Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 11

message: From the Wikipedia article... 'Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the twentieth century. During the war, Iraq used US supplied chemical weapons against Iranian forces fighting on the southern front and Kurdish separatists who were attempting to open up a northern front in Iraq with the help of Iran.'
Did the USA really supply him with chemical weapons? What's the source for this? I know it's great fun to bash the USA, but I'd like to see proof of such allegations.
Here is a source about German involvement...  http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
Bajama 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added citation needed tag. This is an uncorroborated fact.Brian23 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed US to Western and added a reference. If anyone else has anything to add, feel free.Brian23 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Supplied Chemical Weapons? 

message: I just searched wikipedia, and there seems to be no such thing. Can anyone find out what time zone Iraq is in and add it please? Thanks. dposse 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the name of the time zone. Eastern Standard Time is a real time zone that i'm currently in. It has its own article and everything. I just would like some clarity to this. dposse 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if time zones have standard names outside the US and Canada or even if these names are even standard through each particular time zones here. eg..I am not positive that the names here (Atlaantic, Eastern, etc are Official or are just Local dialect. Do people in Brazil and Columbia etc consider themselves in the Eastern or Atlantic, etc time zones or do they have their own local names for them? In any case, I suspect any name for the time zone that contains Moscow and Iraq are localized thingsCaper13 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of localized names, and UTC+3 is apparently called "Arabia (not 'Arabic') Standard Time" in this part of the world. Wahkeenah 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arabic Standard Time" 

message: The article lists "honor killings" as part of Sharia law.  This is false.  They are a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one.  This should be corrected by those who are able to edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.93.93 (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have a source for this? dposse 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  honor killings 

message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Should this go in the main article?
:i think so. dposse 18:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that the article does not clear Saddam. All that changed is that he will not be prosecuted for the event because he is already dead, though all the co-defendants will be. I'm not sure how big a deal this is, vis a vis everything else. We will need to wait for the eventual outcome of the trial in any case to see how this event should be described. Caper13 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that might have been because he was in the process of appealing it when he died. (Kenneth Lay) Caper13 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Wahkeenah 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court drops Kurd charges against Saddam 

message: Article quote: "Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963"
Dispute: It is clear that the CIA, with Israel and the UK backed the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein in the bloody coming to power in 1963.
"In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s Health Alteration Committee, as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.
Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. Almost certainly a gain for our side, Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.
As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.
According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated." 
An excerpt from an article by Roger Morris ( Op-Ed )
NEW YORK TIMES
Friday March 14th, 2003 
Used as a reference in Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Karim_Qassim
Avenger786 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Juan Cole points out that there is conflicting evidence regarding these events. A CIA official claims that CIA was not involved. I have to say that I think the original story is very unlikely since it would've involved cooperation between intelligence agencies that represented opposite sides in the Cold War. The Egyptians were hostile to the US at the time. Another point which seems questionable in the above claims is that the Iraqi Kurds were pro-Soviet during this period. http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/conflicting-accounts-of-cia-and-saddam.html Prezen 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise to power 

message: I've always wondered why everybody refers to him as "Saddam" (my guess being that people always pick up whatever habits the media establish). Is it not his first name? The article should make this clear. And if it is indeed his first name, I see no reason to use it (as far as I know, no one refers to Bush as "George"). Bender05 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they call him "Dubya". Wahkeenah 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is in the article. Hussein is NOT Saddam's last name. It is discussed in detail here  Caper13 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, sorry I've missed it. Bender05 10:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No biggie. Its a big article. Caper13 10:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He wanted to be called 'Sa-DAM', with the DAM not sounding like damn but alm. Brian23 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, as is decribed in the link I posted above, they use a different naming convention than we do...actually different doesnt come close to describing it, not compatible with our (western) name styles at all, so trying to pick out a first middle and last name in the way we do, is not possible. Suffice it to say, there 'could' be multiple ways to identify "saddam" and be correct, but calling him Saddam is not derogatory, is in fact probably the closest to being correct, and seems to have been Saddam's preferred choice. Referring to him as Hussein, or Mr. Hussein is probably the most incorrect way to refer to him when it comes to his actual name. Hussein was Saddam's father name and is included in his 'name' to identify his father, so it would be like if we referred to (oh, who is someone where everyone knows his father)...say the actor Mike Douglas (son of Kirk Douglas) and called Mike Douglas "Mr Kirk". Calling Saddam "Mr Hussein", is the equivalent of calling Mike Douglas, Mr. Kirk. Anyone interested in this, should read the story at the link. It is quite interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caper13 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Just wondering if it would be relevant to have a section in this article dedicated to Saddam’s body doubles? --User:D.Kurdistani 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting detail if there is room in the article. --User:weblady 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad for him that he couldn't have recruited one of them for the 30th... Or did he? Wahkeenah 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, The one executed was Saddam. He wasn't afraid at all. Actually he behaved bravely in a sense. Just think, could you be that calm and ready to die if you were a body double, a simple man who had no connections to the political decisions of Saddam? Deliogul 12:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing the doubles (if they ever even existed) are now in the Witness Protection Program. Saddam appeared remarkably calm under the circumstances, as if he had resigned himself to it. They kind of pulled a trick on him, springing the trap while he was reciting his scripture. It's funny how a murderous thug can become an object of sympathy to some degree. If we had video of his henchmen slaughtering his countrymen, it might be a different story. Of course, we do have that video of him at the Baath party congress, calmly smoking a cigar while his perceived enemies were being led away to their deaths one by one. I've read in some places that many of Saddam's enemies died on this very gallows, which seems fitting. When he had it built, I wonder if he ever dreamed it would be used on him someday. It's like the biblical story about Mordecai, in which Haman built a gallows for him but ended up being hanged on it himself. Perfect poetic justice. Wahkeenah 13:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've only looked briefly, but I do know there's a link from the Article Execution of Saddam Hussein with a link to him being executed. And let me put it this way: a group of chanting Al Sadr supporters, in the Shiite Iraqi government, created a fake hanging? I'll believe he's alive when I see the Loch Ness Monster, Elvis or Tupac standing around. -Patstuarttalk|edits 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He is dead. We must stop producing fictional ideas. We need to concentrate on the future of the article. With respect, Deliogul 21:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Hussein's Body Doubles 

message: I think the article should have a paragraph about Saddam's appearance's in popular culture (movies,TV shows,etc.).Any thoughts?Dimts 17:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only two that come to mind are in The Big Lebowski and South Park but while the concept of Saddam being Satan's dominant gay lover is amusing, I don't think it is appropriate for a serious encyclopedia article. Caper13 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, such a section would be unacademic. Deliogul 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon?  Can you please explain how such a section would be inherently "unacademic?"  --ElKevbo 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, I saw some of the jokes about the Korean leader which made me laugh a lot but such products of the popular culture are for fun, not for the people who visit Wikipedia to gain knowledge about their academic thesis' and stuff like that. You can show me many articles as evidence but they won't change my mind. Deliogul 14:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably there could be a separate article, but putting it on this page is questionable. I notice that the Hitler and Stalin pages don't have such sections, although there is separate stuff about Hitler, such as Der Fuehrer's Face. I recall an interviewer talking to William L. Shirer about Hitler, about him seeming to be a "comical" figure. Shirer responded curtly, "There was nothing funny about Hitler." And there is little or nothing funny about Saddam, in reality. Wahkeenah 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you seriously asserting that media and cultural analysis are not legitimate academic fields?  --ElKevbo 14:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A separate article would be fair. It could get fairly large, due to its currency, and putting it in this serious article would be clutter, at least. During the 1990-1991 episode, he was being called "So Damn Insane" by some American comedians. And there were the endless parodies of "the mother of all [insert subject here]" That kind of thing wouldn't really add to this article. While it's true he was demonized by the western press, he did his best to add fuel to that fire. Wahkeenah 14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, ok.  The structure of this article and how new material could negatively affect is is definitely a legitimate concern.  I also think that we share a similar notion of what such a section or article should look like.  I do not favor lists of "_subject_ was mentioned in [obscure comic book|movie|television show]" (and not just because they are usually unreferenced).  If there are legitimate scholarly or even well-written and reputable popular press analyses of Saddam's portrayal in popular culture then I think that would a totally valid and very interesting article or section of an existing article.  As Wahkeenah discusses below, how persons are portrayed in popular media can often tell you something about the people and culture those media target, not to mention the obvious things such portrayals tell us about those who control and run the media.  --ElKevbo 20:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then create it Dimts but please don't touch this specific article about Saddam. Deliogul 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean "remove any 'cultural' references from this article"... except for a link to the new article in the "see also" section of this one. However, it occurs to me that the jokes about Saddam are also part of a larger subtext which could be called "Arab bashing". As politically correct as the US pretends to be, such rules tend to relaxed in wartime. Thus we don't see terms like "Huns" and "Japs" used in newspaper headlines, since Germany and Japan are considered allies now. Meanwhile, it has been open season on the subset of middle-east countries that appear to be enemies, beginning with the six-day war of 1967, accelerated by the Iran embassy takeover in 1979 and the Gulf War of 1990-91, and kicked into high gear following 9/11/01. If there already is such an article, maybe the stuff about Saddam would be better placed within its confines. And make no mistake, a lot of this is about the free flow of oil. I saw a facetious bumper sticker awhile back that said, "How did our oil get under their sand?" (That joke kind of flows in both directions). Wahkeenah 15:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to a separate article containing this info with a See also link from this article. Caper13 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thant's what we did in the George W. Bush article fiasco. Big edit war, so I created a separate article on the same topic(fictional appearances) and it turned out fine. --Iriseyes 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearances in popular culture

message: 1. A leader who has absolute power.
: Since Sdam is challenged by the RCC/ruling council he is not a dictator.
2. A leader who is unconstrainted by the law.
: Since the constitution is the founding law of the land and his powers are defined by said constitution he is not above it. All members have immunity from prosecution, but the members could vote to remove any member of the ruling council including Saddam and even impeach them for wrongdoing. Also, the chief presiding judge in his trial even stated he was not a dictator.
--Jfrascencio 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The chief presiding judge at Saddam's trial for crimes against humanity, offered his opinion, not a finding of fact. Had no more meaning than someone off the street commenting that he was not a dictator. Alternately, there is a mountain of proof Saddam did rule as a dictator. The text of the constitution is meaningless if Saddam routinely ignored it and ruled through the use of force. Caper13 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been asked to provide evidence that the Revolutionary Command Council has EVER challenged or overruled Saddam and you have failed to do so. The exerpts from the OLD Iraqi constitution are meaningless in the context of what Saddam actually did and the constitutional text is not a source for Saddam's behaviour. Most sources indicate Saddam ruled as a dictator. I am not using biased sources or propaganda pieces, and Wikipedia has never viewed a New York Times obituary as anything other than a Reliable Source WP:RS. Please do not continue to revert reliable sources. Pasting sections of the Iraqi constitution without  souces showing that the Revolutionary Command Council did exercise oversight on the President, in the face of countless reliable sources showing him ruling unconstrained by a legislative body, proves nothing on your part. Caper13 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And that is exactly the way the term is being used. Dictator to refer to someone who rules with absolute power. There are many ways to become Dictator. Under the Romans, it was sometimes voted on to make someone dictator in terms of emergency, other times a single person made themselves dictator through the use of force. The only weasley thing here is trying to pretend that Saddam did not rule without opposition in the face of every other piece of evidence. Dictator is being used in a strictly NPOV way, to describe the nature of his rule and his relationship to other power structures in Iraq. Caper13 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term means bloody tyrant in the popular culture which is a subjective thing. Maybe for me killing millions is nothing but for you it can be a massacare. Who decides who is tyrant ann who is not? I think there is a problem in its application to everybody. Deliogul 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See definition of Dictator . None of its definitions are "bloody tyrant". The term 'bloody tyrant' is not being used in this article. We are using the standard dictionary definition of dictator, and its use in this form is NPOV and is backed up by sources. Caper13 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright... Then use any word you want. I withdrew my opposition to the word. Deliogul 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Dictator 

message: Article 38
The Revolutionary Command Council exercises the following competencies by a twothird majority of its members:
(a)... 
(d) Taking a decision concerning the resignation of the President, and Vice-President or any of the Council's members. 
(e) Relieving any member of the Council's membership. 
(f) Accusing and prosecuting members of the Revolutionary Command Council, Vice- Presidents, and Ministers.
Article 40
The President of the Revolutionary Command Council, the Vice-President, and the members enjoy full immunity. No measures can be taken against any of them without a priori permission of the Council.
Article 41
(a) The President, the Vice-President, or one third of the members can call a meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council. Meetings held are presided by the President or the Vice-President and are attended by the majority of the members. 
Article 45
The President of the Revolutionary Command Council, the Vice-President, and its members, each is responsible before the Council, for violating the Constitution or for breaking the constituencies of the constitutional oath, or for any action or behavior, considered by the Council as disgracing the honor of the responsibility which he assumes.
Excerpts from Iraqi Constitution under Sdam --Jfrascencio 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been asked to provide evidence that the Revolutionary Command Council has EVER challenged or overruled Saddam and you have failed to do so. The exerpts from the OLD Iraqi constitution are meaningless in the context of what Saddam actually did and the constitutional text is not a source for Saddam's behaviour. Most sources indicate Saddam ruled as a dictator. I am not using biased sources or propaganda pieces, and Wikipedia has never viewed a New York Times obituary as anything other than a Reliable Source WP:RS. Please do not continue to revert reliable sources. Pasting sections of the Iraqi constitution without  souces showing that the Revolutionary Command Council did exercise oversight on the President, in the face of countless reliable sources showing him ruling unconstrained by a legislative body, proves nothing on your part. Caper13 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is exactly the way the term is being used. Dictator to refer to someone who rules with absolute power. There are many ways to become Dictator. Under the Romans, it was sometimes voted on to make someone dictator in terms of emergency, other times a single person made themselves dictator through the use of force. The only weasley thing here is trying to pretend that Saddam did not rule without opposition in the face of every other piece of evidence. Dictator is being used in a strictly NPOV way, to describe the nature of his rule and his relationship to other power structures in Iraq. Caper13 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term means bloody tyrant in the popular culture which is a subjective thing. Maybe for me killing millions is nothing but for you it can be a massacare. Who decides who is tyrant ann who is not? I think there is a problem in its application to everybody. Deliogul 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See definition of Dictator . None of its definitions are "bloody tyrant". The term 'bloody tyrant' is not being used in this article. We are using the standard dictionary definition of dictator, and its use in this form is NPOV and is backed up by sources. Caper13 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright... Then use any word you want. I withdrew my opposition to the word. Deliogul 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpts From Iraqi Constitution 

message: I believe there should be a "other meanings" template in this article linking to Saddam Hussein (South Park). 80.178.47.31 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Saddam Hussein (South Park)]] 

message: === Place Evidence It Was Not Followed Here ===
=== Place Evidence It Was Followed Here ===
1.  Demonstrates that the chairman followed the constitution in requesting meetings of the RCC. --Jfrascencio 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and think this is the main objective of this argument. Since he is generally considered to be a "dictator" even by many reliable sources including the NYT (honestly, if we are going to start debating the veracity of every media we have- even some as austere as the NYT it undermines this entire encyclopedia and we will have nothing), arguing that he is otherwise is basically original research and not the purpose of wikipedia. Trcrev 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi Constitution 

message: 1.  Demonstrates that the chairman followed the constitution in requesting meetings of the RCC. --Jfrascencio 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and think this is the main objective of this argument. Since he is generally considered to be a "dictator" even by many reliable sources including the NYT (honestly, if we are going to start debating the veracity of every media we have- even some as austere as the NYT it undermines this entire encyclopedia and we will have nothing), arguing that he is otherwise is basically original research and not the purpose of wikipedia. Trcrev 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place Evidence It Was Followed Here 

message: Place below where specifically in the NYT article it supports the claim that Saddam ruled without opposition and he was not constrained by the law or the constitution and had absolute power according to the definition of dictatorship. --Jfrascencio 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They referred to him a dictator. Do you intend to continue edit warring this even after your block? Caper13 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read up on the logical fallacy appeal to authority. Just because a NYT article written by a propagandist makes a bunch of (false) claims, does not make them true. Such as the following: "one of the most brutal tyrants in recent history", "The despot, known as Saddam, had oppressed Iraq for more than 30 years", and other false nonsense. You have shown that the article does not support what it is claimed to support. --Jfrascencio 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's dead. He's not going to hurt you. You don't have to protect him any more. Wahkeenah 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is Saddam, Bush, or any other leader? They are nothing more than a talking face on a tv screen. As far as I am concerned, these so called leaders do not exist. Just like to the 23 million Iraqis, Saddam was nothing more than an imaginary being as far as they were concerned that did not exist and the Iraqis went on their daily lives worrying about trival mundane things like having enough money to buy food, medicine, or spending time with family. Only less than 1% of Iraqis, actually met Saddam first hand. --Jfrascencio 20:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Though he is a tyrant, the way Bush Administration executed him using the Iraq's puppet Government is worse the Saddam's tyranny.DoDoBirds 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you have preferred they shot him when they found him? Sic semper tyrannis! Wahkeenah 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is something else. You are not coming to my point. If he had captured (O.K. They didn't shoot; they are polite to the world in the first phase). But why he should have been tried in the International Court of War Crimes.  Why they failed in the second phase to be polite?DoDoBirds 13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is that his crimes were against the Iraqi people, therefore the Iraqi people should be the ones to try him. Wahkeenah 16:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument sounds well, but do you think the Iraqi people were independent enough taking their own decision.DoDoBirds 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just telling you the official argument, not necessarily fully embracing it. Wahkeenah 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No argument there. The question of whether the trial was proper and wise can be debated endlessly, but the stark reality is, as long as he was alive, there was a risk that he could return to power. He's dead, and he can't. And that's the bottom line on this situation. Wahkeenah 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT Article 

message: Section has a typo
The raids and arrests of people known to be close to the former President drove him deeper underground. Once more the trail was growing colder. In August the US military released photofits of how Saddam might be disguising himself in traditional garb, even without his signature mustache. By the early autumn the Pentagon had also formed a secret unit – Taskforce 121. 
::should be "a secret unit - Task Force 121."  DUBJAY04 19:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fix it, but you can correct things like that yourself by editing the page. Caper13 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks.  the page is blocked, and Im new. DUBJAY04 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Escape

message: EVEN AFTER THE IRANIAN GOVT COMPLAINED TO U.N., THE U.S. CONTINUED TO SUPPLY WMD TO IRAQ--RUMSFELD HIMSELF WAS THE ENVOY
COMPANIES PROVIDING WMD SEEDSTOCK ARE LISTED ON THE LAST LINK
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm 
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984 
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82 
Edited by Joyce Battle 
February 25, 2003 
(See the offical documents showing the US government authorized chemical and biological weapons sales to Iraq, knew about their usage and continued their sales. Rumsfeld met with Sadaam, shook hands with him and assured the continued support of the United States, while at the same time assuring the Iraqi government that no arms would be sold to Iran. The official documents find that Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities came in part from U.S. companies) 
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm 
Declassified Secrets from the U.S.-Iraq Relationship 
Saddam a "presentable young man" with "engaging smile," Let's "do business," said British Embassy in 1969. 
Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1984 with instructions to improve relations, Despite chemical weapons use and sanctuary for terrorists. 
U.S. construction giant Bechtel planned to evade 1988 CW sanctions, Now has biggest AID contract for reconstructing Iraq. 
New declassified documents reveal secret U.S.-British-Iraq history; Saddam Hussein Sourcebook published by National Security Archive. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/international/middleeast/18CHEM.html?ex=1030248000&en=b0ae2fbb743e693d&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/NYTimesArmitageIraq.htm
August 18, 2002 
Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas 
By PATRICK E. TYLER 
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program. (excerpt) 
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm 
"Between 1985-89, US firms exported Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatam, Brucella melitensis, Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene), Clostridium tetani (tentanus), Escherichia coli, and 'dozens of other pathogenic biological agents,' to Iraq." Iraq's Biological Weapons Program Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey, California —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.7.68.61 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOCUMENTATION OF WESTERN SUPPORT FOR IRAQ WMD PROGRAMS 

message: Ths section "Escape and capture" should include mention of the failed attempts to kill him by bombing. There were reports that he had certainly been killed by the bombing of his palace, then there were reports that he had certainly been killed by the U.S. bombing of a restauirant, the al-Sa'ah,  in Baghdad where he was supposedly having a meeting with his sons and aides after the completion of the invasion of Baghdad. See www.prisonplanet.com/smart_bombs_aimed_at_saddam_killed_families.html] and .   These reports appeared to just peter out with no followup on how many people who were not Saddam were killed by smartbombs launched at civilian areas. Edison 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bombing of restaurant

message: I tagged these as unreferenced not because I think the assertions are untrue, but because much of what I read here was quite surprising and I think the assertions would have more weight if referenced. As an American, after I read this I felt as though I have been fed nothing but propaganda about how horrible Saddam was, and these assertions (if true) would show that the history of Saddam was not nearly as simple as much of the US media would have its consumers believe. I will see how many citations I can track down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Massysett (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernization program ans secular leader tagged as unreferenced 

message: Who bears the burden of proof (BoP) in the Saddam=Dictator battle?  And who's the jury?  My guess would be that it should fall on whoever is asserting that he is a dictator. Therefore, those people (including myself) have given the dictionary definition of dictator and claimed that he followed that category. Somewhat more lamely we have posted the NYT article and said that if the NYT says it then it must be true. The fact that Americans (me again) don't know where North Korea or Iran are is sad (though not an indication that they're all stupid, because they're not, just uninterested) though this is clearly not an argument to not use "dictator" because of the negative connotations. 
Here's my BoP problem, if we (dictator enthusiasts)cannot cite "western media" how can we possibly ever "prove" that he was a dictator. Alas, how could we prove anything?  If we can use it, then the "western media" has resoundingly labeled him a "dictator" so the BoP must fall on the other side (I'm looking at you JP) to prove that he did NOT fit the dictator tag.  To do that, I'd recommend you give examples of when his power WAS contrained by the congress or some other body. Trcrev 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Burden of Proof?

message: Is the follow statement in the footnote discussion of Saddam's name really necessary? Can it be removed?
:(in Iraq also a term for a car's bumper).
--Dpr 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name translation

message: May I point out that other dictators such as Hitler, Idi Amin, Mussolini all have "main" pictures (i.e., those at the top of the page) in which they are wearing full-on dictatorial threads. The hat, the medals, yadda, yadda, yadda. Basically the kind of pictures their supporters would have hung in their homes. So why is Saddam presented as a scruffy, grey-bearded Oscar-the-Grouch type? I mean, he's just as much the former President of Iraq as he is the United States trophy-towards-which-we-can-all-direct-our-lame-humor-at. And he spent much more of his life as the former. So how's about a non-blurry picture showing him in some sweet genocidal formalwear? Okay? Okay. I'm merely saying that if we're gonna' show Saddam like this, let's  get a picture of a shaky, clearly-suffering-from-Syphillis Hitler..
*So get busy and find one. Wahkeenah 04:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saddam's Photo and those of other dictators