Sorry, I was referring mainly to the INTRO not the rest of the article. 

The intro does not mention at all any of: 
 the "repressive measures" (only equivocally "human rights situation" which anyone can interpret according to his/her hearts wishes;) 

 terrorizing of ethnic groups also is absent.  
 
the term  "repressive security appartus" again does not reflect Saddam's barbarism towards ethnic rivals - ('security appartus' usually means secret police, Stasi type state surveillance etc)

 "lacked consent of iraqi society" also doesn't appear there in any form; 

If you put all those things in the INTRO and i'll be happier.  Most people only read the intro, either because they are too lazy or too unwilling to scrutinize their prejudiced views; and an equivocal intro panders exactly to those types of readers, encouraging them. The intro should be built in such a way that fairly represents
the two main popular opposing views of Saddam: as a brutal dictator, regional threat of WMD and terrorism, vs. freedom fighter / modern Sallah a-Din whatever his supporters want to call it.  It does the latter but not the former. Yes, you cannot avoid the possible reader conclusion that Saddam's popular support may not be despite his brutality but because of it; This is one of the legitimate paradoxes sorrounding this figure (and that of most dictators).