Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 8

message: 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)
thread_title: President in a Spider Hole?

message: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misinterpretation/Misrepresentation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Too Many Emotional Statements? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unlock Page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More talk about US arms sales to Iraq? 

message: 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 SidawayTalk 01:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s major revert

message: 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)
thread_title: "Incarcaration"

message: 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)
thread_title: wiki news link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Abou Rabeh

message: 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)
thread_title: Portrait

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Where's the Outrage?

message: 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)
thread_title:  United States Support for Iran-Iraq War 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First Gulf War? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ABC Link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Section Removal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Illogical reason for avoiding "Saddam" 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why no mention of CIA support of Saddam in his early years? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  South Park! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  oops 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Saddam Cartoon 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Butler clarification

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Saddam Rumsfeld photo 

message: 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 [].  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Graphic Video of Saddam's Crimes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Philanthropy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed bogus statistics. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: saddam tapes 

message: 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.RonCram 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Saddam Tapes Cause Government to Reexamine WMD in Iraq

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Childhood. 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Any development here? If it's entirely spam shouldn’t we remove the talk section?--Matt 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Tierney says ABC News cut a key part of translated Saddam Tape

message: 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  (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)
thread_title: Vandalism reported

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Date of end of presidency

message: 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)
thread_title: Objectivity Possible?

message: 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)
replies: text: FYI attempts to insert anti-American conspiracy theories will be resisted vigorously. 172 | Talk 08:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's not bias. Naturally Saddam's rule gets more coverage here than his early background. 172 | Talk 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am TALKING about his rule :P WookMuff 10:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  completely unbalenced article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Speaking of which, you're also being monitored . 172 | Talk 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need some proof

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: 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.<BR>  
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.<BR>
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revision as of 09:33, 17 May 2006 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Saddam the boring? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.   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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Media reports on Saddam's support for terrorism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RonCram's POV edits on Saddam and terrorism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Extraneous detail

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: 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 ); 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Sodom"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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."  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Saddam Hussein and al-Kerrey]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  official/un-official.   

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Ok.. perhaps you'd like to contact a newspaper then? --Golbez 09:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Were is the mention of the reports that the spider whole story may have been faked? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Victims of the regime 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mafia don comment 

message: 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  is subscriber only. I suggest replacing this reference with this link to the Guardian which is not subscriber only  --Herb West 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I strongly disagree with this edit and its logic: . Here is a link to BBC story about him being elected president . 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)
replies: text: Obviously Saddam was both president and dictator. Both words should be used in the article.Kauffner 05:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title: President or Dictator?

message: On April 20, 2006 user 172 removed a relevant portion of sourced 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)
thread_title:  Removing sourced material about CIA involvement is POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is no-one answering these questions? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weekly World News 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: 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)
thread_title: al-Anfal campaign

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some Weaseling Idiot deleted everything.... 

message: Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death on 5 November 2006. --Adriaan90 09:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'bout time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsky31 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  his name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WTF 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Amnesty International (unfair and flawed trial)

message: 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)
replies: text: The USSR never withdrew support from the regime until 1990. 65.185.190.240 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet orbit 

message: 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)
replies: text: Try it now; you might have to clear your cache. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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. Tom Engelhardt: Saddam Verdict Timed Around Midterms?, CBS News, 2006/10/17" 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: It could perhaps be mentioned that it is a fact that such opinions exist. --Adriaan90 16:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Haiduc 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of verdict as October / November surprise 

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't talk too much or the defenders of the democracy will hang you ;) With respect, Deliogul 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this Discussion page be edited??!!!??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maximum age for death penalty 

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