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 hisher hearts wishes    terrorizing of ethnic groups also is absent     the term  repressive security appartus again does not reflect Saddams barbarism towards ethnic rivals  security appartus usually means secret police Stasi type state surveillance etc   lacked consent of iraqi society also doesnt appear there in any form   If you put all those things in the INTRO and ill 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 aDin whatever his supporters want to call it  It does the latter but not the former Yes you cannot avoid the possible reader conclusion that Saddams 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