09:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So then, to cut the article down, cut out some of the one sided vilification of it all WookMuff 09:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why not elaborate on U.S.-Iraqi relations in a more specialized article like Foreign relations of Iraq? 172 | Talk 09:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you do six? anyway, you said you feel it had too much on saddam and the US, so why not cut some of the more obviously spun angles about what a mean nasty america hater saddam was? WookMuff 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What was "do six" mean? While I can't vouch for the article-- it changes so often that no one has the chance to read it all the time-- I do not see "obviously spun angles about what a mean nasty america hater saddam was." 172 | Talk 09:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Colons. Sorry, i was just curious. Anyway, I think saddam hussein is a filthy stain on the face of humanity, but to act like he never had the support of the United States government, in both a behind the scenes and up front manner, is patently ridiculous WookMuff 09:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course he had U.S. support against the Communists and Iran. That's in the article. I'm just saying that we need to go into excessive detail on the subject. 172 | Talk 10:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And I am just saying that you never hear about it anymore. Every source in the western media nowadays seems to play up the angle that much of iraq's military tech is russian in origin, but you rarely hear anyone mention the years and years of us support. This article seems to be very biased in the same manner. Thats all i said at first. My other statements were about the world in general rather than this article. That's all. WookMuff 10:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not bias. Naturally Saddam's rule gets more coverage here than his early background. 172 | Talk 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am TALKING about his rule :P WookMuff 10:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

no, there was no abrams vs. abrams fighting in 1991, or any other conflict, for that matter. there was a few incidents of friendly fire, but that's all. iraq used t-72s and t-80s. Parsecboy 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We need some proof

We need some proof that Reagan gave Iraq $40 billion in credit. I didn't find it in the nearby cite. Maybe I'm missing something. CJK 20:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that fact on p. 358 of the latest edition of of LaFeber's Cold War survey. I don't see what's wrong with a setence or two. Still, as I state in the discussion in the above heading, we need to make sure that the article does not go into excessive detail on stuff better addressed in more specialized entries. 172 | Talk 20:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Does LaFeber cite anything? Not to be pushy, but I'm getting conflicting information and I've never seen the "$40 billion" figure. If Saddam received $40 billion dollars in credit, why does the article read that Saddam was "desperately searching for foreign credit" after the war? CJK 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a footnote by the particular sentence. Regarding your section question, keep in mind the war began in 1980 and did not end until late 1988. By the end the war, that credit was a huge debt. And BTW, Iraq got even larger sums of cash from other Arab countries. $40 billion in credit probably sounds like a bigger sum that it really is. 172 | Talk 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're having a hard time seeing the relevance of the figure, I say just go ahead and delete it. It's hardly a concern of mine at the moment, as I still have my hands full with the "Cuba is a democracy" trolls. 172 | Talk 21:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, you're also being monitored [16]. 172 | Talk 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Saddam's support for terrorism

I've added a sentence about Saddam's support for several terrorists during his presidency along with a clip from ABC News that discusses it. I think it is important to include this early in the Intro because this was the main reason he was forcibly removed from office. RonCram 05:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but this topic is somewhat of a can of worms, given that there's still a huge debate on the causes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 172 | Talk 05:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The bin Laden claim is particularly problematic. It's a better idea to deal with this topic in stronger context and greater detail in the main body of the article. 172 | Talk 05:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is important to show Saddam's long history of supporting terrorism. The ABC News clip is an excellent report on issue and fully supports the statement added to the Introduction. Regarding bin Laden, I can agree that Saddam's support for bin Laden is more controversial. I think that should also be briefly introduced with a link to the larger article on the subject.RonCram 06:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The stated reason for removing him from office was weapons of mass destruction.

This was clearly laid out by the Bush administration. To try and insinuate otherwise is blatant revisionism.

You can read the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the statements made by congressmen at the time it was passed. They are full of references to terrorism. There are seven major nuclear sites in Iraq that were researching uranium enrichment. Iraq had no civilian nuclear power program, so this can only be viewed as nuclear weapons research, ready and waiting to gear up when sanctions were lifted. There been a lot of focus on the question of chemical weapons stockpiles, but lots of countries stockpile chemical weapons. I certainly never had the impression that we were going to war over this issue. The decision to attack Saddam was made at a White House meeting two days after 9/11 (according to Woodward's Bush at War). What do you think was foremost on the president's mind at that point?Kauffner 06:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

CanadianPhaedrus 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

The stated reason for removing Saddam from office was WMD and the fear Saddam team up with Islamic terrorists, including al-Qaeda, to strike US targets. To attempt to delete this fact from the historical record is pure POV. RonCram 04:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the bio article on Saddam Hussein, not a debate on the causes of the war. For the bio, the most relevant political events effected by Saddam include (1) the 1972 nationalization of oil and his consolidation of power; (2) the beginning of the war with Iran; (3) the invasion of Kuwait; (4) U.S.-led containment his regime since 1991; (5) and, finally, his ouster, capture, and trial. Carlos The Jackal and Abu Nidal were very nasty thugs, just like Saddam. Still, Saddam's support for these figures did not effect anywhere near the magnitude of the political shock of an event like the invasion of Kuwait, which set off a global political and economic crisis. The recent additions to the intro should be, and are already, discussed in more specific context in more appropriate sections of the article. 172 | Talk 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A bio isn't about what's important to the subject's life. I'm sure Saddam's kids, his wife, and gold plated toilets were all important to him. A bio is about the things in a person's life that a general reader would find of interest. I don't see a standard by which you can say oil nationalization is of greater relevance than the causes of the 2003 war. The relevence of Abu Nidal et al. is that if he can support them, it's plausible that he could support other terrorists.

I added two paragraph with several references to Saddam's involvement in terrorism and links to al-Qaeda. This is the No. 1 reason the US took military action against Saddam, so I think it's something that needs to be discussed. One of the references is Cheney's favorite article on the Saddam/al-Qaeda issues. Even if you disagree, it is a point of view that influenced events.Kauffner 02:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"The relevence of Abu Nidal et al. is that if he can support them, it's plausible that he could support other terrorists."

That's insinuation.

Abu Nidal, by the way, probably isn't the best example to make Iraq seem like a danger to the West since Abu Nidal “has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980s”, and the article on the group's leader says he may have been assassinated by the Iraqi government.

Your addition cites a blatantly biased source, the Weekly Standard. That article makes several discredited claims, such as the supposed Atta connection. Regardless, what Cheney recommends that you think or read isn't relevant.

Your second paragraph makes claims that have already been discredited, such as the Salman Pak facility "training center," which was more likely an anti-terror training center. Most of the claims made (training centers, the three anti-Israeli terrorists mentioned) appear nowhere in the Foreign Affairs article you cite to back them up. Lastly, the link you gave doesn't work. --Mr. Billion 04:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Saddam's role in the nationalization of Iraqi oil is key to understanding his consolidation of power in the 1970s, in other words how he came to power. In that sense it deserves more attention than his support for figures like Abu Nidal in an effort to win the support of Arab militants as the support base of his regime dramatically eroded following the aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait. 172 | Talk 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. The article, as it reads now, gives no hint that Saddam had any links to terrorism, expect possibly for the assasination attempt against Bush 41 in Kuwait. This your idea of NPOV? Even if you believe that Saddam was pure as the driven snow, you can't understand what happened to him without at least looking at the allegations that have been made.

No one disputes that Saddam sponsored Abu Nidal's terrorism. Abu Nidal was the big cheese of terrorism back in the 1980s (which, incidently, was before the invasion of Kuwait.) Why do you suppose he was assasinated? Saddam turned anti-terrorist? He didn't want the guy to spill the beans! Abu Nidal "has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980s"???? What targets has he attacked since the late 1980s? And what kind of reason is that to delete all reference to him? It was Saddam's responsibility to see that Abu Nidal was brought to justice.

The Weekly Standard is "biased," and that's appearently reason enough for you to justify cutting anything referenced to it. You can justify cutting anything by that logic. I didn't present the article as unbiased, but rather as reflecting Cheney's views. BTW, is Saddam a biased source? Why don't you cut everything referenced to him?

The Foreign Affairs article is a reference for the claim immediately preceding, which concerns the "Blessed July" terrorist project. What's your reason for deleting that?Kauffner 06:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, is Saddam a biased source? Why don't you cut everything referenced to him? That's a nonsensical argument. Saddam is not used as a source anywhere in the article, i.e. the article is not citing Saddam. This article mentions Saddam's links to terrorists already. It does not go into the detail that you propose because readers can find more specialized information elsewhere. This is a wiki; they can click on the hyperlinks. Further detail should be taken to a more specialized entry, such as Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. 172 | Talk 13:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I checked and weirdly enough Saddam is not quoted in the article. But his wife and daughter are both used as sources extensively and uncritically. They're unbiased? The way to write an NPOV article is to use sources with differing biases to get a balenced result, which is most emphatically what we do not have now. You even deleted the stuff I referenced to Foreign Affairs, so I don't see the "biased source" arguement as anything other than hypocrisy.

There article is 75Kb long, but there is no space space for two paragraphs about about Saddam's connections to terrorism? This is a joke. To repeat a point that has been made several times, but which no one has addressed: Even if you think Saddam is innocent of the terrorism charge, the allegation played a major role in shaping US policy toward Iraq. If your only source of info was this article, Saddam was minding his own business with his "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy," his "secular leadership" so forth. You can not figure out why anyone would dislike him and why he is no longer president. Kauffner 07:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Saddam's long-standing support for terrorism is not something that can be excluded from this article. The facts are clear and well-documented. It is pure POV for wikipedia editors to seek to remove this information from wikipedia. It is a disservice to the encyclopedia for readers to come here and not get an accurate picture of Saddam. The Weekly Standard is a conservative publication but it is not "biased" in the sense that it is inaccurate. Publications have to publish retractions if they get the fact wrong. Some wikipedia editors are pushing a POV that makes them want to "shoot the messenger." Weekly Standard is only the messenger. Why do they not call ABC News biased when it broadcasts stories about Saddam's support for terrorism? They never say ABC is biased, they just delete the link and pretend it is not important. Editors here need to take a long look at themselves before they delete information. Are you making that edit because it makes the article better? Or are you making it because it supports a POV you want readers to have? RonCram 15:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have friends who have been studying this stuff in an "International Relations" degree for almost three years now. It's common knowledge amongst academics that there is no convincing evidence of any friend-like relationship Saddam Hussein & Bin-Laden, in fact as far as we can tell, the two hated each other - there only common interest was opposition to America. Generally speaking, bin Laden has opposed dictatorships in the middle East including Hussein. When Iraq invaded Kuwait he even called jihad against Saddam and asked the Saudis if jihadists could go and liberate Kuwait from Iraq.

The video link to ABC news clip was obviously spun to try to and portray a fictional association despite the fact that there is nothing beyond speculation that supports such a view. The Bush administration, and it's right wing supporters (including sections of the mass media) have an interest in spreading belief that there is some relationship, because that would help justify going to war with Iraq.

It saddens me that Wikipedia is being used as a tool by wikipedians like RonCram to try and push political views. This 'Saddam Hussein' article is not here so America can justify why it went to war with Iraq (by pretending there is some kind of established relationship between Hussein and bin Laden). Until some geninely convincing evidence emerges i suggest the text I removed stays off the page since it (wrongly) implies that there is evidence that Hussein supported bin Laden.

Many news reports detailed Saddam's support for terrorists, including Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and Osama bin Laden.[17]

To stay NPOV, for any wiki-article (even if they're about films, celebrities, historical events..) whenever wikipedia cites sources, it should either:

1. Used sources that as far as possible neutral or backed up by sufficient evidence.
2. Or it should cover both points of view by citing more than one source.

I say the abc clip only deserves to be on the page if another source is cited along with it that points out the fact that there is no convincing evidence of a link that has not already been debunked.

-- Paxomen 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea is not to "exclude" anything but bias. Cram, it seems as though your purpose here on Wikipedia is to impose your conservative bias. Your last two sentences there are hilariously ironic coming from you. Almost every article you edit contains edits by you promoting a right-wing position. You pretend that this is only you fighting for neutrality because you think that the middle lies far to the right. "In the name of neutrality I will push Wikipedia as far to the right as possible." Over the past two weeks most of your edits have been about only two subjects, and many of those edits have been put towards promoting a right-wing view, such as your repeated insistence on adding a quote from the Weekly Standard to the Ray McGovern article. "Look, they printed this opinion piece about him. It's censorship if I don't get to add my links." It's an amazing coincidence that the opinion pieces you link and the sources you cite so frequently seem to come from the Weekly Standard, the "Media Research Center," or its subsidiary, cnsnews.

You have in the past spammed Talk pages with the same message promoting the Weekly Standard as if you're a paid advertiser doling out blurbs. You've gone around copy/pasting messages in other users' Talk pages asking them to help you in your jihad, or entreating anyone who will listen to watch things that promote your POV. You've added the same link to many articles in order to promote it. This is spam meant to promote a point of view.

Try honestly asking yourself those questions you asked in those last two sentences. I doubt you will, but it's worth a try. --Mr. Billion 02:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not seek to exclude any information that may be counter to my view that Saddam and bin Laden had a working relationship. You will never find an edit of mine that seeks to censor information. Yet that is exactly what many of you have done here. The Senate Report reaches several conclusions. Here are some:

Conclusion 94. The CIA reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons. (Page 346)

Conclusion 95. The CIA’s assessment on safehaven — that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control — was reasonable. (Page 347)

Conclusion 97. The CIA's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach — al-Qaida — to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks. (Page 348)

New documents being translated from Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents have supported Saddam's training of al-Qaeda and his pursuit of WMD. In addition to these facts, it is clear that the reports in newspapers around the world (London, Paris, Moscow and Milan) were right when they reported a "pact" between Saddam and bin Laden. Michael Scheuer was right when he wrote about the relationship in 2002. Scheuer's quotes on wikiquote page are quite clear. One particular DIA analyst was outspoken about the poor job done by CIA analysts like Ray McGovern and Paul Pillar. It makes it difficult to assume good faith when editors are deleting well-sourced information. RonCram 01:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess you didn't. Oh well.
This is the problem. This article, you will note, is called "Saddam Hussein". Yet you're grabbing anything you can find to support your POV that Saddam Hussein has been in bed with Osama bin Laden--including your attempt to insinuate that simply being in the country is evidence of direct cooperation. Heck, maybe Saddam himself even gave them the blueprint for 9/11 while they were there in the country.
You're wanting to use the report's conclusion 95 to make your point because, hey look, it says it was reasonable to conclude that they were in Baghdad and Kurdistan. Ergo, this is information about Saddam Hussein. We have to put that here, in the Saddam Hussein article.
(For some reason you don't seem as concerned with anything to do with the al-Qaeda article, except to add things related to Iraq. I wonder.)
The quoted piece of Conclusion 94 in the report is sandwiched between several large blacked-out blocks of text, and the meaning of the sentence itself isn't clear: The CIA reasonably assessed that the most problematic area of contact were (was?) the reports of training. What does it mean for reports to be a problematic area of contact? Were the reports most problematic because they were hardest to prove? "“in about half of the reports, we cannot determine if the Iraqi nationals mentioned had any relationship with the Baghdad government or were expatriate or free-lance scientists or engineers.” Additionally, Iraqi Support for Terrorism noted, two of the reports appeared to have been based on hearsay and four of the reports were simple declarative accusations with no substance or detail to help corroborate them." (pp331-32) Maybe whenever the government gets around to uncensoring other parts of the report we'll have an answer. Or maybe we should take this to be evidence of the collaborative relationship that the report says elsewhere doesn't exist.
Conclusion 97: The CIA was reasonable to conclude that Saddam might, if sufficiently desperate, try to use "terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaeda" to hit back in the event of war. There was a full-scale invasion and overthrow of his government followed by a months-long manhunt, and situations don't get more desperate than that. Yet for some reason he didn't use al-Qaeda, with whom everyone knows he was best friends, to strike at the U.S. Still, the information that the CIA was reasonable to have thought that he might is definitely something that belongs in a biographical article on Saddam Hussein. Because the most important biographical information there is about Saddam is all this proof that his driving motive was to launch a surprise attack on the U.S. using al-Qaeda.
There is however no sense mentioning that "he would refrain from carrying out attacks until he felt his regime’s existence was threatened." (pg 344) Or to note that even after his regime's existence was threatened, he still for some reason refrained from carrying out said attacks. Yes, it is vital that we make it sound like even the most tenuous connection is evidence of in-depth cooperation so that people know the full extent of the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Maybe we should start an article where we can collect all this information. --Mr. Billion 08:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal?

The "Personal" section of this article seems to be mistitled. Would it not be more appropriately titled "Children" or "Family"? Additionally, the GQ quote about Reagan at the end of the section is oddly placed; it is not related to the preceding information at all. (Oops, I didn't realized I was logged out.) - Slow Graffiti 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Languages

How many languages does Saddam Hussein speak? I understand he's fluent in Arabic. Does he speak English as well? JIP | Talk 18:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I was actually about to write a question about that here, but then I saw this.

Well in the infamous video of [[18]] Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with him in 1983, I do get the impression Rumsfeld is speaking directly to him, but I am far from sure (it is of poor quality). But this description of an interview with him suggests he can understand some English, but doesn't speak it very well :

[[19]]

Evilbu 13:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:33, 17 May 2006

I've reworded a few things, fixed a couple links, cut some POV-pushing, and added a quote. Kauffner added two sarcastic remarks which might have been funny in a better world.
Also, there was a reference to Michael Scheuer reporting about vast and undefined contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The citation given for this? Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article linked didn't even support the claim made, so that got cut. There was also a sentence claiming that a Senate report had found intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda in chemical weapons, but the Senate report the sentence referred to actually says the information came from "'sources of varying reliability.' The DCI’s unclassified testimony did not include source descriptions, which could have led the recipients of that testimony to interpret that the CIA believed the training had definitely occurred." And we wouldn't want that, would we? If we implied that they had found it definitely occurred, that might be misleading.
I've replaced that last sentence with a direct quote from the Senate report referred to, and--get this: The quote is actually about Saddam Hussein. What a novel concept for an article about Saddam Hussein. --Mr. Billion 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...all I can say is you certainly don't seem to have much fun editing. I dig. If the world was supposed to be better, Chomsky would have make it that way.Kauffner 16:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Billion, the link on Scheuer originally went to the wikiquote page on Scheuer where you could have read his words directly. Regarding the reports being of "varying reliability," that is actually a good thing because it means it was reported repeatedly and some of the sources were good. One of the main points of contention in this controversy is how certain does the intelligence have to be to be "actionable?" In the Cold War, they would act if the information was 60%. Since the Cold War has ended, the threshhold of certainty has gone way up and many people feel this is one of the great failures of the Intelligence Community. If the threshhold was at the old level, several terrorist attacks could have been stopped - maybe even 9/11. As more information comes out, it confirms the cooperative relationship between Saddam and Osama. That certainly is a point of interest to any reader of wikipedia.RonCram 01:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My reply to this and Ron's other message is at the bottom of this thread. --Mr. Billion 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Saddam the boring?

Aside from being outrageously one-side, I see an even more serious problem with this article: It's really, really boring. Saddam is one of the most colorful and controversial figures of our time. What do we find out about him in the article? He went to a nationalistic high school; he campaigned for literacy; he nationalized the oil industry, if he used poison gas against the Kurds and Iranians, well, gas is no more deadly than bullets; his problems with Kuwait are the fault of British colonialism.......zzzzzzzz.......Oh wait! There is something interesting in the article! Saddam took "measures to promote party unity." That was pretty funny, but perhaps not intentionally.Kauffner 11:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

US

The United States' role in the consolidation of Saddam's power is very understated in this article. Call me a spiteful bitch, whatever. It's what happened.

Discrepancies in capture story

The story for the capture of Saddam is not accurate. If you read Robin Moore’s Book the Hunt for Saddam, and try and talk to soldiers that were there in and around Tikrit and those that were on the raid “Operation Red Dawn.” Of course one could get the story from the Operation Commander… that I don’t have permission from to use his name. But the credit belongs mostly to the men of the 1st Brigade 4th Infantry Division with the help of the Special Forces that were operating under the name “Task Force 121.” Or some one that would like to know more could try and contact the Commander of the Brigade at the Time Col. James Hickey.

Media reports on Saddam's support for terrorism

It is strongly POV to deny readers the historical information about Saddam available in the media about Saddam's support for terrorists. An editor recently cut this information and the ABC News video clip from the article saying it was POV. That is incorrect. Readers have a right to know the historical milieu that existed prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Saddam's support for terrorism in general was commonly reported in the media. Saddam's support for and "pact" with Osama bin Laden was published in newspapers around the globe, including London, Paris, Moscow and Milan. To attempt to withhold these facts from wikipedia readers is just wrong. RonCram 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove that link but I assume the reason it was removed was because it was false, not because it was POV. In any case, I have addressed your attempt to spread disinformation without deleting the link to the incorrect video.--csloat 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, your comment is patently false. These investigations did not find what you claim they found. The Senate Report states clearly that Saddam trained al-Qaeda operatives at his terrorist training camps inside Iraq. I will clarify your comment to bring it closer to the facts. RonCram 14:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, you are either mistaken or just flat out lying. Please read the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page for more information. The Senate Report does have some misinformation of al-Libi concerning such training, but as we know, that information turned out to be false. The FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, and 9/11 Commission (among others!) all looked into such allegations and found them to be false. The SSCI confirmed that the intelligence community's assessment regarding so-called "links" was accurate. This has all been patiently explained to you by myself and others over and over for over a year now on these pages. Every time this happens you withdraw from the debate and then show up on another page spreading known disinformation about this. There was no training of al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq by Saddam. The OIF did find that Saddam trained pan-Arab fighters -- not Islamists -- but they did not show any evidence of al-Qaeda training. Please stop spreading this bogus conspiracy theory. Thanks.--csloat 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected Ron's error and moved that paragraph to the section where this material is already discussed on the page. I am sure Ron will insist that we need a paragraph about Saddam's non-operational links to al Qaeda in the introduction. I will not object to a sentence there stating that investigations found no operational cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaeda, but we do not need to review the litany of issues in the introduction to this piece. We have a section on links to terrorism already and everything that needs to be mentioned about it should be included there. The intro should be short and should not become a battleground for everyone's pet issues.--csloat 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you are right when you say we have been over this numerous times. Here are the facts. The Senate Report says multiple reports of varying reliable came to intelligence community about Saddam training al-Qaeda. The report was not based solely on al-Libi and it is disingenuous of you to say that it was. Secondly, it is true that al-Libi later contradicted himself but the CIA has not reach a firm conclusion about which story was a lie. Some believe al-Libi was telling the truth the first time and lying now. Third, recently translated Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents show that Saddam did train pan-Arabists for terrorist actions. A pan-Arab can certainly be an Islamist and the term can be applied to al-Qaeda since Osama seeks to be the caliph. Fourth, even former Senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey now agrees the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents show a much closer working relationship between Saddam and Osama than the Commission first thought. [20] The introduction certainly needs to address the most important issue about Saddam Hussein and everyone agrees that issue is Saddam's support for terrorism. RonCram 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the facts, Ron. The CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, and 9/11 Commission all had investigations into this specific question and all came to the same conclusion -- no operational link between Saddam and AQ. (It's also well known that British, German, Israeli, Spanish, and other world intel agencies came to the same conclusion). The Senate Report concluded that the conclusions of the US intelligence community in this regard were reasonable. It is true that the Senate report mentioned some contacts but they concluded that the CIA was correct in concluding that those contacts did not lead to an operational relationship. There is no evidence of Saddam training al Qaeda at all. In fact, the claim is pretty counterintuitive, since OBL had training camps set up in Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia -- there was no need to go to a secular socialist country where Islamists were often imprisoned and tortured. The training that did occur were of secular pan-Arab fighters, not Islamists, and there were no ties between these people and al-Qaeda. Your claim "the term can be applied to al-Qaeda" just shows your ignorance of the issue -- pan-arabists are nationalists, and Al-Qaeda is not a pan-Arabist organization in any way shape or form. (The claim that Osama seeks to be a caliph is also ignorant, but that is a side issue. You are correct that Osama wants to see a caliphate. A caliphate would be a religious pan-Islamic government run under sharia -- not a secular pan-Arab state, certainly not a state friendly to the likes of Saddam, whom Osama has derided as a "socialist motherfucker.") Since you mention the OIF documents, you are also well aware that these documents show that Saddam not only did not work with al-Qaeda, but that his government had put out an APB on Zarqawi (who headed "al Qaeda in Iraq") before the war, trying to have him arrested. You should also be well aware that when asked point blank about this, the authors of the Pentagon study on the OIF documents stated clearly that the fighters Saddam trained were secular pan Arab fighters with no relation to al-Qaeda. So please stop cherry-picking selective points to make a case for something that you know to be false. The fact that Bob Kerrey is incorrect about something certainly does not need to be hilighted in this article. The intro, of course, should address the most important issues about Saddam, such as the fact that he was dictator of Iraq, head of the Baath party, etc. Your claim that "everyone agrees" that the most important issue is Saddam's disputed support for terrorism is absolutely incorrect. Nobody agrees with that claim except for you and perhaps Stephen Hayes. Pick up any real biography of Saddam and, while terrorism is certainly mentioned, it won't be in the first paragraph and it won't be the "most important" issue. In fact, every major authoritative study of state sponsorship of terrorism has supported the conclusion that Saddam was not among the most prominent state sponsored. The most recent such study, Daniel Byman's Deadly Connections, doesn't even consider Iraq a major sponsor of terrorism, and mentions several times that the Bush Administration was incorrect in naming it one. Every credentialed terrorism expert who has addressed the issue -- e.g. Jason Burke, Rohan Gunaratna, Daniel Benjamin, Robert Pape -- has likewise concluded that the Bush Administration's assertion is incorrect. I realize that there are people who disagree, such as Laurie Mylroie and Stephen Hayes, but their opinions are simply not authoritative here.--csloat 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

PS I want to add a note on the confusion between "Arab" and "Islamic," since Ron's argument appears to be partly based on such confusion. "Islam" is a religion. "Arabic" is a language; "Arabs" consist of various national/ethnic groups (e.g. Iraqis, Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians) whose primary language is Arabic. Not all Arabs are Islamic -- there are many Arabs of various faiths, including Christians and even Jews. And certainly not all Muslims are Arabic -- in fact, most are not. Iranians are not Arabs, but most are Muslims. Most Indonesians, Malaysians, Pakistanis, Afghanis are also non-Arab Muslims. And of course there are Muslims of every ethnic and national stripe including Germans, Americans, Canadians, etc. Osama bin Laden has never been a proponent of pan-Arab nationalism, and in fact has organized most of his terrorist activity in non-Arab countries (Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as well as Sudan which is only partly Arab). He has always been a proponent of a pan-Islamic caliphate and has concentrated a lot of activity in Central Asia (he has strong ties to Islamists in former Soviet republics for example). And of course he recruits non-Arabs around the world - especially in Western countries - to help carry out his deadly plans.--csloat 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you are correct that Islam is a religion and Arabic is a language/ethnicity. However, it is news to me that pan-Arabs are purely secular. It has been my understanding that pan-Arabs can be driven by religious motives as well as ethnic ones. Saddam Hussein, one-time leader of the pan-Arab movement, appealed to Allah in many of his speeches. Osama certainly has been very active in non-Arab countries receiving government support from Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. It is my understanding Osama is attempting to build his caliphate using the building blocks of pan-Arab movement with Islamist motivations. Certainly there are many people who are more expert on this than myself. But I am certain one of thing, that Saddam was a long-time supporter of terrorism. Your claim that Iraq is not a major sponsor of terror is bizarre. I do not know these "credentialed terrorism experts" you write about but I am certain I can assemble a list far more respected who agree that Saddam was a major sponsor of terror. These "creditialed experts" must not have read the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents that persuaded former Senator Bob Kerrey. Kerrey now believes the 9/11 Commission underestimated the amount of cooperation between Saddam and Osama. I suggest you read the news article I posted before you comment again. [21] RonCram 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect. Certainly Saddam used Islam cynically when he thought it would support his murderous ends, but he was quite obviously secular, and he did not welcome the influence of Islamism. Osama did not receive support from Iraq; we have been through that over and over. Saddam supported terrorism in Israel by rewarding families of suicide bombers, but he never supported al Qaeda. As you are well aware, al-Qaeda is a very different group from Hamas. Iraq however was never a "major" sponsor of terrorism the way Afghanistan was, for example, and my claim is not "bizarre" -- it is the consensus opinion of all credentialed experts who have investigated the matter (again I would refer you to the most recent authoritative study on the matter, Daniel Byman's book, or Robert Pape's work on suicide terrorism). If you don't know who these credentialed terrorism experts are, perhaps you should read a few books on the matter before continuing to insist on your opinions being stated as fact in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is edited by non-experts, of course, but it is not too much to ask that you familiarize yourself with the relevant literature in the field before demanding that a certain view be represented, especially when that view is contrary to the studied conclusions of every intelligence agency and academic expert who has studied the issue! Kerrey, of course, is not an expert on the matter; his opinion might be interesting, but it is hardly authoritative or relevant to this page. As for the OIF documents, I refer you to the experts at the Pentagon who wrote the report on the matter, Brigadier General Anthony A. Cucolo III and Lieutenant Colonel Kevin M. Woods (Ret.). Or simply take a look at the Wikipedia page on the matter; I know you are familiar with it. Again, I refer you also to the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, which has a detailed timeline covering all of this information.--csloat 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page as you well know. When I arrived at that page you were trying to make it sound like the contacts between them was some kind of discredited "conspiracy" theory. In reality, no intelligence official doubts there have been multiple friendly contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda. The fact the Baathists have worked closely with Islamists is clear from their cooperation in the insurgency today and is confirmed by the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents in the past. The media began reporting the "pact" between Saddam and Osama back in 1998. The CIA has not proven those reports false. CIA analysts, men like Paul R. Pillar and Ray McGovern, have been truly lousy at evaluating the terror threat. Michael Scheuer wrote a book in 2002 that discussed many areas in which Saddam and al-Qaeda cooperated. Scheuer later changed his view but has not adequately explained his reason for doing so. It is surprising that you so often refer to the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission but when Bob Kerrey, a member of the Commission, says new evidence from the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents shows the Commission got it wrong - then suddenly you don't think so highly of Senator Kerrey. That is fascinating to me. You could at least read the article that explains why Kerrey changed his view. RonCram 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory, Ron, and it has been discredited. You claim that no intel official doubts that there have been friendly contacts, yet every intel official seems to have concluded that those contacts led nowhere at best and to disaster at worst. If you were familiar with the evidence on that page, Ron, why are you selectively picking out only facts that appear to support your theory while ignoring the conclusions of every intelligence agency and investigative body on the matter? What has happened since the Iraq war is not the issue here, but since you bring it up, you might notice that Baathists have been killing Islamists rather than "working closely" with them; see the Wikipedia article on the issue for more information. But that is neither here nor there; at issue is whether Saddam worked with OBL, which he did not. Your comment about a "pact" was never substantiated with any evidence; all you have is a quote from a newspaper in 1998 that I have discussed with you over and over again in the past. Ray McGovern was not responsible for evaluating the terrorist threat to my knowledge, so I'm not sure why you bring him up. Your claim that Pillar has been lousy is an unsubstantiated assertion; why not read his articles or interviews on the matter and actually evaluate the evidence he offers? It doesn't matter; that's not the issue here - at issue is the substantiated fact that every major investigative body including the CIA (as well as DIA, FBI, NSA, State Department, 9/11 Commission and more) have concluded that there was no operational link between Saddam and AQ. The only evidence you keep bringing up in support of your position is Scheuer's position in 2002, which he changed by 2004 after actually looking at the available evidence on the matter. Bob Kerrey, it is true, made comments to the effect of the OIF documents indicating a link, yet the ONDI and others who have looked at those documents have concluded otherwise. In fact, the documents show that Saddam was trying to put the thug Zarqawi away rather than work with him. I never said whether I think one way or another of Sen. Kerrey, but he is not an "expert" on the issue. This argument is kind of silly, since you have chosen not to respond to most of the arguments I made above, only to reassert these two points about Scheuer and Kerrey. Finally, what is this argument about anyway? The information you seek included in this article is already in there; your attempt to put it in the intro (so it is there twice!) is ludicrous.--csloat 04:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, the issue is that you only present one side of the story. I have rewritten the "Support for Terrorism" section to present both sides in a fair manner. RonCram 12:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"A document from the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents identified as BIAP 2003-000654 generated a short article in the Weekly Standard based on a translation by Joseph Shahda from the Free Republic blog.[29]" <--- Weekly Standard and Free Republic are extremely biased sources and have been proven to be outright liars in times past. I think this section should be removed. However, every time I ever remove something like this, a million nazi moderators of the opposing view always bombard the article with reverts and I never get anywhere (even when I post even a small disclaimer noting the well known bias of the sources). So I'm not removing it. I just thought everyone should know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.248.221 (talk • contribs)

The Weekly Standard is a mainstream journal. It is true that is published by conservatives, but the Weekly Standard has a very high reputation among both Democrats and Republicans for accuracy. Joseph Shahda is an amateur citizen translator who publishes his translations on FreeRepublic. If FreeRepublic was the only website to publish his translation, then it would not be suitable for an encyclopedia. But because a mainstream journal thought enough of it to publish it, it merits inclusion here. RonCram 15:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is not "mainstream"; it is a right wing partisan opinion journal, as you well know, Ron. Please do not lie to make your point; if you cannot make your point using the truth, you may consider the possibility that your point is incorrect.--csloat 20:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RonCram's POV edits on Saddam and terrorism

Ron, I think your most recent edit here was better than your previous ones, but I wish you would just be fair when you edit in the first place instead of editing in such an incredibly POV manner and forcing other editors to clean up your mess. It is really annoying -- I don't enjoy rewriting your paragraphs every time you make such a concerted effort to include disinformation in an article. As I said, this time is better, but your sources (WS, as the anon notes above, and Front Page Mag) are objectionable, especially when they are quoting other sources (why not just cite USNews for example instead of Frontpage mag citing USNews?) Also, this level of detail is not necessary; you are only including details that support your POV, even though you are well aware of the evidence to the contrary. Now this forces me to either (a) delete your inclusions, and risk being called a censor, or (b) include additional information to balance the POV that you have included, and expand this section of the article far beyond what is reasonable. Certainly I could include quotes from each of the investigative organizations that looked into the connection and found them lacking. (I find it telling, by the way, that you deleted this list of organizations without comment!) Soon this section will be as long as the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda article if we do that.

So the question is, should this new material -- including non-notable quotes from an Italian newspaper from 1998 and from openly biased sources such as the weekly standard -- simply be deleted, since these points are already discussed in excruciating detail on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Or should we start expanding this section and make it longer and longer, putting every possible quote on both sides in so that neither side in the debate feels slighted? I'd like to ask other editors to join the conversation here if possible. Ron and I have been arguing about this for over a year and the argument does not seem to be going anywhere productive.--csloat 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, thank you for saying the edit is better. However, it is offensive for you to say my edits have been "disinformation" in the past. That simply is not true. My entries are always well-sourced. Weekly Standard is a conservative mainstream journal with as much credibility for truthfulness and accuracy with Democrats as with Republicans. I cited US News and World Report because that is where the information was first reported. I was able to link to Front Page mag article and have not yet located the original U.S. News article. If you wish to replace the link with one from USNWR, I would welcome that. Including quotes from official view of the Intelligence Community would not add anything meaningful to the article. I think the article makes clear that official view holds that Saddam and Osama were not likely to work together because of competing ambitions that made them wary of each other. Having different quotes from multiple people saying the same thing doesn't really help the reader. The real question is if these two were able to put their differences behind them in order join forces against a common enemy? The report in the Milan newspaper say formed a "pact" in 1998. And the Paris, London, and Moscow newspapers all add additional detail about the pact. You describe these quotes as "non-notable" which is certainly not true. The 9/11 Commissison did not discuss these reports and have been roundly criticized for it. The Senate Report did discuss the Milan newspaper report, but had no information about the CIA following up on the story. From all indications, the CIA simply was not interested in learning more about the working relationship between Saddam and Osama. The intelligence failures during this time period are multitude. Underestimating the threat from Osama was one, but underestimating the possibility of Osama's relationship with Saddam was another. The facts clearly show that Osama and Saddam were willing to work together no matter the orthodox view of the Intelligence Community. That is why 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey has changed his view on the matter. RonCram 15:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron your edits have consistently been disinformation. The 9/11 Commission was not "roundly" criticized for not mentioning these non-notable sources; unless by "roundly" you mean that the Weakly Standard was the only source that criticized them. If there was a "pact," please produce a document signed by Saddam and OBL. I have not seen such a pact, and we discussed this a million times before. The reports from 1998 were wrong, Ron, and every investigative body that looked into the issue has concluded otherwise. Including this information here biases the article in one direction; it should either be removed, or I will add information from every investigative body -- which you erased -- indicating that those reports were false. I'd rather not since we already have that information here. Your claim that the CIA was "simply not interested" in the Saddam/AQ question is complete nonsense, and you have no evidence whatsoever for it. The intelligence failures on this question came not from the CIA but from Doug Feith's office, as everyone knows (including the new DCI General Hayden). The facts clearly show that Osama was not willing to work with Saddam (whom he called a "socialist motherfucker") and that Saddam was trying to arrest al Qaeda members. Bob Kerrey's view is one voice against a host of experts. Face it, Ron, you are wrong about this, you have been proven wrong for over a year about it. Why are you so invested in this conspiracy theory despite the mountain of evidence against it?--csloat 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

clsoat, you are wrong. The whole point is that the CIA did not investigate the reports of a pact between Saddam and Osama to attack US interests. The investigation that should have happened never did. There is no evidence the CIA even told the 9/11 Commission about the newspaper reports of the pact. The Senate Report includes the newspaper account but it did not discuss any investigation by the CIA into the report. The CIA orthodoxy was that these two could never work together but the facts have proved the CIA wrong... again. The vast number of failures by the CIA under Tenet is incredible, but the failure to take the cooperation between Saddam and Osama seriously has to be one of the worst mistakes. I agree that there are still people in the CIA who hold to the orthodoxy, including probably General Hayden and Negroponte. (BTW, I don't think the Director of the CIA now carries the title of DCI. I believe that title (if it is used at all) would be held by Negroponte since he oversees the Intelligence Community). The point is the CIA believed the Baathists would never cooperate with Islamists and yet we now know that belief is completely wrong. The situation in the Middle East is very fluid. People can be enemies one minute and allies the next... then become enemies again. RonCram 22:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, Wikipedia is not the place for your theories about what the CIA should or should not have investigated. I recommend that you start a blog if you are interested in publicizing these theories.--csloat 23:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous detail

Fellow editors, try to stay on topic. There are more specialized articles to deal with CIA this and CIA that, commission this and commission that. This article is only the general biographical entry on Saddam Hussein. There are many specialized articles on the military history of Iraq and U.S.-Iraqi relations that need attention. Again, please watch yourselves before going off on any tangents in this article that'll have to be removed later. 172 | Talk 22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The proper page to discuss this is Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, where that information is already available.--csloat 23:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, the article is about Saddam; Saddam's career as leader of Iraq is by far the most important part of the article; Saddam's ascent to power in the 1968 coup was made possible by the U.S. support for the coup. Are you saying that the U.S. role (fully supported by the citation I prv\ovided) in that coup is not relevant? To put it another way, the Saddam regime is removed by a coalition led by the United States, and you're saying that the fact that the coup that brought the Baathists to power was backed by the CIA is not relevant? --NYCJosh 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

There's something in an Arabic language written at the top of the page. Is there anyone who speaks this? And, if so, could you provide a translation or delete if necessay? Thanks.

It's his name as it appears in Arabic. cf. the Russian translation at the start of Vladimir Putin GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 01:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sodom"

I am tempted to remove the "Sodom" part of the name footnote:

Westerners often mispronounce the name "Saddám" as "Sádom," adding a religious rhetorical connotation to "Sodom" (which is itself typically mispronounced as "Sódom" instead of the correct [sədóm]); during the 1991 Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush pronounced his name "SAD-dum").

the "itself typically mispronounced" part was added by me; Saddam is "often mispronounced" as "Sádom" and Sodom is often mispronounced as "Sódom". So what? Unless we can give a reference to a notable source pondering the issue, this is idle chatter, if not OR (So Westerners cannot cope with Semitic phonology, big surprise; but who identifies a religious rhetorical connotation here?) dab (ᛏ) 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha its funny because he's gay Plebmonk 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you where you got this information, but I think I won't waste my time on such obvious trolls. JIP | Talk 12:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Saddam's outreach to the Muslim world

The article has a small section on the change in Saddam's regime after the Gulf War. Most people in the West do not understand how significant this change was for a formerly secular ruler. I believe the section deserves much more detail about the number of mosques Saddam had built and the size of the biggest one (the biggest in the world) and the fact Saddam had the Quran written in his blood and put on display in the mosque. There are so many interesting facts on this subject. This was also the time period in which Saddam began to support the Islamic Jihad and Hamas financially and began to reach out to Osama bin Laden. RonCram 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The section as it currently reads is reasonable. I don't agree that the change was all that significant; most scholars and commentators recognize it as a blatant propaganda ploy to win more sympathy in the Muslim world. And, of course, Saddam did not suddenly find Islam for this purpose after 1991; he had often done such things prior to the Gulf War for much the same reason. While there was some change after the gulf war it really wasn't that significant; whenever it suited his purpose prior to the war, Saddam would pretend to turn to Islam. (Perhaps he was sincere, but there was never any doubt that Saddam was a Baathist and an Arabist first and foremost, and he was never an Islamist; in fact, Islamists were seen as a threat to his regime and often arrested and "disappeared"). Trivia about Saddam writing the Quran in his blood is certainly interesting, but it hardly makes the case for Saddam becoming a devout Muslim (in fact, for most devout Muslims, it is haram to defile the word of God in this manner; Saddam was roundly condemned by Islamists for this attention-grabbing sacrilege). As for Saddam reaching out to OBL, yes, there were attempts made, and they were rebuffed, since OBL considered Saddam an apostate and a "socialist motherfucker," according to his biographer Hamid Mir.--csloat 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting csloat: "Most scholars and commentators recognize it as a blatant propaganda ploy..." And you have research and/or references to back that up? Arx Fortis 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Do you doubt it? I don't see the need to look it up at the moment, but it's a fact that is easily checked. If someone puts contrary information into the article, it will be easy to find the information to dispute it.--csloat 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I doubted it; I asked if you had a source. Since you do, cite it. IMHO, citations are just as important as the information. Arx Fortis 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't do research just because some random person tells me to. If this becomes an issue for the page, I will be happy to provide some sources. Or look it up yourself; I am quite confident you can find that sort of information yourself if you have access to a library or a computer.--csloat 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you expect other people to back up your assertion. Arx Fortis 19:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No; I could not care less whether other people feel like researching this fact. As I said, if it becomes an issue on the actual article and I feel like researching it, I will provide sources. But this is the talk page, and my assertion here is as valid as the one I responded to (more so, in fact). The statement I made was accurate and easily checked up by anyone who doubts it. I personally do not care enough about convincing you to look up the sources that I know exist. I have been researching this topic for years and am confident enough in my statement that I don't need to look up the sources again to prove it to myself. I don't feel the need to prove it to anyone else unless it becomes an issue on the article rather than just the talk page. Is that clear enough?--csloat 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ibid. Arx Fortis 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Saddam's outreach to the Islamic world (including the extremist elements) see the links given in this blog. [22] While the blog is not suitable for the article, the links it contains are. Saddam built many mosques, changed laws, had the Quran written in blood and many other acts. He was obviously reaching out to these groups since about 1991. I also point you to this quote:

Shiite cleric Fadlallah adds these nuggets to our list:

"Muslims do not feel that there is a contradiction between Islam and Arabism."

"Islam is a source of strength for the Arabs and Arab nationalism, just as Arabism is a source of strength to Islam." [[23]] RonCram 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vintage Saddam, to be sure. Again, writing the Quran in blood is an act of heresy and Islamists pointed this out at the time. Saddam has always made claims like the above, and has always used Islam to suit his political ends. Saddam is a personality cult, not a devout Muslim. He said and did whatever he thought made him more powerful. I don't think there was that much change after 1991, though there were some significant things (e.g. the flag), and most scholars I have read on the issue regard the "change" as propaganda. I realize where Ron is going with this, of course; he thinks it will help establish that Saddam joined al Qaeda or some such. No evidence supports such a claim, as is well known.--csloat 00:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein and al-Kerrey

I have made some minor changes to the section on 1991-2003, which had concluded with information about alleged links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. RonCram had added the comment, which he has been repeating all over Wikipedia for months now, that the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents have led Bob Kerrey to change his mind about the alleged connection. I have corrected this statement -- I do not see where Kerrey ever "changed his mind"; what I see is him saying the document in question - a handwritten page from 1995 with no official seal - caused him to realize that Saddam was an enemy of the US. I don't think it was in doubt since 1991 that Saddam was an enemy of the US, but I do not see how this information has opened a new debate on Saddam and al-Qaeda, as Ron alleges. In fact, no new official investigations have been opened up, and the Pentagon released an official study of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. The Pentagon's official study reached no conclusions that challenge the 9/11 Commission conclusions or the intelligence community's assessment of the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Ron's insistence that the few sentences quoted in the NY Sun by Bob Kerrey are the hallmark of some major shift in the consensus of experts on this issue is incorrect. I think this information is really tangential to this page -- I'd rather remove all the Bob Kerrey stuff than have a whole paragraph on him; the OIF documents are already mentioned on this page, and there is a link to that page, as well as a link to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, where these issues are discussed more fully.--csloat 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I did not say there is a major shift in the consensus.... yet. But the debate is stronger than ever. More news comes out almost weekly regarding some newly translated Operation Iraqi Freedom documents showing Saddam's support for terrorism and al-Qaeda. The writer for the NY Sun believes Bob Kerrey changed his position and Kerrey has never disputed the article. The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page carries a POV tag because you will not allow information into the article. Your attitude is contrary to wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's policy is to provide information that is reliably published. The article certainly deserves more discussion of Saddam's outreach to Islamic elements as well as his support for al-Qaeda. Readers will not get an accurate view of Saddam without this information. RonCram 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestihng - so where is the debate? Surely I can find evidence of it in the pages of the Congressional Record or the New York Times? Surely new official investigations are being conducted as we speak? No? But more news is coming out weekly you say? What news came out this week? How about last week? The week before? Any information about what we can expect next week? The writer for NYSun did not say that Kerrey "changed his position" - please quote the passage you are referring to. I think it is fine to quote Kerrey himself on this. The POV tag on the other article is not at issue here, and I have never said I would not allow information into that article - please do not lie about me anymore Ron, it is very annoying. I also did not delete the information from this article -- all I did was put in Kerrey's own words and the words of the writer of the NY Sun article instead of your words. I also added the assessment of ABC, who published the document that is at the heart of all this alleged controversy. Let's face it, Ron, we are talking about one handwritten unofficial document that nobody can tell us much about. Even if the document was official, all it tells us is that there was a contact in 1995 that does not seem to have led anywhere. You are beating your chest a lot about this document but there is really very little there.--csloat 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote from a recent ABC News article: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." [24] At least ABC News admits the debate exists and is intense. They fail to mention that 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey has changed his position on the issue due to the information that has come out through the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents, but that certainly proves a debate exists as well. You are living in a fantasy world if you don't think a debate exists on this subject. Regarding what the NY Sun writer wrote, how about looking at the lead sentence? A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Kerrey is also very interested in OIF documents that are yet to be translated. The article also says The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents. This is also evidence of a debate that is picking up steam. As more evidence comes out, the minority view grows stronger and stronger. I am not lying when I say the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page carries a POV tag because of you. CSTAR was working with me on a rewrite but your intransigence chased him off. We could have had an NPOV article that actually meets wikipedia standards. But as it is, the article treats a viewpoint like a fact. NPOV is non-negotiable, yet you are single-handedly stopping the article becoming NPOV. And your silly statement that "we are talking about one handwritten unofficial document" is completely wrong. You don't even know the facts because you will not even read the rewrite I wrote. RonCram 11:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, Ron, ABC used the word "debate." Now, what official investigations are being conducted? Are there congressmen debating this in any official place? Where does it say Bob Kerrey "changed his position"? It doesn't matter - I am happy to have this information included in these pages, as you know. All I have insisted on is that items be sourced and accurate. It's nice that a conservative writer from the NYSun thinks the new documents have an impact on this "debate," but the Pentagon and ODNI, who have examined them already, disagree. As for the other page, your claim that I am responsible for the npov tag is nonsense! You refuse to explain specifically what is POV about the page! And your claim that I chased CSTAR off is totally mendacious, given that CSTAR came back to the page to respond to you specifically and told you that you were wrong, that I did not chase him off. Why are you making things up Ron? As for the one handwritten unofficial document, that is what the NYSUN article is based on and what Kerrey's alleged change of mind is based on Ron. I have read your rewrite and it is horribly POV. If it ever gets seriously debated, I will be more than happy to dispute it sentence by sentence. But the reality is that the current version of the page is as NPOV as we have been able to get so far, and you can not even articulate a substantive complaint about it. Anyway I am going to ask that we take further conversation about the Saddam Hussein and al -Qaeda page to that page rather than here; it doesn't belong here, as I have been saying.--csloat 19:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

official/un-official.

The article states: The document in question, ABC cautioned, "is handwritten and has no official seal," and "does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship.

Ha!...why would they bother with the formality of an official seal? So that if one side reneged on the deal, the other party could call Wapner? Gimme a break. Arx Fortis 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The point that ABC establishes is that there is no way to confirm that it is an official document. The Iraqis were pretty meticulous about documentation, so it would be odd if there was an official document such as this that did not bear any seal. The fact that they couldn't be bothered with a typewriter for this is telling as well. The document may be interesting, but it tells us little, and certainly is not "evidence" of any collaborative relationship.--csloat 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Were is the mention of the reports that the spider whole story may have been faked?

http://www.lies.com/wp/2005/03/12/saddam-spider-hole-story-a-fake/

Their is no mention of this at all.

--Vehgah 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because some wackjob on the internet says it doesn't mean it deserves a place on Wikipedia. --Golbez 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing here that is relevant to this article, or for that matter that makes sense. --Golbez 06:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am simply saying to that the unmixed and the raw honest verbal testimony of Saddam Hussein in his own perfect words would prove for current and for interesting illumination into the depth of his character. I do not really trust all of that much what I read on the news nor hear on the television. Of course he is not going to get out of jail nor will he be let off the hook. He is no longer in the situation of power and control of that he once was. A true detailed dialogue of questions and answers would prove for interesting reading. I am not trying to staunchly defend him as to say he is a great guy. But he is a figure from Iraq history whose testimony and time line and mental psychology would prove interesting to honestly delve into. Bernie in Cuyahoga County in Cleveland Ohio in the 44109-4665 08:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. perhaps you'd like to contact a newspaper then? --Golbez 09:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem is you PROVE that it's not the real Saddam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.169.187 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that just because WIKIPEDIA says it does not mean it's authoritative. At best WIKIPEDIA is a source to browse - don't site it in a paper,etc.

Tattoo

Apparently Saddam has, or had, a green tribal tattoo on his nose; is this true? Dev920 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Victims of the regime

What are the estimates (I imagine they are ranging) on the number of Iraqis killed by the Hussein regime? The NYT quoted a man saying "a million" but I'm skeptical since the man quoted was just an average Joe, yet the article didn't comment on his claim. --A Sunshade Lust 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

rumors that I have heard

As far as I have heard, sadam is in prison. how much time does he have left to stay in there

Mafia don comment

The remark about "looking every inch the mafia don" looks like its came straight out of a tabloid. I would edit it myself but as I'm fairly new to contributing and as I think the previous sentence containing the phrase 'proved a goldmine' and the following one referring to 'the Americans' also need rework I'd like to discuss these with you before editing the entire paragraph. How about completely removing the sentence referring to the 'mafia don', changing the reference to 'the Americans' to 'the U.S. intelligence services' and changing 'proved a goldmine' to 'provided valuable information'? Rob Hinks 19:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Saddam photo

This has been brought up before but nothing seems to have been done. The first photo in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq section is of questionable authenticity. I suggest two edits. First, change the first sentence of the caption to "On 4 April, Iraqi state TV broadcast footage of the besieged Iraqi leader touring the streets of his bombed capital." This wording would make explicit the dubious origin of the footage. Second, the reference [25] is subscriber only. I suggest replacing this reference with this link to the Guardian which is not subscriber only [26] --Herb West 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

President or Dictator?

I don't think it's fair to call Saddam a president because he did not come to power through election. He came to power via coup.

Maybe we shouldn't call George Bush a president either then? PatGallacher 00:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but technically, George Bush was elected. Even when he didn't get a majority in 2000, he still (technically) legitimately won because of the electoral college. But let's not get too far into that argument. The point is that Saddam was a dictator, even though he preferred the term "President" 67.52.196.164 16:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

He techincally won because thousands of black voters were disenfranchised and then a minor league Bureaucrat under his brother used her power to hand him the election. But anyway, president = one who presides, it has nothing to do with democracy or a republic. Anyway, saddam hussein HAD an electoral system, it just wasn't a very fair or open one. WookMuff 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to the question, "president" is a title that Hussein did hold. "Dictator" is a description (which Hussein likely also qualifies for). A free democratic election is not required if one wants to simply declare oneself a "president," as Hussein did. (Besides, I believe they did have elections, albeit he was the only one of the ballot). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this edit and its logic: [27]. Here is a link to BBC story about him being elected president [28]. Even if the elections seem rigged or invalid from our perspective, the fact that the Iraqi government had a position with the title "president" gives the person holding that position the title "president". Whether or not you feel he is a "model" president or fitting of the title based on your opinions of what a "true" president is is POV. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Saddam was both president and dictator. Both words should be used in the article.Kauffner 05:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I say, president = one who presides. Its just a word, a description and not a term that means "Only the head of state in a republic, and nothing else". If i begin a company, i can call myself president of that company, even if it has only one employee (me), because its just a word.WookMuff 10:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing sourced material about CIA involvement is POV

On April 20, 2006 user 172 removed a relevant portion of sourced[29] biographical data, which I had added on April 11, 2006. The reason he provided for the edit was: "removing creep of anti-American mythology". The topic of these additions/deletions were CIA's involvement in the overthrow of president Qassim. No attempt was made to communicate beforehand, neither here or on my talk page.
To user 172: Just because you think this material is "anti-American", you've no right to remove it without discussion. The CIA has a long history of being involved similar incidents all over the world. As a historian you know that of course.
Please see the diff at line 31. --Boo 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-added the relevent portions. --Boo 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

CNN Polls: September 12th, the day after the attacks.

On the 12th of September, cnn.com had a poll as to 'whom we should go after' as far as the 9/11 attacks went down; the poll was online for 72 hours, the results were something like 98% for Saddam Hussein, 8% Osama and .. I have forgotten the other nominee for generic assault because the poll has since been removed and no remnant of it ever existing is locatable to me on the internet, not even cached anywhere.

It was interesting as Iraq was a shadow of an afterthought from 1993 at that stage, they hadn't been in the news in forever and no one really gave a crap what was going on over there, yet for some odd reason the tipped underdog of all the people you wouldn't expect the votes to weigh in for, they called for Saddam's blood.

Does anyone recall this, or have records of this vote? Did CNN ever post any information pertaining to it other than just the vote results once you had voted? It'd be interesting to examine their rationale of including him in the vote considering he was nothing to do with the matter for all intents and purposes. It'd be even more interesting to find out why the population voted to go after him rather than the man who alledgedly attacked America the day prior in the 'worlds biggest terrorist attack'. ANY information would prove potentially useful or at least interesting! Jachin 15:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the poll, but it is incorrect to say that nobody "gave a crap what was going on there." Since 1998 an organized group of conservatives (and some Democrats) had been agitating for Saddam's removal, and Clinton had bombed Iraq every few weeks throughout the 1990s. When Bush came to office, ousting Saddam was one of his priorities. The Gulf War was not that long before 9/11, and Saddam was for many Americans the obvious culprit.--csloat 16:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The effort to remove Saddam wasn't a conspiracy. There was an Iraq Liberation Act passed in 1998. Saddam was the only major world leader who didn't send condolences after 9/11. He wanted people to think he was responsible. There are many links between Iraq and the 1993 WTC bombing, so in my opinion there's a distinct possibility he struck again.

Right after the attack, an astonishing number people assumed it was the Palestinians and this idea is still quite common. I was living in Korea at the time and I went to church a few weeks after the attack. The (Korean) pastor said, "Many people are wondering what this war is all about. Well, it's because the Palestinians are so brave." Yeah....um...ah...right.Kauffner 17:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I should clarify some of the things Kauffner has said: There was an Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, but the Act did not advocate or even consider a full-scale invasion and occupation of the country. Saddam wasn't in fact a major world leader, he was the tin-pot dictator of a third-world country. Several other countries didn't send condolences. Iraq state media said from the beginning that Iraq was not responsible. There are no credible links between Iraq and the 1993 WTC bombing.

A large number of people made wild assumptions after 9/11, including the kooky ideas that it was the Jews or a nefarious U.S. shadow government or Saddam Hussein. The world's intelligence agencies have determined beyond a doubt that al-Qaeda was responsible, and the Senate Intelligence Committee has determined that Iraq had no relationship with al-Qaeda. George Bush himself has admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. --Mr. Billion 13:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is no-one answering these questions?

Someone must be editing this article. Why are they not answering the many questions about Saddam that I see before this section? Dev920 12:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Weekly World News

I think the Saddam Hussein article on Wikipedia should mention about the fictitious stories reported about him in Weekly World News. The tabloid mentioned that he starred in gay porn films and that false factoid should definitely be added into the "Saddam in fiction" section of the article. Also, I hope no one deletes the section in its entirety since I think all of Saddam's fictional roles should be noted about even if they're vulgar. 70.124.84.46 03:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Concern: Unsourced Statements

Any GA reviewer is going to take into account the {{fact}} tags present in this article. Please address them ASAP. -Fsotrain₀₉ 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Fail

3. Broad in coverage? Fail

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Fail

Additional comments :

• Image:Saddam Hussein (107).jpg, Image:AlBakr.jpg, Image:Saddam7.jpg, Image:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg, Image:SaddamandRana.jpg.jpg should state their fair use rationale.
• He is currently standing trial should rid of the word currently.
• Especially significant to Saddam was the lesson that he should never back down from his enemies, no matter how superior their numbers or capabilities. was attributed to whom?
• In .. even up to the present day., present day should be avoided as the time keeps changing and today might not be tomorrow and this may not be true in some other time frame.
• For the lines He was sentenced to death in absentia. Saddam studied law at the Cairo University during his exile., there is no paragraph that brings toward such claims, they come out of nowhere. Editors should add some opening sentences to situate the reader.
• Stable rule in a country rife with factionalism required the improvement of living standards. is borderline leaning toward OR.
• Can we back this, But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as the country ploughed much of its oil profits into industrial expansion., up with a source?
• In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government., doesn't go with a prior statement that claims that he was already the strongman of the government, I don't understand.
• continuing a pattern that dates back at least to the British mandate authority's reliance on them as administrators. should be inline cited to help the reader know when exactly it took place.
• However, in a private meeting with Salah Omar Al-Ali, Iraq's permanent ambassador to the United Nations, he revealed that he intended to invade and occupy a large part of Iran within months., needs a citation unless there is a mention of a leak from the government this is unknown to the public.
• Section The Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) needs to be focusing more on the part Saddam took part in such an event instead of focusing on the event itself. What could be cut down should be sent to the main article Iran-Iraq War.
• The Gulf War section also places the main event in the foreground though since it is Saddam's biography, placing him in the background isn't really appropriate. The section should focus more on his interventions and what his country suffered than on the event.

In my view, this article is great but in some areas it focuses on events rather than on Saddam taking part in the events which makes the article looks less like a biography (which it should be) and more like a almanach (maybe not the right term) of Saddam's time in power. There are missing references for the beginning of the article for everything after 2001 seems to be well referenced. It is close to GA for this article has rid itself of the majority NPOV and poorly written lines. Good luck with the improvement and drop by my talk page to discuss it. Lincher 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

al-Anfal campaign

I don't know enough about this subject to edit confidently, but it seems to me that the entry glosses over the al-Anfal campaign in an irresponsible way. Shouldn't the article mention that something like 50k-180k Kurds were exterminated in this campaign? It doesn't seem right merely to describe it as something that "happened in conjunction with" the Halabja gas attack. Cyrusc 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

After the on hold period expired, the article didn't meet the requirements of the GA status. After improvement into the aspects written earlier, it may come back to the GA candidacy. Lincher 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate this is but there is a report that Saddam had accepted the US ultimatum and that the US had denied it, despite issuing it. Some people are saying this is old news, but to me this sounds like extremely significant if it's true. The whole conflict could of been avoided if there was a peaceful step down. If someone is willing to help me do more research then perhaps we can mention this in the main article and the Iraq war article.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061030/nym224.html?.v=44

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/ExHussein_political_adviser_claims_Iraq_accepted_1030.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.213.3 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Weaseling Idiot deleted everything....

Nothing shows up. Some super-patriot with a POV that he shouldn't have a biography has removed everything. Having never seen the original article, I don't know what to do. Admins should reverse the change. --24.22.212.250 15:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Death Sentence

Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death on 5 November 2006. --Adriaan90 09:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

'bout time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsky31 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He shouted "god id great. god is great" NOT "God is the greatest"

his name

why is he frequently refered to frequently in the american media by his first name. people are usually mentioned by their last names, but why is there an exception in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.13.120 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't have a family name in the sense that most westerners have. Hussein is his father's first name. Both Saddam and Hussein are used in the west, in Iraq he is called Saddam. See here for a lengthy explanation. Weregerbil 11:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen.

WTF

WHY THE FOOK HAS THIS BEEN PROTECTED WHEN THERE IS NO SIGN OF RECENT VANDALISM!
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE PROTECTION FEATURE IS FOR FUKTARDS!

IT IS AGAINST WINKIE AIMS.

CHIRS ANDERSON IS A GORDIE LEGEND

PLEASE UNLOCK ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.138.14 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

there has only been 1 maybe 2 edits that constitute vandalism recently. that is not enough to protect it. otherwise every article in wikipedia would be protected. stop being getting so horny and unlock this bee hatch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.138.14 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason they might have locked it would be the possibility of incoming vandalism (considering the recent news of his sentence). - Nick125 10:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume it's to stop idiots like him who don't know how to make an account and actually be a member. -LonelyPker 00:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Sorry - i didn't realise it was compulsory to register an account(!) I thought those who choose not to create an account are treated as equal to those who do create accounts. Or is that not the case? you FARKING RACIST! Now run along and post something constructive.

No personal attacks. Blue Mirage | Comment 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SENTENCED!!!

OMG YES FINALLY!!

Saddam was sentenced to death by hanging!! I just received the news!

Of course he will appeal but its a good direction!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.201.12 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the verdict has been automatically appealed. --Adriaan90 10:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In the great words of the Bloodhound Gang:

"Let the mother****** burn, burn mother****** burn!"

While I don't like to see articles being vandaled, I laugh when it happens here. --Raderick 11:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If he really said "God is Greatest", then the actual translation is "Allah hu akbar"(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemalta (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is just like the Nuremberg Trials. "Allies" always find some people guilty and they hang them. 60 years past and nothing has changed. I think they should be honest. This "trial" thing is stupid because we all know that these decisions have nothing to do with democracy or civil rights (even if the subjects are considered quilty by many people). The article says Saddam sentenced to death because he killed people. Can someone say me how many people were killed by the "Allies" and their sweet "freedom operation"? With respect, Deliogul 11:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No they can't Deligou, because that number killed by the beautiful people, you know, the civilised protectors of democracy at all costs would go off the scales. Saddam is an example and nothing more. He was a good man when he fought the "evil ayatollas" but now there is no more use for him, it is Goodbye. Evlekis 12:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

so deluded and misinformed.. I take it Deligou thinks they should stop putting war criminals on trial. Saddam killed innocent people intentionally, the Allies killed innocent people unintentionally. And no, I cannot tell you how many people were killed, putting figures on both these atrocities are very difficult to do.

This talk page is not for your own personal views on the matter - it is for discussing the article itself. Go find a forum to type on. Tphi 12:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to but how do you track down an anonymous person? Evlekis 14:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The trial was a travesty, I think the Judge should be held on trial for his crimes against humanity! Crud3w4re 13:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad two above authors railed at the injustice of the situation and the hypocracy. More people died from Condoleeza Rice's sanctions on Iraq from starvation, will she ever face the firing squad? On hearing the sentence, my MSN subtitle changed to: Saddam Hussein's trial is the biggest mockery to justice since the Nuremberg Trials. I find it very amusing that someone above immediately mentioned the nuremberg joviality also. From a blind Saddam hater, this trial has opened my eyes to the fact he's just a leader who's been fucked by the system he worked for, the united states, just like Osama was a former US buddy. 211.30.71.59 14:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because those deaths were necessary. Condoleza Rice is a good woman. The world will only be a safer place when the whole population is pro-US policy. In other words, when 90% is wiped out through famine, diseases, starvation, "friendly fire", hardship brought on by sanctions and accidently going down the shops on a day when the Allied Forces: Defenders of the Earth have decided to bomb. Evlekis 14:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see Evlekis writing these insanities of his in a Saddam Hussein-like dictatorship... long live the freedom of speech the "Defenders of the Earth" provide you! 201.81.183.136 00:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

'Defenders of the earth...?' Thats pathetic. ACK-OA Alkoholicks 07:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC) 3

Hiyaaaaaaaa :) yadda

This "defenders of the earth" thing is really stupid. Every world power in the history rised and then all were beaten by a stonger power or they just collapsed because of the inner corruption. Believe me this is some kind of a rule. Eastern Roman Empire was an important player for 1000 years but we conquered their lands and became a world power then WWI marked the end of our empire and then Soviets collapsed because of corruption and now its America's turn. Its just a matter of time ;) With respect, Deliogul 17:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Firing Squad v Hanging

As Saddam Hussein is a soldier, it is improper for them to hang him and this method was most likely imposed as a final insult by the kangaroo court upon him. Could someone please indicate that in the opening paragraph after the reference to his sentence to hanging? He is, by rights, entitled to death by firing squad as any soldier. 211.30.71.59 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He is not/was not a soldier, Saddam "demanded and received the rank of four-star general." Also, I'd like to point out this talk page is for discussion of the article, and that if you want to discuss your feelings on the court, then you should try a forum.--DP462090 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He would still be hanged, as oppose to firing squad, when convicted against crimes against humanity, even if he was considered a "soldier". The Nazi Hermann Göring was denied his request of death by firing squad b/c his status as war criminal superseded his so-called rank of Reich Marshall. 24630 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hanging soldiers is an interesting habit of America. They enjoy it since the Nuremberg. Deliogul 17:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Examples, please. -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Nuremberg trials were conducted by a multinational tribunal comprised of Allied powers, and Hussein's trial was conducted by Iraqi authorities.

His trial, let alone the verdict, has little if anything to do with the American system of jurisprudence, be it military or civilian. Ruthfulbarbarity 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nuremberg was all about the decisions of America and angry Soviets(because Hitler killed millions of them). Soviets would agree to kill all of the subjects so this means US enjoyed a power to terminate all its enemies(in this case Nazis). In Iraq, it is so clear that the judge is just an American puppet. America once again terminates its enemies. With respect, Deliogul 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Addressing each in order, to Dp462090, you're incorrect. He had a rank and was a soldier. If you're questioning the validity of one's rank based upon the method of induction into armed services, are conscripts soldiers? Are honoured militia who fought during the civil war in America soldiers? Are any Roman or Greek emperors who took over legions by force and served afoot with them on campaigns, soldiers? I question the validity of your response and the entire 'demanded and took the rank' angle that this article presents actually. To be honest, it's bullshit. Just because under YOUR specific military system there are certain codes of conduct practised does not negate that under his it is legit.

User 24630, Nuremberg was a kangaroo court, so is this one. It has been a multi-thousand year tradition that soldiers are dispatched as soldiers and not as civillians, dating back to even the Roman empire. What was done at Nuremberg was intentionally designed to breach this long held tradition as part of the retribution aspect of the law being implemented IMHO.

Deliogul, spot on. Knowing our alliance fighters will never fail, our leaders do not fear the noose for their crimes against humanity which are whitewashed over and go unnoticed. I don't think any reasonable person with an education would question the fact that to the victors go the spoils, the spoils in this instance include the heads of our 'enemies'.

User Ruthfulbarbarity, if you believe that, then you aren't very lateral in thought. To believe for one minute that the verdict of this matter wasn't pre-decided the moment they set out to catch and kill him and his family is farcical at best. Both are kangaroo courts assembled by the 'allies' to judge the 'enemy' and 'punish them' for 'crimes against humanity'. Both were carried out by alleged third parties, both were carried out in full breach of IC conventions, both led to death of 'enemies' based on in many instances circumstantial evidence (such as one mans word against anothers).

Thus, it stands to reason, given the fact that this simple post has expanded so dramatically and there are differences of opinions that the fact they wish to hang a soldier should be addressed directly in the article. Any suggestions? 211.30.71.59 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your arguement is kind of spoiled by the fact that the defendants tried at at Nuremberg were NOT all hanged, or even executed. If Nuremberg was a "show" or "kangroo" trial as you so claim, why were some of the senior members of the Nazi party just given prison time or even acquited? Had Stalin, or perhaps even Churchill, had gotten their way, they would all have been hanged or at the very least sentenced to a life of penal servitude. And lets not forget, most of the people who were hanged were NOT sentenced on grounds of being part of the losing side, but for their role in the Holocaust. Reich President Karl Dönitz was the head of state of the Third Reich at the time, and he was given 20 years for being a prominent participant during the war, but not hanged because he had no clear connection to the genocide. But to be fair, the tribunal was most likely bias, because the old proverb "the victors write the history," is true, but to claim the entire trial was just a fallacy is ridiculous. 24630 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International (unfair and flawed trial)

The human rights organization Amnesty International criticized the death sentence and said the trial was ``deeply flawed and unfair. The process was marred by ``serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, Malcolm Stuart, director of Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa program, said in an e-mailed statement. ``In particular, political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court.

Among Hussein's co-defendants, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, his half-brother and Iraq's intelligence chief at the time of the Dujail killings, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, who issued death sentences to Dujail residents as head of a Revolutionary Court, were also sentenced to death by hanging.

Former Baath party officials in the Dujail region Abdullah Kazim Ruwayyid, his son Mizher Abdullah Ruwayyid, and Ali Dayih Ali were sentenced to 15 years in prison. Mohammed Azawi Ali, also a Baath party official in Dujail region, was acquitted due to a lack of evidence.

Hey, why is this even here, it isn't a discussion, it is just something that should be added to the article if you want. Personally I think that Saddam should die with the rest of his crew. Wakawaka42 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

After Saddam is hanged, no dictator friendly to American interests will ever trust the United States after this. The lession is quite clear, make a deal with the U.S. and end up at the end of a rope.

It doesn't have to be a dictator. American friendly republics will face the same ending too. The difference will only be the numbers. In Saddam's case, he and couple of friends will be hanged and if you are a republic this only means America will hang about 100 people in the end, after a successful democracy war. With respect, Deliogul 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet orbit

This segment of "Modernization":

At the time Saddam was considered an enemy of communism and radical Islamism. Saddam was integral to U.S. policy in the region, a policy which sought to weaken the influence of Iran and the Soviet Union.[citation needed]

...is difficult to reconcile with the USSR being the primary military supplier of Iraq during the 1972-1979 period. It was the fall of the Shah in 1979, and the Iran-Iraq war, that caused the USSR to withdraw support from the regime, creating an opening for the US (who continued to try to play both sides for several years, ostensibly to win one or the other over, or cynically to occupy the energies of both). Additionally, radical Islamism was widely (and infamously) discounted as a regional political force until the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Afghan muj movement. I simply find this wording to be anachronistic, through a modern prism, and at the least misleading. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The USSR never withdrew support from the regime until 1990. 65.185.190.240 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

Why am I presented with Jafar from Aladdin if I click on Saddam's profile image in this article? PGT.Endurance 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Try it now; you might have to clear your cache. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Timing of verdict as October / November surprise

I see no reason why the following text has been repeatedly deleted on claim of "POV" since it fairly reports a matter widely discussed in the media and by the administration: "The timing of this announcement has been associated with boosting GOP candidates in the US midterm elections. " If anything, it is the deletions which are POV since an editor's opinion that this is a false accusation does not preclude us from documenting it. Haiduc 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any POV in simply reporting what dozens of mainstream media commentators are saying. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please be so kind as to restore it since I have already done so twice and do not wish to break 3RR. Haiduc 04:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I just looked at it again in context; I'm not really comfortable with the placement of the comment in the lead. It seems to put undue weight on what in the end is an editorial opinion. It's a widely held opinion, but it's still an opinion. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It could perhaps be mentioned that it is a fact that such opinions exist. --Adriaan90 16:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Placing this statement in the lead is not necessary. If it is to be mentioned, it should be placed in the appropriate section of the body of the article and be well-referenced. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm don't even believe it has merit in the lead (currently anyway) in the Trial of Saddam Hussein article where it has more merit. Of course, things might change but I somewhat doubt it will ever have merit in this article. One the other hand, it may end up having merit in the lead of the Trial article Nil Einne 03:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions above. I also want to emphasize we need to keep close watch on the international press - sadly, this is something being discussed all over the world. [30] Haiduc 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this Discussion page be edited??!!!???

I'm normally only active in the German wikipedia. but this discussion page IS HORRIBLE! There is private or even harrazing comments in it - or in HALF OF IT! And people just write there personal opinion on the hanging. This is a encyclopedia! Also the discussion page!!! Somebody do something, please!!!84.226.159.211 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't talk too much or the defenders of the democracy will hang you ;) With respect, Deliogul 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

unprotect this

byach. what are the guidlines for protecting an article featured on the main page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.152.138.14 (talk • contribs) .

What edits did you have in mind? I'm sure if you post your suggestions here and they look good, someone will be happy to add them to the article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, but the article is probably protected to avoid edits like this. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you are right that there has been vandalism which would merit protection, but I think the anon. OP was wondering about this protection vis a vis the article currectly being on the Main Page. Aren't articles on the MP not supposed to be protected, as a general rule? The OP (and I) are curious about these "guidelines" as OP calls them. Thanks. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 16:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what the guidelines are. I just reverted a bunch of Saddam-related vandalism by the user who requested unprotection -- see the link I referenced above. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a general rule that pages should not be protected if they are of high visibility, e.g. those linked from the main page. I've gone ahead and lifted the protection. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was under constant attack for the two hours it was unprotected, so it's now protected again. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

HOly crap they really did unprotect it! haha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.152.138.14 (talk • contribs) .

Yup, you missed your chance, sorry. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about James? I was merely pointing out my amazement over the decision to unprotect this article under the current circumstances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.152.138.14 (talk • contribs) .

Maximum age for death penalty

Why was a members contrib of te fact that it is illegal to hang anyone over 70 marked as valdalism? The user cited his references.

The death penalty is illegal in all civilised first world countries (bar America), unfortunately Iraq isn't civilised or first world. Yet it's interesting to note that such a law is enforced there, perhaps our more barbaric first world countries that still allow it (uh, American) should take that into consideration. 211.30.71.59 14:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Too long?

This article is really long. Should it be split up? Is it possible? SteveCentra 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's been longer. Besides, there's no logical way to split up this page, other than making pages specifically for certain events in his life, Gulf War, for instance. All that's needed is a brief description of his role in the event and we're fine. --Chemical Ali 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Saddam put his signature on the last 30 years of Iraq, it is hard to split the article. With respect, Deliogul 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Body Doubles?

Okay, forgive me for basing this off hearsay and memory (some argue), but is it 100% sure the pictures in this article are bona fide Saddam? Also, if a source is found, does this deserve mention? --Chemical Ali 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you, nobody even knows whether they have got the real Saddam in captivity... so yeah. By the way, why did you add an internal link to some argue? Cheers. --Adriaan90 17:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i thought dna tests proved it was the real one. not sure of the reliabilty of them as they were carried out by americans but until we know otherwise that has to be taken as fact.

How can you perform DNA tests when you have no other results to compare it with? For all we know, the results they had in the first place weren't his, so this cannot be taken as fact. --Adriaan90 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

until we know otherwise it HAS to be considered fact. This is common sense. I know America is just one massive propaganda machine but give them some credit. Also the fact that no independant organisations have challenged the FACT, it is reasonable to consider it to be the truth.

Please calm down. I wasn't offending you, so you do not have to stress over this. Also, in the future, would you please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not care what your personal opinions are, so be careful to post material that is not constructive for the article in discussion. --Adriaan90 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am calm and not stressed at all. Thanks for your concern though. I think you misunderstand the point I was trying to make. Common sense is not the thought of the individual like you suggest. The clue is in the word 'common'. In fact is you with your conspiracy theorist mind that is expressing individual opinion, not me. Furthermore, the talk pages are there for exactly that reason. Debating/discussing. It's not like I went to the actual article and made a contraversial change without consulting anyone. Please learn to accept that you cannot always be right. Thanks.

Of course I am not always right. But I think I misunderstood you. --Adriaan90 12:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Detroit gave him a key to the city" part probably should not be under the section: Saddam's life and marriage"...