again i have to express disbelief that the zealous guardians of this article genuinly believe it to be neutral in its current form come out of the closet do not be ashamed of your motives admit you feel it is humanitarian and noble to defend saddam being called a rising star in the revolutionary ba'ath party mention for his trial as a war criminal and on what suspicions while arik sharon is termed the butcher of beirut with every mention of the mere attempts for his trial as a war criminal all in the same encycolpedia i am mystifieed for the moral ground here justify them instead of hiding behind a procedural beurocracy why is it so important to pretend neutrality in years israel shall be gone anyway but your earnest efforts to that end shall go uncredited and unrewarded be proud of your motives so that one day you will be to tell your grandchildren by the fireplace in my small way i was part of that or perhaps i am wrong after all not humble care for the future but mere cowardly mathematics weighing the traditionally shorter lifespan afflicting detractors of iraqi leaders compared to the relative safety and spoils of criticisizing israeli figures and as to this as far as i know privilegied relationships with african or middle eastern strong man regimes is a trademark of the old gaullist guard is as far as i know sufficient for references as far as i know jaques chirac president of france was a prime supporter of saddams nuclear enrichment project and not some anonymous old guard why here is an article with photo of the two civil rights champions in one of their favourite hangouts a nuclear reactor ah the good happy days also as far as i and cnn but too bad they don't have wikipedia block rights know saddam ordered his air force to chemical bomb kurd villages which you continously block why is my as far as i know not as good as your as far as you know cnn report on iraqi kurds cnn map