Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 10

Western supplied chemical weapons

The phrase "During the war, Iraq used Western supplied chemical weapons against Iranian forces fighting on the southern front and Kurdish separatists who were attempting to open up a northern front in Iraq with the help of Iran" is highly misleading and the supplied reference does not even support this statement [1]. 84.70.159.152 14:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have modified it to note that it was material and technology, supplied by Western and Asian companies. Actually, it was also from the Middle East as well. Since so much of this technology and material is, in fact, dual-use, the whole reference should probably go. It was originally just designed to be inflamatory and give the impression that the West directly supported Saddam's campaign against the Kurds, which is clearly not so. Epstein's Mother 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It was modified to read Western supplied because it said US supplied, which wasn't true either. As there were not many references, I found the best one I could find. That reference supported the fact that it was Western supplied, not just US. I had no knowledge of the Asian suppliers or even Arab suppliers. I see now how even after I modified it to read US to Western, that it still is ever so subtle inflammatory.Brian23 13:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the gas used by Iraq came from Germany - of course with US knowledge. That is why the US Army War College was so knowledgeable about Iraq not being responsible for the Kurds gassing - Iran had the correct type of gas - bought from ???. I also thought it was common knowledge that the Kurds fought on the side of the Iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Uncorrelated sentences

These sentences do not correlate well: "At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, had a monopoly on the country's oil. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda."

This makes the reader infer that Saddam's seizure of international oil interests in 1972 was a direct result of the 1973 energy crisis. Is this true? If so, it needs to be better worded and cited. Brian23 19:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Something that happened in 1972 could not have been a result of something that took place in 1973. 172.166.182.112 10:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Chirac with Saddam

If we have to have a picture of Rummy meeting with Saddam, can't we also put up a picture of Chirac personally giving Saddam a tour of a French reactor? Maybe some mention of the fact that Chirac wrote up the bill of sale with 80% enriched uranium, so he could go straight to a nuclear weapon? It seems so many relish the dripping irony of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war (when we, the French, and the British were acting in lockstep vis a vis Iraq) that perhaps we ought also have some nice pictures of Chirac posing for official diplomatic photos with Saddam when he went to sell him nuclear technology. You know, the guy who said war is never the answer.

http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm -- this link is repeatedly deleted, I'll just keep reposting it unless someone gives me a good reason why they are deleting it. It's a well-referenced article worthy of consideration.

The article is not a valid source. We only put external links on wiki when the article is validated by professional agency. G. 1st Dec 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I smell BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

---

And the pic of Chirac would just be POV pushing, SqueakBox 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No different than a pic of Hussein with Rumsfeld. All points should considered.Brian23 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The US clearly did not invade Iraq for oil and nothing the US has done since the invasion remotely suggests that. However, France did secure favorable oil contracts from Saddam in return for weapons, and France was the number two supplier of weapons to Iraq after Russia (according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute). According to the SPRI, the US was tenth at less than 1% of the total between 1972 and the invasion. It seems egregious to me to tie the US to Saddam in his war of aggression with a picture of Rumsfeld, when not only were the French partners in that, they were also his main arms supplier after the Soviets. That deserves at least equal representation since it is far more relevant to his military power than anything the US did.

Uhhh, if the US didn't invade Iraq for its oil, then why has the majority of oil exported from Iraq since the war gone to the US? I hate to quote controversial sources, but this link [2] has a quote from Bush basically saying that the US needs to control the Iraqi oil. I realize this isn't the place to debate the issue, but considering there have been numerous points made in the past few years about Saddam's involvement in the insurgency when it was in its infancy, controlling or limiting oil exports seems to have worked as a strategy for undermining the Iraqi governments and US presence in Iraq since Saddam's removal from power. Brian1975 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The way it works is that the oil is sold on the free market under American administration and the money is entirely put into a trust that goes back 100% into Iraq. It is monitored by about five different major international outfits including the IMF IIRC. You can be sure the people writing those articles are well aware of that and they are in fact deliberately misleading you. Whether the oil bought at market price goes to the US or to any other nation makes no difference, it's a commodity. If the US were forcing a discounted price, or putting a tarriff on it, or taking a cut, or something like that, that would be one thing. But as it is, it's all plowed back into Iraq, and to my knowledge not a single palace has been built with the cash.

On the other hand France supported Saddam which makes it relevant to the context. It puts a perspective to the French resistance to the war. Prezen 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Small correction: "It puts a perspective to the French government resistance to the war." The French (population) resistance to the war has clearly nothing to do with Chirac and Nuclear reactor. This population has learned from the 2 last world war and from the decolonisation that "war" should not be an answer. Huygens 25 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The population has learned from the last 2 world wars and decolonisation that war should not be an answer? Can you cite references for that? Please, this is Wikipedia here, a bit of seriouness would be greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

If someone can find a fair use picture for Chirac, we should include it for completeness and utter detail. Here is a pic here: [[3]]. I am not sure if it qualifies under fair use however and I am not keen on Wikipedia' policies on uploading so I will leave it to someone else. But we need to add this detail as to clarify the relationship with Iraq and other countries during the 70s as that lends credence to the stability he provided Iraq before he started waging wars and killing his own people. Showing one image of Hussein with Rumsfeld is POVing.. to NPOV the article further would be to add this image.Brian23 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to use bold ;-) I'm not too old to read you without it :-) Seeing how young Mr. Chirac looks on this picture, this would be a picture taken before the 1st Gulf War, probably during Iran/Iraq war. Where - do I have to mention it? - most Western countries furnished Iraq with weapons to fight the Islamic Republic of Iran... In addition, why do you think Iraqi Authorities were eager to quickly kill Mr. Hussein just after judging him for the massacre of people in a village in the 80s? Why do you think the US President is happy with this ending? Well, perhaps, there was truths that were better to be shut up than exposed at such a famous trial... As for the image of Mr. Rumsfeld, I am not enough aware of US news to state if it can fit or not in this article. At least, there is no text to explain why this picture was chosen. Therefore, I would agree that such a picture be removed, or a commentary in the text on a relation - if it does exit ! Once more, I do not know the US political recent history enough to state on that - between Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Hussein.Huygens 25 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, France was second in supplying weapons to Saddam, at 13% of the total. The US was 10th with zero-point-something percent. In fact France was the only significant Western supplier of weapons, the great bulk of the rest was from Russia and China, it's ideological allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

According to the Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (SIPRI) France stopped selling weapons to Iraq in 1990 which corresponds to the 1st Gulf War (1990-1991). Check the sourced document from SIPRI just above. France (5474 in $m. from 1975 to 1990 according to SIPRI) was a major player but far behind former U.S.S.R. (21945 in $m. from 1975 to 1990) and almost equal to China (4939 on the same period) for a total of 39716 in $m. And again according to this document, USA ranks 8. USA did not support Iraq with only weapons, but with economic aid and intelligence. They perhaps had there part in the start of this war against an Iran they did not want. See Iran-Iraq War, Arming Iraq (US involvement) and U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The reader should notice than France and the U.S.A. were not the only western actors doing this. Huygens 25 13:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The French have been trained to be reflexively Anti-American for two centuries and their loyal opposition to anything the US does can be counted on without any need for a logical reason.

Could you give references to such assertions? I would be really surprise if you can find at least one :D By assertions, I mean a reference that shows that French are Anti-American, another that demonstrates that they are trained to be so (when? In high school? Universities?) Please, this is Wikipedia here, a bit of seriouness would be greatly appreciated Huygens 25 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly refer you to either Anti-Americanism or Without Marx or Jesus by Jean-Francois Revel.

Dear Anonymous, could you tell a bit more on this book or publication. Just citing it is not enough to support your argument (which I could by the way understand in 2 opposite manner...) Huygens 25 13:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you the one who keeps redacting my comments? I asked you for sources for condtending that Europeans are worldly and wise about war in ways Americans aren't because of the world wars, as a counterpoint to you asking me to support the fact that the French are reflexively anti-American. That question has been deleted, and you seem to be the rhetorical beneficiary of it. Is this really cricket? Please do tell me whether or not it was you, then I'll go back and check the answer in the logs. If you do resort to that kind of tactic, I hope you're not under the misimpression that you're an intellectual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

France was a big player in the Iraqi procurement of nuclear materials, but I'm not sure how many pix we need. Perhaps we should put both of these pictures or none of these state handshake pix? Chastising Chirac is off topic in this part of the article, which is about Sadaan Hussein anyway. Perhaps if there ends up being a section on the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Sadaam Hussein (which there should be), it should appear there.weblady 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

---

But here french didn't conquer Iraq for oil or for nuclear weapons (which was not there) Bush administration did it. So the picture of Rummy is relevant to the context. Hope 31 December 2006 . This form is for facts not for personal views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Bush didn't conquer Iraq for oil either, unless you have references? Your signature is missing. --weblady 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Weblady checks the balance sheet of Halliburton. Oil Company who won the contracts of oil in Iraq run by Dick Cheney. http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/ I forgot we not only conquer Iraq for oil but for WMD which we never found ;) HopeFloat 2nd December 2007. Can we PLEASE get away from all this Conspiracy crap? There are places to post this stuff, and this is NOT one of them.(jln_38) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

NPOV Picture

Put a picture that is more polite.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

how about you do it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.98.97 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree with G we need a more neutral picture perhaps one where he isn't in front of the Iraqi special tribunal like these examples 1 2

I also kind of agree with "G" about that matter. But on the other hand, a picture like one of the two named above is not NPOV either. -Wutschwlllm 13:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

- "G" is right, I would also courteously suggest that the MAIN picture, on top be changed with a more unbiased/professional one. In the first picture he is unshaven and unkept. A formal, clean picture should be posted as the first one, in order to properly represent the man.

I changed the image to one that is widely used on the Internet and is unanimously attributed to an official image released by the Iraqi Mission to the UN when Saddam was in power. This is correctly attributed. There is no need to put an insulting picture on a head of state article, regardless of how you personally feel about the person. Flybd5 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I will modify the image later, after some time passes. Clearly there are some hotheaded editors here today who can't see two inches in front of their faces and understand that by reverting to an insulting image of a HEAD OF STATE they are adding fuel to the fire and acting in a very disruptive manner. Flybd5 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Flydb5. Waiting until the notoriety of the event dies down a bit will help. A neurtral sort of picture should be found--neither formal head of state nor pulled out of the hole, but something in between that represents how he was most often seen by the world. weblady 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow my sincerest apologies. I don't know how I could have missed this section. In any case, I agree. I brought up two examples of what we might want to consider using: [4] and [5]

ElectricEye (talk) said he likes the first photo, while Eric 67.42.131.27 said he liked the second one. So right now, I guess our main concern would be looking for a fair use image of Saddam, bearing a resemblance to either of the two pictures I brought up as examples, or the two pictures at the beginning of this subsection. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If fair use or copyright restrictions are an issue, maybe this picture from the US Library of Congress Country Studies collection can be used. According to the FAQ on that site, it's public domain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ζεύς (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I Agree. The picture currently in the article is not flattering to Saddam Hussein and in no way represents the entirety of his life but rather the last 2-3 years of it. Besides this, the picture is quite unflattering and one can't help but see politics at work. Whoblitzell 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not about flattery, it is more about showing Saddam for exactly who he was, a military dictator. Showing him as an "old harmless man" is a violation of NPOV. Ζεύς, that is a great picture. If anyone else doesn't disagree, I will make that his picture tomorrow. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bulgarian,Polish and Russian Wikipedias have good images of Saddam in the infoboxes.Does anybody here understands Russian,Bulgarian or Polish?!I don't know the status of those pictures.Dimts 10:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam's Marriages and Famliy Relantionships

Shouldn't these go right after the section on his youth? At the moment these are listed right after his rise to power, capture, trails, ect. ShadowWriter 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The biographical stuff, except for the stuff that occurred in running the country, should go together in a biographical section. The exceptions would be state appointments of his sons and stepsons and their deaths as agents one way or another of the regime. weblady 23:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the mushy stuff about his daughter's dispositions towards him after the execution of her husband-by her father-and her exile to Jordan ought to be left out. It's maudlin and off topic in a wikipedia account of a man's life as an educational resource. You'd expect her to say something of the sort to the press and this stuff could appear on most every autobio in Wikipedia. Let's just leave it out. There's more than enough other more important material to include.weblady 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. change the photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Disagree. More anti Saddam propaagandists to my mind, SqueakBox 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article to consider, when reworking

Hello, the following aricle (of the BBC) may be worthwile looking at, when this is reworked:

• Saddam trial 'flawed and unsound'

Just a comment, though. -- Eptalon 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussain as a secular person:

saddam is an honorary citizen of Detroit MI USA [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

he donated several dollars to many churches to keep them alive

and also kept second in command in Iraq a christian..

and iraq was the only secular country in Arab and middle east

michael youhanna also known as tariq aziz is christian

he used to meet pope regularly —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Perhaps it is best to report the overwhelming evidence provided at the trial of this undeniable mass murderer rather than BBC opinion and the lack of judgment in Detroit. Veritas 03:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple updates may be needed also,in this sction: All Muslim Sunnis out side Iraq do not consider him a Sunni Muslim, but Ba'athi. You should correct this important information about his religion, also, you may add some of the Sunni leaders fatwa about Suddam faith, where they excluded his faith from Sunni and call him Ba'athi. Such fatwa is available and made by nemours of Sunni Grand Muftis such as Abd-al-Aziz ibn Baaz and others in Saudi Arabia between 1981-2006.

_____________________

All of this is page filler. Everybody who can get an appointment meets with the Pope. Big deal. I agree with Veritas that the evidence ought to stand for itself. Print facts, not innuendo with respect to the trial. This article probably can't be long enough to get detailed enought to include some cockamamie Michigan ceremony to make Sadaam Hussein an "honorary citizen of Detroit." If this is printed, then the celebrations at his execution ought also to be included--they are far more representative and important, far more widely reported too. weblady 23:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline

I suggest that these articles be combined as the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline is almost entirely about Saddam Hussein and what he did or did not do with Al-Qaeda. Perhaps as a sub-page of this main page? --BenBurch 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• No Merge. I would expect that the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline would be entirely about Saddam Hussein and what he did or did not do with Al Qaeda. And also when he did it. Imagine that. Saadum is already too long. is already too long, why would we make it longer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• No, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline is already one of the longest articles and needs to be cleaned-up. Catchpole 10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• No merge. There is no objective proof of links between Sadam and Al-Qaeda. mabuimo
• NO way. Saddam wasn't even a Sunni, for crying out loud. According to the very same article that is suggested should carry the al Qaeda timeline, purports that Hussein was a pan Arabist. He wasn't even Muslim. sammyjames

Where did you ever get the idea that Saddam wasn't Sunni or Muslim? That's the strangest thing that I've read all day. Brian1975 06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, the article is already 45 pages long, it is in sore need of cleanup, not additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• NO, this article is an educational account of the life of Sadaam Hussein, not some big middle eastern movements account. Leave it out. The other account needs to stand on its own.weblady 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

categorization: "convicted for war crimes"

is Category:People convicted of war crimes appropriate? to my knowledge, Saddam has been convicted for Crimes against humanity over the Dujail killings so far, which does not appear to be a War crime. while he has been charged with war crimes (or is going to be), he has not been convicted of them yet. Doldrums 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The verdicts of those trials and links to those convicted (or not) in those trials should be placed here when these events happen. I agree we'd ought to be precise about the actual verdict of this trial. I believe it was "crimes against humanity," but don't yet know if there were other parts to the verdict which also need to be added. weblady 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor Repairs Needed

Just a few suggestions for any admins passing through who'd be able to edit the article:

• Iran-Iraq War — the link for the word "supported" is misspelled at "establishing(estabilishing)," resulting in a faulty sublink
• Gulf War Aftermath — in the second paragraph, the phrase "a injury" should be "an injury"
• 1991-2003 — I suggest bracketing al-Qaeda in the final paragraph; make sure the spelling of "al-Qaeda" remains consistent
• Pursuit and Capture — (under Pursuit) after the quotes, the paragraph beginning with "Ayad Allawi in interview..." should instead read "Ayad Allawi in an interview..."
• Trials — June 30, 2004 shouldn't have future tense
• Trials — November 8, 2005 needs commas after "al-Zubeidi" and "Ramadan"
• Trials — November 5, 2006 needs a comma after "however"
• Marriage and Family Relationships — the second-to-last paragraph needs a comma after "according to the soldiers"
• Marriage and Family Relationships — the end of the second-to-last paragraph needs Saddam's quote tailored for grammatical consistency; needs to be changed from "he "wish things..."" to either ""[I] wish things..."" or "he "wish[ed] things...""

Thanks! -Unregistered anklebiter 64.90.198.6 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

MINOR REPAIRS? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THIS IS THE MOST BIASED, LEFTIST BIOGRAPHY I HAVE EVER READ OF SADDAM! BAGHDAD BOB COULD HAVE WRITTEN A MORE CRITICAL ANALYSIS ABOUT 'THE BUTCHER OF BAGHDAD'! HOW CAN YOU COMPLETELY LEAVE OUT SOVIET INVOLVEMENT IN HIS BEING BROUGHT TO POWER AND IN THE BUILDING OF HIS REGIME?! HOW CAN YOU SKIP OVER THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS HE HAD TORTURED, RAPED, MAIMED AND MURDERED??!! WHY IS THE AMERICAN LEFT SO KEEN ON NOT SEEING THIS VILLIAN AS A VILLIAN? WHAT A JOKE! - ANONYMOUS WIKIREADER

AMEN ANONYMOUS WIKIREADER!

Hey, anonymous wikireader. I totally agree, but you must realize that a lot of these wikipedia editors are very internet litterate and that means that TALKING IN ALL CAPS makes you look rude to them. Try not to make people like me look like idiots, please.

This has no place here. If you have something you want to add or alter bring some reputable citations. Trcrev 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicely put statement anonymous Wikireader but, WHY DON'T YOU JUST EDIT THE ARTICAL YOURSELF INSTEAD OF GRIPING ABOUT IT IN ALL CAPS??? MastertagUSA 14:51, 30 December 2006

Who are you to judge what is reputable citations. Facts cannot be disputed

Much of what anonymous wikireader states is true and a matter of the historical record, but he need not shout and be rude. Anonymous wikireader, please get an account and state the facts with references if you do not think what you read is complete. BTW, the phrase "butcher of Baghdad" should occur in this article since, as an educational article it should include references to terms and phrases commonly used in the global media to refer to this man. "Butcher of Baghdad" was one of those terms, even among Iraqis. weblady 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When he gets executed

Is anyone gonna start past tensing the article, and also put information on his death.

• Sure. But no reason to worry about it until then; you'll be amazed at how fast the article will be brought up to date. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The world is full of surprises... Maybe he won't be executed. I mean he was a dictator and I'm sure he took many lifes but it is not a guarantee for his execution. Look at the Pinochet example. He destroyed a generation and abolished the rights of people but no one executed him. With respect, Deliogul 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

i wonder why no one archived this take page !!!! anyhow about execution it is 100% sure without any doubt saddam will be executed maybe tomorow if not in this few days - if u know iraqis u will be sure as i am ,, so u will not wait for along time --82.194.53.100 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain he'll be executed as well - it's no longer a matter of IF - it's about WHEN and who's going to carry it out. But the world is full of surprises and it might not go according to plan. He might commit sucide like Hermann Göring, or even die before the inevitable like with Slobodan Milošević. 81.111.222.205 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well he isnt at death's door so dying of natural causes sounds like it wont happen, and I doubt very much he will be allowed to kill himself as the US authorities are clearly aware of howw Goring "cheated" justice. I would have thought his execution is by no means certain and as we are not a psychic encyclopedia we cannot start past tensing a man still very much alive,. But do be assured if he ius executed wikipedia will indeed update more infinitely more quickly than our rival encyclopedias, SqueakBox 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted show the possibility law and according to the law, even an invasion of the world by purple dogs is a possibility. The world is a crazy place and many different things can happen in every second. Also I don't want to be rude but which justice was the one Göring cheated? We all know that it was all about winners and losers... Deliogul 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess this discussion is moot now :-) Nyttend 05:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Off topic conversation. weblady 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Event

I added a current event tag since I didn't see one. Johp78 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Context for weapon inspections

I've tried to add some more context for the weapon inspections. I think the spying allegations are important as is the claim Richard Butler (diplomat) withdrew on the recommendation of the US. The Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) and aforement biography provide this info in more detail. This is important especially given the untrue claim the inspectors were expelled (as mentioned, they voluntarily withdrew coz of the impending airstrikes) and the fact that it seems more understandable Iraq or Saddam would not want to cooperate with people who were spying on him Nil Einne 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The opening reads like a hiostory of saddam according to the US government,, which is nowhere near POV, SqueakBox 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein 'reigned' as Iraqi President? Though this is true in pratice, constitutionally it isn't. Is this sentence PoVish? GoodDay 00:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The opening is accurate. I don't see it as a history as written by the US. It is almost universally accepted. There is no hiding what he did and I think it is stated accurately. I think you have a problem with the US as your recent comments have suggested and are biased towards anything that sounds remotely like the US beat up Saddam. I suggest you rephrase and tone down your anti-US rhetoric. Thank you. Brian23 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont agreee that the US view is almost universally accepted. He did a better job than his successors Bush and Blair in keeping Iraq stable and free of terrorism. An example of POV is the section title pursuity. That is the pov of the US army, I changed it to Escape as the article is about Saddam and not the US army. Nothing wrong with anti US rhetoric in this article, not being an American I am not patriotic toward America myself, just like billions of other people. Nor am I anti the American people. What needs toning down is the pro US pov that infects this article, SqueakBox 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually impressed with the impartiality of this article. When there are such strong feelings around as there are in regards to this man, the pursuit of NPOV is going to be particularly difficult. For the first time, reading this article, I think I started to get an idea of what motivated him and that he wasn't just a brutal dictator (as the US gov't and media describe him), but with an actual agenda that did do some good things for his country (though he was inescapably brutal)... Kudos to whoever wrote this article. It will need a cleanup in a few days, though- after the execution and everything dies down. Trcrev 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is still very POV, it struggles to say one positive thing about saddam and generally gives the US gov version of events. Please dont remove the tag until the dispute is sorted, SqueakBox 17:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So please dont hide it without coming to the talk page and telling me why there is no dispute in spite of there ebing one, SqueakBox 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox, it's also part of the public record that he wiped out whole villages of people and killed all told hundreds of thousands of people, including his own son-in-laws. Let's not be cute. This has to be an article which is unbiased and has references for facts. Leave your weepy emotions home or you're not up to the task. weblady 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect info in intro

The first paragraph claims that saddam wassentenced to death for "crimes agst humanity". This is incorrect. He was sentenced to death for handing out death sentences to 143 people in 1982. Not the same thing. Please correct.

Not true. Many news sources have been lumping his sentence into the category of humanitarian crimes. However, the specific crime should be stated. But Fox News mentioned something about this being the "fastest" case that could be put together. One must realize that this death was not JUST a sentence for the 143 people, it was also one for the 4 to 6 million other confirmed and unconfirmed deaths he has caused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.29.52 (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Wrong ;) Saddam was sentence to death for the kill of 143 people in repression for an outrage against the presidential procession in 1982. This is what Le Monde a French newspaper has stated. They even detail that his death put an end to other trials against him (like genocides against the Khurdes) Huygens 25 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Huygens is correct. An attempt was made on Sadaam Hussein's life in 1982 in the town of Dujail, and he punished the town for it by killing 148 townspeople. These are the people he stood accused of killing in this case. It has been widely reported that this is the case. There are pictures online of a memorial museum erected by the survivors, mostly female. There are other trials which will be carried on yet, with other people which may receive sentences. These trials are for other atrocities, including the Kurd massacre. weblady 00:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Style of hanging?

There is no information on the style of hanging (short drop, long drop, etc.). Is this information known or just not shown on the page? I think it would be a good piece of information. --142.179.137.175 03:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's probably more detail than is necessary in this article. This article is already very long and probably will need a cleanup after all of the events of today play out. Trcrev 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, too much detail given the amount of much more important information available. This article is not about methods of hanging but about Sadaam Hussein. weblady 00:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Televised

I read somewhere that the hanging will be televised (I think it was CBS or something). Is this confirmed? --142.179.137.175 03:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I watched on the news last night that the Iraqi government is still undecided. If it's televised, it would put conspiracy theorists to bed (he wouldn't be faking his own death) and everyone would know his existance has ended (like how we got the message seeing Zarqawi's body) but it would incite more violence. If it's not, the converse can be true. The news also said the Iraqi government is trying to keep it all under its hat to minimize the chance of a coup to rescue Saddam from transport to the gallows or something like that. We most likely won't hear about it, or even see it, until immediately before or after. 12.167.225.121 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Televising would make him more of a martyr than he is already likely to be if they just hang him, SqueakBox 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the editing of this page? Trcrev 22:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that the execution WILL be filmed (BBC). There is nothing about it being televised. 90.193.239.5 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The film will be shown on TV, though... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.29.52 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Saddam was a dictator

why it is not mentioned very clearly that Saddam Hussein was a dictator - it must be one of the most known fact about him please add it as it is in his friend article Benito Mussolini and by the time prepare to add him to his new category with his friends Category:Executed heads of state--217.17.231.42 14:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Hussein and Mussolini were friends? Please don't make such ignorant statements - they lend credibility to Saddam's loyalists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireWeed (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

This WikiPedia Saddam article is almost an election plug for this murdererous tyrant. How could such bias come into play here? Spirit Of Truth 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. This article is an American stitch up and violates POV, SqueakBox 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

He isn't executed yet so wait. He was clearly the sole leader of his country but his recognized occupation was being the president of Iraq. For example, we all know that Stalin was a dictator but, officially, he was the general secretary of the communist party. With respect, Deliogul 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly say it's an American stitch-up? First, I see no support to justify such a specious argument. Second, he ordered mass killings of anyone he wanted, like the Algerians. Only one of his grevious edicts, the murder of the 148 Shi'as is what he was found guilty of (and being sentenced to die). Do you need me to keep going or do you get it yet? So the label 'dictator' is quite apt so try and not let your knee-jerk anti-american reactions cloud your opinions in the future, thanks. 12.167.225.121 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Genrally we dont call anyone a dictator on wikipedia, we dont call either Hitler or Fidel one and it just buys in to the US gov view of events, which we cannot accept as the only truth here, SqueakBox 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but it can be said that, "Many historians agree that Hitler was a dictator..etc" or in this case, "Many historians and scholars agree that Saddam was a dictator." - which is a fact. That is a better NPOV. Brian23 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Many XXX agree" is known as weasle words, and well used by Fox News. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireWeed (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

To 12.167.225.121, I am not sure if you are aware of it but the decisions made by George W. Bush caused the deaths of thousands of people (be open minded don't just think the war on terror thing) but these deaths don't make him a dictator, he is the president of US. Being a dictator or not is releated to your style of exercising the power over your people. Deliogul 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictator is also a weasel pov word that we should avoid on wikipedia, either for Saddam, for Bush or for anyone else, SqueakBox 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also, I didn't say that Bush is a dictator, don't get me wrong ;) I juts think American people are crazy and I can't understand why they voted for him :) With respect, Deliogul 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "dictator" is a heavily loaded word which is difficult to define using objective measures. Basically it is inherently subjective. If there is a way of documenting he's a dictator then by all means... Also, in re: the crimes he's accused of. They should only be included in here if there if verifiable evidence that he did it. Just because the US gov't states that he did something shouldn't be taken as fact (i.e. WMD...). Trcrev 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that such childish bantering is occurring on Wikipedia. I cannot even scroll through these talk pages without seeing people take anti-American potshots. This is not the place for such conduct; use your blog. As for the term dictator, it is a bit POV, and although common sense should tell us Saddam is one, I think we should avoid using it for the best. However, I do not think that calling Saddam "president" is appropriate either, he is no more a president than George Bush is a dictator. The great kawa 23:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A nation's leader is called a "dictator" when he has absolute power: Whatever he "dictates" is expected to be carried out, with grave punishment for dissenters. There is no question Saddam fit that bill, and Bush does not. It's also a propagandistic term, like "terrorist" is, so it really doesn't need to be in the article. Outlining what he "accomplished" during his reign speaks for itself. Wahkeenah 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictator is a "weasel word"? Good Lord....why don't you all just go over to Iraq and join Hussein's buddies? He was in FACT a dictator...a person whose every edict must be carried out or some penalty, including death, will follow. If you can't call a spade a spade, then shut down Wikipedia, because it is worthless propaganda, nothing else.

It is not whether someone support Saddam or not. More than terming him as dictator, it is more important that he was the Head of the Nation. If one wants to use negative words whenever, one should give Bush more nastier terms with respect to the number of killings he had, and with respect to invading another country. In fact, one can say Bush practised dictatorship by taking over the power, law and lives of another country. --Rocksea 10:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I give the impression I'm taking "anti-American potshots." First time i've been accused of that. I'm simply talking about the editing of this word. This article shouldn't be written from a pro American POV or an anti-american POV. Recent times have reminded us that we cannot take all information given to us as dogma, as my government (American) spins just like any other. Trcrev 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictator is a weasel word and shouldn't be used in any wikipedia article. All it shows is an anti Saddam POV, SqueakBox 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"why don't you all just go over to Iraq and join Hussein's buddies?" What is this! Why do you think I must join to Arabic nationalists? I'm a Turk. Also, as others said before we can't accept everything which US leaders say because nearly everthing they told about ıraq came out to be wrong so you have to be calm. You must sit and think about the deaths that American policies are causing all around world. Deliogul 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Deliogul, I sorry you feel that way. But we've made some mistakes, the Bush administration has made mistakes, just like Ford administration, Nixon administration, etc. People will die, its an unfortunate thing, but if it is for good, don't bash it, like the million americans do.

This is incredible. All the morons join in the fight. Dictator, a weasel word? He was a dictator! Reign of Tyranny, dictator, its all true. Dictator is like the word "bastard", it can be abused, but if you use it in its proper meaning, then it is true. Get over it. -Yancyfry

Please dont engage in personal attacks. It isnt moronic to want an NPOV article, SqueakBox 20:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Dictator isn't a NPOV thing if it's true. I shouldn't have sent a message to you, but I'm sorry it's true. Now, I don't know you or anyone will believe that I forgive Saddam. He made huge mistakes, killed hundreds without cause, that is hard to not hate. We are here to make this article like an Encyclopedia, Dictator is in the Encyclopedia, so leave this "weasel word".

There is nothing to get over. I can't understand you. Naming Saddam as a dictator is no good for the article. You can only say that many experts on the issue think that Saddam was ruling Iraq as the absolute power etc... Also, I'm sure that, in Iraq, America kills more civilians per year than Saddam. Deliogul 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Being cute about the facts is also no good for the article. He was a dictator since he murdered all usurpers to his position. It was his modus operandi for years. He also set his sons up as his successors. This article *must* be factual about these matters. It is not your own little love note, Squeakbox. --weblady 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Weblady, then what about George W. Bush? He took international law into his hands, bypassed UN, took the power, law and lives of people of a country not under his administration. Isn't George W. Bush to be termed as World Dictator? Haven't George W. Bush murdered millions of civilians in Iraq and Afghanisthan saying excuses like they possess weapons of mass destruction, they are a threat etc? If you apply your way of logic to Saddam, it applies more to George W. Bush. It has been his modus operandi for years. He has been dictating the world on how it should run, with disrespect to rest of the 400+ countries in the world. Do you see that? --Rocksea 07:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are only 194 (give or take 3, the number changes yearly anyway) countries in the world and the answer to your question is "no", without having to resort to opinion. 213.250.63.93 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about George Bush. It's about Sadaam Hussein. BTW, it's also not about your personal opinions. I don't see references. --weblady 18:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article is not abt George W. Bush. What I meant is, if you apply your logic, you should be impartial and apply the same everywhere. I was saying you should put your dictator argument here only if you are ready to apply the same for a more obvious dictator. Reference: http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L11791889&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C4_Crises-3 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm --Rocksea 07:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A dictator cannot be voted out of office. Wahkeenah 07:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What about a world dictator, who has assumed the power and laws of another country? Could anyone in Iraq or the international community vote him out of office? If it was a UN enterprise, you could have better said it. Please be impartial while using negative terms. If you apply here in this wikipedia article, you should be applying the same everywhere it fits. Otherwise, leave it. --Rocksea 08:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, there is no reason to keep discussing since we are living in different galaxies. I can't find a reason because there are people think that George W. Bush is the knight of democracy. Wahkeenah, you are right in legal terms but in todays world, 4 years is a long time and can be enough to reach your desires (and Bush won a second term!). Deliogul 11:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated earlier in this section that the label "dictator" is not needed because it's a propagandistic word and Saddam's various actions in Iraq over the years speak for themselves. I always thought of Saddam as being like the stereotypical South American dictator, a military guy who would take over a country and rule it with an iron fist until he was deposed and/or killed, which is what happened in Iraq (with some outside "help", obviously). The American people may have been snowed in 2004, but by 2006 things were different and they voted against Bush and his policies... and constitutionally he can't run again. The people of Iraq had no such option where Saddam was concerned. Different galaxies, for sure. Wahkeenah 12:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, one more thing I want to bring up and maybe then I can stop with this discussion: I was in a seminar in about 2000. During a break, several of us got to talking about Saddam and his continual defiance of the UN rules, violating the no-fly zone, etc. One non-American student said, "Why do you keep messing around with this guy? Why don't you just go in there and shoot him?" The interesting thing about this remark was that it was spoken by a Muslim. In essence, that's what the US did: They got tired of messing with Saddam, and with the waffling UN, and took him out. Was that the right thing to do? Did the US have hidden agendas that we don't already know about? Was it a net gain for the Iraqis and the Americans? Only time will tell. Wahkeenah 13:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that Bush can't be elected again (which is good) but this doesn't change the reality. More than half a million natives died and the reign of terror took the control in Iraq. Can new elections bring those civilians back... Of course can't. This is our problem. Deliogul 13:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Have you ever wondered how or if things might have turned out differently since 1990, if Saddam had not invaded Kuwait? That's another reality that can't be reversed. Wahkeenah 13:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Or for that matter, if someone could have gone back in time and shown him that cellphone video and told him, "If you invade Kuwait, this is your destiny." Wahkeenah 13:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it would be great but you know, American army entered Iraq and the casulities of Iraqi people passed half a million. Executing Saddam was the job of US because he invaded oil-rich plains of a tiny ally of US... I mean it doesn't seem correct to me. Deliogul 14:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression was that Saddam didn't care how many of his countrymen died in furtherance of what he wanted. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait, maybe he would have stayed on the "good side" of America, or maybe not. I could also argue that if Jimmy Carter hadn't invited the much-hated Shah of Iran into the U.S. for treatment of his illness, maybe the takeover of the embassy in 1979 would not have occurred, and maybe the U.S. could have maintained good relations with Iran; or maybe not. Hindsight is always perfect. Meanwhile, I do wonder what the source is for the half a million dead Iraqis that I keep hearing. During Vietnam, the enemy body counts were thought to be wildly inflated. I just wonder who's out there counting them in Iraq. Wahkeenah 14:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are people who argue that the nubmer of Iraqi people died in 3 years had reached to 615,000 (contains direct and indirect deaths). On the other hand, the number 100,000 is also popular. Iraq Body Count argues that its something like 55,000. There is not a clear number but I know that I'm tired of this "What if?" thing. We need to find a middle way to end the crisis. Otherwise the civil war will become obvious. Deliogul 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I provided no less than 5 international mainstream media and government sources referring to Saddam as a dictator. My edit was removed, then put back, and now it has remained gone from the article. I see no defensible reason for this laughable doublespeak. Saddam Hussein absolutely controlled Iraq. There was no division of power, no checks and balances. This article must mention this basic fact if it's meant to be taken seriously. It doesn't even have to be phrased as a fact. My language was that he was generally considered to be one. Please, can I get a clear, reasonable explanation for the removal of this vital and amply cited edit? -- Kevin Browning 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the previous imbecile didn't even sign his nonsensical post, I removed it. Bush is not a dictator, he's the president of a democratic nation who is restrained by checks and balances: namely, the Congress and the judiciary. Saddam manipulated elections to keep himself in power and made all major decisions in Iraq himself. Further, almost all mainstream media refer to him as a dictator. I await a reasonable reply. -- Kevin Browning 05:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article already includes this section: Saddam Hussein#Saddam Hussein as a secular and absolute ruler, which includes a very clear statement that the regime was a dictatorship:

Saddam established a family dictatorship with his two sons: Uday and Qusay Hussein. Saddam assigned substantial executive powers to his two sons, to affirm his political power and regime continuation.

Is there something else that needs to be said? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin and guys, Bush was elected the president of US only, and not of Iraq or UN and there comes the contradiction in your own argument. Bush lead a military coup, took the power, laws and lives of the people of Iraq without any concern of the International Law or UN. If he had stayed in US, he would not have been called a dictator. He dictated and suppressed Iraq. I would await a reasonable reply for this! --Rocksea 07:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, what do you mean by mainstream media? US media? Just give a search for bush dictator in google. I am saying this because you won't be able to read several of the references on Bush in local newspapers in non-english languages. Anyway, here is a reference on Washington Post itself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000590.html --Rocksea 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have deleted your message as off topic and trolling, but I am beginning to think you are serious. As such, I wouldnt dream of deleting it, because it shows how little knowledge you have about what you are talking about and why it is pointless to debate with someone like this. Caper13 07:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is pointless to debate as long as two sides cling on to their perspectives. Yet, I would say that you don't have a direct reply to the questions I had put forward, the reason why you are saying that I have little knowledges on what I am talking about. I would say I have a wider, neutral perspective. Enlighten me otherwise! Between, the reason to talk about Bush here was pointed out earlier in this discussion. --Rocksea 07:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the abortion debate or stem cell research or religion. There should be a way to reach a middle ground on this. Here's how google defined dictator: "a ruler who is unconstrained by law" or "an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state" or others in that similar vein. Given this, I think I change my original opinion and think that he should be described as a dictator in this article as he did fit the definition. As to whether this same title describes Mr. Bush on the world stage, that should probably be discussed on his edit page. Trcrev 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just give up and let them write whatever they want in the article. You're never going to win, and the article is going to remain a propoganda piece for anti-american sympathies. This is exactly why none of the professors at any the universities I've attended accept wikipedia as a reference; WP will never be taken seriously. I gave up editing articles here forever ago because I couldn't keep demonstrably false information out of articles, even in subjects within my field of expertise. WP is an exercise is gang-think. Whatever the largest number of editors, or the loudest shouters, think is what is going to end up in the article, regardless of the truth.

I don't want others to give up like you even if they are thinking differently than me. What do you want? Do we need to write "Saddam Hussein, the dictator of the Iraqi people" under his picture? Then we have to write "the murderer of 30 million civilians" under Stalin's picture but we don't because Stalin was the general secretary of the communist party. We have a similar situation here. The article clearly states that Saddam was a dictator but we write "Saddam Hussein, the fifth president of Iraq" under his picture. Deliogul 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Who said it has to be under his picture? The word 'dictator' occurs nowhere in the article at all. I haven't read the Stalin article, but I would hope that somewhere it mentions that he was responsible for the deaths of millions, just as this article on Saddam Hussein should be more than a puff piece on the Life and Times of Saddam Hussein. They're...trying...to...pull...me...back...in... but this is exactly why I stopped editing WP in the first place. I only came here to see what it said about the execution since I haven't had any access to news for a couple of weeks. WP's bias has been thoroughly documented by other sources, and it leans significantly toward a certain school of thought. If it isn't even accepted as a reliable source in technical fields, what hope is there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.127.124.14 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

I think Wikipedia is unique and it can become a proper source before the end of the decade. I think this bias thing comes from the open nature of Wikipedia (everybody can edit here which is not really a good idea) but as time passes, those issues will be solved. Saddam's execution started an edit war and harmed the article so we have to wait until the debate cools down. Then we can put more unbiased job into the article. Deliogul 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, cool down, neither am I anti-american nor am I anti-Iraq. I just felt that it is biased to give certain negative attributes to people like Saddam only, while such attributes are not used in several other places where it could be applied. I would say Wikipedia is an excellent source for reference. In controversial issues like the present article, there would of course be clash of ideas. Please just take it as a different perspective, that such and such things could be possible. I think that is the plus point of Wikipedia as it is difficult for it to buy any extreme view. Then, yes, this is not a page for Bush, but at certain points I needed to use his page as a comparison. Also, I suggest something different for this page. Why don't you better put specific facts which shows any dictator qualities rather than generally giving a loose tag like dictator?--Rocksea 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down indeed. This article has undertaken an almost impossible task, and quite honestly all things considered I think it's done a pretty good job. This is such a hot topic that there simply aren't any NPOV descriptions of Saddam in existence, and there probably won't be for another 20 years, so I think the critics are being entirely too hard.

On topic, I agree with Trcrev. "Dictator" has a definable, precise meaning and should be used, but only in a careful and precise manner. The problem is that the term has a secondary colloquial meaning of "a murderous and bloodthirsty ruler". This discussion has become muddled because people keep arguing about whether the colloquial meaning of the word is accurate (hence all the discussion about how many people Saddam and Bush are supposed to have killed). None of that is relevant. We are describing his system of government, not his morality.

I would suggest a simple statement in the "Succession" paragraph such as "From 1979 until his fall in 2003, Saddam wielded absolute power and effectively ruled as a dictator". Saddam's system of government must be included because it is essential to understanding the man, his country and his relationship to others.

I would strongly oppose any use of the term outside a specific discussion of how he controlled his government. If he is simply labelled a "dictator", the word will adopt its colloquial meaning which, as Rocksea and Squeakbox have said, is a loose term implying moral judgement.203.202.163.209 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC) iiago

Then you must put that statement into the article. I don't have any problems with his absolute rule or how he came to power but as you mentioned in your post, we have to be careful about editing the article. People shouldn't think that Saddam was a bloodthirsty tyrant so Bush administration did the best thing by sending marines to Iraq to shut the crazy dictator down. Deliogul 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully everyone's happy with a reference of that nature Iiago 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC) iiago

Nope, that was a pov edit in the wrong direction, I dont mind absolute power with a good ref but not dictator, SqueakBox 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox I understand your concern, but "dictator" is an objective term that is defined in any dictionary. The word is used in wiki entries (eg. Mussolini, Pinoche, Hitler and Stalin) and I'll wager it's used in Brittanica and other publications. Understanding that he ruled as a dictator is central to understanding both him and western perceptions of/bias against him. I feel the article is made less accurate by its absence. Can we settle this by seeing if it's used in conventional encyclopedia entries on Saddam? I've added a softer version in the meantime (EDIT: or not - as I can't log in)203.202.163.209 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) iiago

• For a comparison, here's what it says about Fidel Castro: "Castro is described by opponents as a dictator while supporters see Castro as a charismatic liberator." Wahkeenah 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what it said, we shouldn't be using weasel words there either, SqueakBox 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's a fair statement about Castro. He's idolized (God knows why) by many Cubans. Wahkeenah 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on Castro is using it in its secondary, negative meaning. My point is that the word is frequently used in its original, correct meaning and is not considered a "weasel word". Just look at some conventional encyclopedias and see if it uses the term. If its apparent that the term is an accepted descriptor in academic circles then it's obviously not a weasel word. If it's not used, well, you're probably right. Can we agree on that as a neutral way to settle this? (I don't have an encyclopedia here) 203.202.163.209 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) iiago

Wahkeenah, you know if socialism will win, there won't be any classes left and everybody will start to work for production while reading philosophy. At least this is the theory so maybe Cubans are waiting for this :P Just like Castro, Saddam is idolized by millions of Iraqi people. I'm only opposing to the bloodthirsty tyrant thing. Deliogul 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,not the Foreign Ministry of Iran.The article is not suppose to be an anti-Saddam leathlet.The word "dictator" is a weasel word,it's not an official title.There is a number of democratically elected presidents who are de-facto dictators (they practice repression against opposition,controling the media,etc):Robert Mugabe,Mikhael Saakashvili,Hugo Chavez...the list goes on.

P.S history knows people who are far worse than Saddam Hussein.So let's be fair to the old man.Dimts 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BLP

Saddam is still alive. This is an encyclopedia. The first pic was a violation of WP:BLP as well as an insult to Saddam, his family and the Iraqi people. Such edits make wikipedia a laughing stock. Please read BLP and dont repeat, SqueakBox 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not an insult. He's in jail.. it's a third-party source photo. It's the most recent photo we have. I don't think we need to sugarcoat it by putting him in a nice-little suit.Brian23 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It isnt the most recent photo we have and it insults both him, his family and the Iraqi people. Have you read BLP, as if so you would see this is a gross violation. Please put your hatred of him (though I bet he never did anything to you) to one side if you want to edit the article as we need to follow wikipedia policies of NPOV and BLP, and a picture of him whose only end was to insult and offend is a gross violation of every norm of wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a political rag, 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)SqueakBox

I read it. I don't see how it is a gross violation of BLP. It's not as if we intentionally altered the photo. He was in jail and in court. How is that offending. Please explain. Would you rather have us post a picture of him holding a rifle aimed in the air as he rules as dictator of Iraq or maybe one of him a couple of his wives or maybe one of him ordering the gassing of Kurds. Either one can be interpreted as insulting. Unless you can come up with a better reason, I simply don't see how that photo is insulting.Brian23 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the edits.. I see what you are talking about. It would have made more sense to me if you had stated that you removed an offending pic. When you state "first pic", I think the saddam trial photo. If you are still talking about the saddam trial photo as being insulting, then I still don't understand how that is insulting.Brian23 17:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. IMO the underpants pic as the main pic should be treated as simple vandalism, the one I replaced it with is uncontroversial, SqueakBox 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course now it doesn't matter, Saddam is dead (so no more BLP vio.). But it could still be construed as a violation of NPOV, in which case that could be grounds for keeping it off. 74.38.35.171 08:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On this, IMO I believe that the photo of Saddam should be changed to a widely accepted photograph of him. Think of say Mozart or Hitler or Einstein - shouldn't there be a historical picture of him? I dont think the "trial" photo currently posted is a very accurate depiction of Saddam and the life that he has lived. It looks more like a mug shot. It should be more portraited. I hope I am making sense here - I'm not saying that it's still a violation, just this runs along the same lines.... 58.178.174.174 07:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He's dead now. There's a more appropriate discussion of photos already updiscussion, so this part is superfluous--move it up there with the other photo discussion. Subject closed. --weblady 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for the article

Is it mentioned anywhere that he was handed over to the Iraqi police? That seems to be pretty important. Also, I would recommend semiprotecting the article. It's getting a lot of vandalism.--CJ King 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an issue for wikinews Brian23 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see its been added, not an issue for wikinews, SqueakBox 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

He was HANGED! not hung

I think this is an important detail, given the political import of this event. It should be evident in text or in links at least that the actual executors were Iraqi officials. --weblady 00:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Anticipated Death Date

I removed the anticipated death date. It is ridiculous to add that in there. We'll add it in when he dies.. until then, I don't see a reason to post anticipated death dates. If we did that, we would have to do it for every public figure and that is silly. Brian23 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Any refernce to his death (as opposed to his planned execution) withouit a reliable source will be treated as vandalsim and may result in the user being blocked from editing, SqueakBox 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added update to Announced Execution date/time. Reuters is now reporting that he is still in US custody.Brian23 18:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but no longer relevant to the discussion.--weblady 00:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Protect from anonymous users

Perhaps given the recent events surrounding the subject of this article, maybe it should be protected from editing by anonymous or newly registered users.Mellon123 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It already is semi protected, SqueakBox 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with that edit, an "anticipated" death date is ridiculous Jacob Steep

I agree with this as well, we should protect the article from anonymous editing.

Well, I'm an anon. editor and I've added a ton of content to the article, as well as found sources confirming many facts without citations...

The article is semi-protected now. --weblady 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

protected status

Shouldn't there be a box at the top of the page saying that the article is protected? I can only find a padlock

A padlock is what you get. Try WP:Village pump if you want to change policy, SqueakBox 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, pressed edit too quickly,what I meant was shouldn't there be a box at the top of the article saying it is protected as new or unregistered users would not understand why they can't edit RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably should be but I dont know what it is. Will keep an eye out for the relevant template, SqueakBox 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

DONERyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 23:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Announced execution - update needed?

A couple OF updates may be needed to the execution section:

• Eid ul-Adha is an Islamic holiday, not a specifically Iraqi holiday.
• Eid ul-Adha begins on December 30th in Sunni Islam, but December 31st in Shi'ite Islam.

-Source? I think the sighting of the moon in various countries, not the sect, determines this since Pakistan has declared Eid on January 1. (http://moonsighting.com/1427zhj.html)

• It is legal to perform an execution up until sunrise on a holiday, as that is considered to be the beginning of the holiday, not midnight. On December 30th, 2006, that will be approximately 6:00 AM.

Yes, I realize this is entirely academic, since the execution seems to be imminent and I'm sure the section will be completely re-written in a matter of hours. It just seems appropriate to bring it up, considering the spirit of Wikipedia as that of essentially a "living encyclopedia".

• Maybe the article needs a "countdown" clock, as with NASA: "H minus 4 hours 3 minutes..." Wahkeenah 23:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The second point is not correct. Eid ul-Adha is celebrated on the same days (beginning on the tenth day of the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah) regardless of the branch of Islam. Differences in dates of celebration have to do with when the new moon was sighted (and thus the beginning of Dhu al-Hijjah occurred) according to particular national or local authorities. Because of this, Eid ul-Adha began at sunset on December 29 in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, among other places. It will begin on the night of December 30 in Indonesia, Turkey, and Guyana, among other places. It will begin the night of December 31 in Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, the date of celebration is dependent on what local communities are doing. Thus, if one mosque wants to observe Eid starting December 30, but another just a couple kilometers away wants to start on December 29, they are free to; it just depends on what moon-sighting the mosques' congregations trust (or if they decided to use scientific calculations to make a theoretical moon-sighting). In theory, the two mosques should most likely be in unison (since they are so close), but that often times does not happen.

The third point is also incorrect. Islamic holidays begin at sunset. As far as I know (I'm not entirely certain), most of Iraq is beginning Eid on the night of December 30, which would mean a sunset time of just after 5:00pm. -- tariqabjotu 01:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But alas... people are free to do what they want. And it would not surprise me if the celebration of the holiday in Iraq is separated Shi'a-Sunni. -- tariqabjotu 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tariq, what you have written is a contradiction unless you mean to say that the whole calendar can be shifted by how the local community views the moon. Is this what you are saying? --weblady 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

protected template

Why was the sprotected template removed? it showed new or unregistered users that they could not edit, now there is nothing but a small padlock. Please, whoever removed it put it back in RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

From Template:Sprotected2:

This template [{{sprotected2}}] should be used for pages that are semi-protected for longer periods (for brief semi-protection please use {{sprotected}}) or where the other semi-protection template may be untidy.

Saddam Hussein has been, and most likely will continue to be, semi-protected for a long period of time. Perhaps un-protection may occur when the article becomes linked from the Main Page. Additionally, with so many templates at the top of the article, the {{sprotected}} template is also untidy. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we are likely to have many new readers as a result of the execution, and without a banner they won't understand that this article is an exception and so they can't edit it. Simesa 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... I unprotected the article. It had been protected for a month and the only thing better than being clear about why a page is not available for editing is to actually allow everyone to edit. However, let me point out that the Gerald Ford article prior to its unprotection twenty-four hours ago had the same {{sprotected2}} template. It's pretty much standard for articles that will most likely be protected for a long time due to persistent vandalism. As you will most likely see, many of the anonymous edits in the next several hours will be vandalism. Thus, the argument that the {{sprotected2}} template does not convey enough information is not really important; with long-term protected articles, many of the people turned away from editing are potential vandals anyway. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

dead yet?

Can we mark him as a dead guy now? Remember to remove him from the list of living people 75.201.82.175 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Watch BBC news or something.. "BREAKING NEWS: SADDAM HUSSEIN Al Hurra TV: Former dictator executed" although I'd wait for other sources, too. --84.249.253.201 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CBS and FOX say he's dead. NBC and ABC have not broken in, so obviously they don't think he's dead (or they like Jeopardy! and Extra better) Bduddy 03:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The execution has been confirmed on all UK news networks apart from Al-Jazeera Eng. I would wait until it's been confirmed on there before declaring it official.

Al-Jazeera Eng are only stating that "media reports are suggesting he has been executed in Baghdad".

IRAQI STATE TV CONFIRM EXECUTION - OFFICIAL (SKY)

Saddam Hussein 'executed in Iraq' Should hep back up the SKY news. Loompyloompy313 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vinylstellen 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging from Execution of Saddam Hussein

I can't think of what could potentially be in the recently-created Execution of Saddam Hussein that couldn't fit nicely here. -- tariqabjotu 02:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Execution of Saddam Hussein should be deleted; I don't see anything useful there that isn't already here. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - there's nothing that warrants its own entry there. RedHillian 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree - it deserves its own page while it's a current event. When all is said and done, then of course merge. ray 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so there well be controversy and conspiracy theories so we need the execution of Saddam Hussein, so we can put those things in there. And it deserves and article of its own. Pseudoanonymous 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well its over now; let's see a merge!

• More importantly, let's see the videotape! It should be accompanied by Johnny Cash singing "25 Minutes to Go". Wahkeenah 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it warrants its own page - it's a major news event, and for convenience if nothing else deserves not to be at the bottom of an already extensive article. Yeanold Viskersenn 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Execution on its own page gives room for the international comments at the bottom, which are very worthwhile but would make the main article too long. Colin99 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there's nothing there that shouldn't be put here instead. Unless you want a "final moments of XXX" for every celebrity that's ever lived--on this precedent. Purge it. --weblady 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You people are idiots. Why do you want to be THAT concise? that is retarded perfectionism. Are you trying to be like Brittanica? This should include ALL info anyone wants and, truth be told, everyone does want to know the "final moments of XXX" more than half the crap you care about. KEEP. --User:Kosiewicz

• What is with Wikipedians and merging? It does not hurt to have an article of its own. And stop trimming down / eliminating good information, just organize it better. -- Rollo44 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Death

Saddam is dead. CNN has confirmed it as well as many other places. He died OFFICIALLY on December 30, 2006, not December 29. He died in Iraq in an execution, and it was Dec. 30 there, so that's when he died. Øřêōş 03:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper states that it has not been officially confirmed by CNN on his 360 program... --Madchester 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MSNBC.com has it as a breaking news headline though, and they seem pretty sure. And here's the article: [11]Homestarmy 03:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN.com is only relaying local Iraqi reports... it has not been independently confirmed by CNN, as repeatedly stated by Cooper on-air, right now. --Madchester 03:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN has not confirmed it. They have announced that it has been reported on two Arab-language news stations. They haven't confirmed it through their own sources. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about CNN. It's confirmed by Al Jazeera he's dead.

It was on the news, I know that. Wikipedia already lists his death... Øřêōş 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember hearing any time announcement of when Saddam died on foxnews. I just heard that he was dead.

Either way, he's dead now, is getting ready to be hanged, or is being hanged. He's supposed to die in the next 40 minutes, according to many news sources I'm looking at right now. Øřêōş 03:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Deputy Foreign Minister reports via BBC that he believes Saddam has been executed. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Every source that I have seen including CNN claims he's dead. Atlantis Hawk 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for official confirmation. --VKokielov 03:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fox is saying Arab media is reporting it. Apparently they waited until after the morning's call to prayer to do the job. Yes, confirmation would be good. Wahkeenah 03:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if Anderson Cooper said it then it must be true.

Did Saddam die in Baghdad?--Robo 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Executed at 6:00AM in Baghdad... --KCMODevin 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

According to every news source I can see at the moment, yes, he did. Øřêōş 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

FOX News says he's dead too. Surely, the world is a better place without him. (Eddie 03:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

We should photoshop a picture of saddam hanging from a noose and people all around him cheering.

Iraqi State TV has now confirmed that he has been executed by hanging. This has been confirmed on all UK news networks including Al-Jazeera Eng. I would go ahead and make the relevant edits now. Vinylstellen 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I already changed the death date to Dec. 30, as there's some debate on what day he died, but officially, it was Dec. 30. Yes, he's dead now. If it was filmed, as the BBC and a ton of other networks have reported, there'll be a timestamp, so we'll figure out the official time if the video is ever released. Øřêōş 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

His lawyer has confirmed this, supposedly, but I am not aware of his name. I know it's Isham something. Someone find this out. There is someone of Fox News claiming that they watched him die, but I might be watching incorrectly as i've been researching this like mad.

EDIT....... najeeb al nuaimi was the lawyer who talked to Greta. This needs to be updated.

Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging

While this may be satisfying to some people, this isn't exactly encyclopedia language... I suggest that someone who has access to editing this should change that to something like, Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging.

That was added at 5:06 and removed at 5:07, seven minutes before you posted this message. Vandalism like that gets cleaned up pretty quickly, especially on high-interest articles like this one. -- Chuq 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the title.

Why? Then the comment doesn't make sense. Changing it back. Eric119 21:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole not needed. --weblady 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Note: The title of this section of the thread has been changed since these comments were put here. It used to have a generic body part name in it. I agree-the generic body part term should not appear in the final article. --weblady 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Last word of Mr. Hussein before is dead

According to Le Monde a French newspaper, Saddam Hussein last words were:

I hope you will stay united and I warn you: do not trust the Iranian coalition, these people are dangerous

The Iranian coalition could refer - state Le Monde - to the Shi'ite government. These last words have been reported by the witness of death, judge Mounir Haddad, says Le Monde. This is in contradiction with the statement from Times Online. What were the last words of Mr. Hussein has to be investigated further. Huygens 25 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Last words seem to be disputed. --weblady 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you know the language, you might be able to tell, from that grim Google video, what his last words were before he dropped out of sight. There seems to be a fair amount of shouting going on, so it's hard to tell who's saying what. Wahkeenah 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Last words are still disputed. --weblady 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Last words, per CNN and also riverbendblog.blogspot.com was something like "I witness that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his prophet," said one-and-a-half times before he was dropped. Video is also on CNN if anyone is interested -- the death itself is not shown, the pic is stopped the last possible frame.
• Le Monde of today confirms the CNN version. Huygens 25 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Last words as told by many news papers was that he was saying his last prayer and before he could repeat it, the trap door was opened up, which was also one reason of controversy and wide lead condemnation the way he was executed. The words about his warning not to beleive iraq's coilation government was much before in the sequela. I also have added up a link of the cell phone video and the news realted to teh arrest of the person who shot it. -- purush_79 12:41, 04 January 2006 (2007)

4 to 6 million deaths

According to the June '04 National Geographic, Saddam is estimated to have been directly involved in the murder of between 4 and 6 million people throughout his career. Anyone care to comment or add that note somewhere in the article? 69.244.153.46 03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea... You might find a place to put it. Start looking ;) Øřêōş 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A list of executions or massacres authorized on his authority would be a good addition to this page because it's history and public record. Go ahead if you have the references. --weblady 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think 4-6 million sounds a little too familiar?

I don't know where that figure is from. The only way the number could be that high is if you add in the casualties from the Iran/Iraq war, and then it's highly doubtful that the number is that high. I've heard that the number of Iraqi dead since the invasion in 2003 exceeds the total dead during his entire rule, although I can't find the exact reference where I heard that at the moment. Brian1975 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

References to "Saddam"

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't "Saddam" just his first name? If so, according to WP:MOSBIO all references to "Saddam" in article should instead be "Hussein", ie. his surname. For example, in the introduction text, one of the sentences reads "As president, Saddam ran an authoritarian government and maintained power and stability in the country." Shouldn't it instead be "As president, Hussein ran an authoritarian government and maintained power and stability in the country"? I think this sounds more formal and more appropriate for an encyclopedia; it is also the style used by credible papers like The New York Times. KeL 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point there. However, many references to Saddam Hussein, especially on television news networks, refer to him as simply 'Saddam'. I don't know why, but 'Hussein' does sound more formal. Øřêōş 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussion (linked to at the top of this page). -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They were all on a first-name basis in happier times, when he was our ally. Wahkeenah 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong. My appologies for wasting everyone's time. KeL 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, "Hussein" was his father's name, not his surname. See note 1 in the article which explains all this. -- Arwel (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See the article on patronyms to understand fully why he should not be addressed by his father's name. In Iraq, he should informally be called Saddam, and formally called Mister Saddam, since Hussein is his father's name, and is not a surname. Brian1975 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein was executed at 10:05 American Eastern Time, and 6:05 in Baghdad according to Saudi Officials. It was shown on CNN.

Rest in Peace old chap. You'll be missed. Allahu Akbar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.113.137.249 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Naming conventions in that part of the world differ from those used in Western Europe and the US. Sadaam Hussein was widely referred to as Sadaam. --weblady 18:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this should be taken into account by anyone in wikipedia and one should be aware that the naming system in their part of the world need not be universal. Even in my case, my first name is my name and my last name is my fathers name and not my name.--Rocksea 09:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

semi protect

anyone think this should be semi peotected? Jerrycobra 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Too many people are attempting to edit it and it has been repeatedly vandalised. AntonCernan 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)AntonCernan

It already is semi-protected. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was protected at 2:45 UTC but the template hadn't been added yet. It was added at 3:41. --WikiSlasher 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm bothered that it was locked. I was trying to add sources to a lot of the info. and doing clean up of the proseline, and it was closed :(

Nevermind. It's not locked anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.29.52 (talk • contribs).

It's still semi-protected. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, it's locked now, and myself and several others are still trying to edit it. Particularly annoying, since we supposedly have our hands on video now (unless I heard incorrectly)

Execution

Why are we reporting this execution as if it actually happened? All reports I am seeing say it is still uncomfirmed. Even Al Jazeera says that. We really need to not jump on this and treat it as fact. --OuroborosCobra 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN says it is done. timrem 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you here then Fredd? --WikiSlasher 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction: In the time I took to write this, it went from unconfirmed to confirmed. --OuroborosCobra 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The B.B.C. reported it at 3.15, Sky news joined in at 03.17 and Euro-news rounded it up at 03.24. --

--Homer slips. 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of those reports, if you looked carefully, still said "Unconfirmed", that was the problem. --OuroborosCobra 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fact now, and it will be revised at the appropriate time. --weblady 01:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Video and Pictures of execution

== اننا للة وانا لة راجعون....لا حول ولا قوة الا باللة...رحمك اللة وادخلك فسيح جننانة == Should pictures and video be put and linked on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I suppose since Wikipedia is not censored. --WikiSlasher 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll end up on YouTube... 68.112.145.146 03:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its probely going to show up on CNN first they say they have images and are reviewing it

FOX News announced around 11pm EST that they were reviewing images/video also —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.29.52 (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but with decency. We don't deliver child pornography here either, do we? Probably some freaks will get high on it, but wikipedia shouldn't give them a fix. It isn't here to deliver them snuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Execution Video

A complete unedited execution video is available on this mirror -LINK REMOVED-, I'll leave it to everyone if they post it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Saddam is a Lawyer?

I can't find any reference confirming Saddam Hussein's profession is that of a lawyer. Can anyone point it out to me? Given that for the last 30 odd years, he has been dictator of Iraq, I think that would be a better description unless he actually did practice law. I don't think he held a formal rank in the Army, so we can't use that. Caper13 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have never found anything saying that.

I put in "government office" since I couldn't imagine anything better. Article says he was an army general, but only made so after the revolution. It just seems to me that, as someone said in an edit summary, "dictator" really isn't what we think of as a profession, while we have plenty of people who were lifetime government-employed. He seems to have been a lifetime opponent of the government when he wasn't in power; could he be put as "Revolutionary"? Nyttend 06:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's best to leave it blank. If "dictator" is an occupation, then we might as well put "elected official" in every democratically-elected politician's infobox. It's just redundant. Look at the infoboxes for other world leaders. This field is not always applicable and indeed usually isn't, unless the person actually held a real profession before the public career. KeL 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he did not hold a college degree from my reading. He was relatively uneducated, a law school dropout. --weblady 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, he was a law school drop-out (with law being a college degree, not a graduate degree as in the U.S.) His education is listed as "attended School of Law for 3 years" in Batatu's "The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq." Epstein's Mother 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after I posted this question, I think I read in newsweek that his law experience consisted of studying law in Egypt (whatever that is supposed to mean) for one year. Far from being a lawyer. Someone who watched a couple of seasons of Judge Judy probably has a better claim to being called a lawyer than that. Caper13 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam is not a lawyer but he studied law when he was in Egypt (for 3 years it looks like). That doesn't make him a lawyer, but he knows more than someone watching Judge Judy. ==Taxico 06:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Execution into this article?

• Definitely - House of Scandal 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Absoutely - StevenBao^{talk} 04:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Surely - No need to glorify the end of something negative User:rahul.acm
• Yes -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Lcnj 04:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Indubitably -- RattleMan 04:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• yes, it should be—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Yes -- no need for it separate. RedHillian 04:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• NO --- Not yet, hold on it is being edited very heavily right now, we need that page unlocked for editing, once it settles down we can merge it here 65.13.3.52 04:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Not yet I'm afraid that editwarring and constant changes will cause this article to be locked. Let's have it over at a separate article until the recentism dies down. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Correct, not just the problem of locking the article, but this would cause a significant load on the database too -- or would it? Anyhow for now it should stay separate until the blitz ends.65.13.3.52 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ay. They should be merged as soon as possible. -- AntonCernan 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why? Khoikhoi 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. This event is still breaking. Let the edits die down until taking action. Additionally, the article in its entirety is way too long. So I am almost leaning to keeping the main details and execution as a separate article. -- immunity 05:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No'. This is a incident and deserves its own article. At least leave it a week or two before doing something premature. - Mike Beckham 05:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge" It's fork as is. What specific things about the "execution" can be talked about anyways? What kind of jeans he wore? Or what kind of a cigarette he smoked right before? He was executed at a certain time with so many witnesses and voila. That's it, not much to elaborate really... Merge... The article has grown and is well-structured, so a decision on a merger should be taken later. Baristarim 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Do not merge. This article is fairly long, and the Execution article has a fair bit of content on its own. Let the execution article be a "main article" for a section of this one, as it is now. If it must be merged, perhaps the Trial of Saddam Hussein article would be a better target, as it is directly related to it. -- Chuq 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Not yet. Wait until more details of the execution are verified, then merge. Paradoxsociety 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• NO i think we should wait, there is alot of information being poured into these articles, and i think we should wait till there is some kind of confirmation on some of this info that is being put into these articles, we should wait to see whaat we end up with. [user:MCoop06]
• Definitely not Many have worked to make a detailed, well-structured article out of this within a matter of hours. It can only grow from this point. I think it is large enough to stand in its own right.
• Wait Its too early --sony-youth^talk 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There should not be an additional "Execution of Sadaam Hussein" article unless you want an separate article on the demise of every single celebrity. The information belongs in this article and should be put in the proper perspective here. --weblady 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge later Separate page was started by User:Zyqwux on the 28th, on the eve of the event. Both articles have become hotbeds of pro-and-anti-Saddam stuff. In a few days, that kind of thing should taper off as reality sets in. There really only needs to be one article. Wahkeenah 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Military dictator

Saddam Hussein, like his predecessors going right back to Abdul Kassem wasn't a President of Iraq. - (203.211.74.39 04:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Why can't a person be both president and military dictator? --WikiSlasher 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just surprised there is little to no mention of the bad things he did...--68.95.230.168 04:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to have his 'bad things' mentioned, find source information and edit the article yourself.

It all needs to be added and put in the historically correct perspective yet. --weblady 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor POV wording issue

Concerning this sentence:

The stranglehold of the old elites (the conservative monarchists, established families, and merchants) was breaking down in Iraq.

While I'm not particularly biased towards "old elites", the term "stranglehold" is definitely not a neutral term. If you talked to the "old elites" or their supporters at the time I'm sure they'd describe their control differently (stewardship maybe?). Something with more neutral connotation is in order. Brentt 05:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, and for the end user using this as an educational article, something more informative though brief would be better. "The old elite" may not impart much information unless it has a context available to the reader. --weblady 01:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Retaliation

Nothing has occurred yet, but I believe retaliation will occur. A new section might need to be started. Spirit Of Truth 05:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is currently in the reactions section as far as the US measures for security in Iraq. We are waiting it out. Once any retaliation occurs, a new section will be added.

It has now been reported that a courthouse in Fallujah has been burned down by crowds and a bombing in Kufa killed dozens, as reported by FOX at exactly 2:30am

This will also need to be placed in the context of Sadaam Hussein after the controversy dies down. If as many people are killed in the retaliation as were killed in one of Sadaam's massacres, perhaps it will be able to edge them out for line space. --weblady 01:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

farewell letter

Many news sources have said that he wrote a farewell letter to the world and that an english translation was posted on a baathist website. Can anyone find this? --M i c 06:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122700799.html

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20990518-5001021,00.html

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant the complete translation, not a secondary source. --M i c 06:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph article appears to be the complete translation. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Its the best I've seen at least. --M i c 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Cause of death ?

Snapping of the neck as caused by the noose and the floor dropping out, or by the eventual suffocation and restriction of the oxygen and air passage way to the throat and to the lungs ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 06:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanging Achille 06:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say an acceptable abbreviation would be 'hanging' 06:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he died instantly, -- implies there was no suffocation, but just the snap. Now if if hanging is not acceptable, what is? Snapping of the neck? -- what caused that? Sudden and immediate tightening of the rope && acceleration... and that was caused by, um gravity and tension... you get the idea Achille 06:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Inquiries about this document probaby don't belong here. The searcher ought to use a search engine instead. This document should not be included in this account UNLESS you have also printed the Unabombers Manifesto with his entry in Wikipedia and Hitler's final letters with his account. It is the same kind of literature. --weblady 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

on his way to hell?

please remove the phrase, "currently he's probably on his way to hell". Yelin

That was added at 6:05, removed at 6:07, and your message was posted at 6:31. -- Chuq 06:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree at all. Why do you think so? SqueakBox 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unknowable content and no references. Don't include. --weblady 01:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

can we remain pro

as evil as sadaam is, we should not celebrate a death but mourn that sometimes in the intrest of humanity these choices have 2 be made. I will not soapbox but i must ask that the colorful language and ref to hell be left for cheap forums. one reason for this is you attrack more hositlity from anyone against what happened to him. I can think of some other people that need the neck noose 4 ongoing crimes against humanity--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The section above was quoting a previous edit. Wikipedia is not censored -- Chuq 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever. Did it come out of babelfish or something? --weblady 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a "Contemporary" picture of Saddam as the first picture in the article please?

doesn't do justice to who he was and what he represented. Can we have something like [12] or [13], etc. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a current events piece, not a historical or biographical piece. There is no background other than the trial for the execution. There is no need to put any other picture within this article. The details are the most important part, anyway—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.29.52 (talk • contribs)

What in the world are you talking about? This article is not about current events, this article is about Saddam Hussein and his life. Portraying Saddam as who he is most recognized as is integral to this article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This is a biographical article, is part of the Biographies project. Zelmerszoetrop 07:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree as well. Opinions aside, Saddam was still a former head of state. The picture should illustrate him as a political figure, as is the norm for articles on any world leader. KeL 07:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a biographical article. I like the first photo.[14] --ElectricEye (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a Biographical piece, NOT a current events piece. I recommend the second photo suggested [15] as it represents former president Hussein in his formal attire. This is standard practice of all former presidents, whether we liked them or not. ~ Eric 67.42.131.27 08:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be pedantic but does anyone know the copyright statuses for those photos? They're much worse quality and resolution. --WikiSlasher 09:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the copyright statuses, I just did a search on google image and came up with them. I didn't mean that we should use those exact pictures, I meant something like those. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

One of those photos of him with a ceremonial sword would be ideal JayKeaton 12:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to comment that this picture is not acceptable for the article, we should rather find one from he's days as president of Iraq. As much as I don't like this man, I still think he deserves a fair and NPOV presentation, so let's get rid of this picture for the inforbox and find a better one! Snailwalker | talk 13:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Any other stamp collectors among you? I suppose we could try to use pictures from Iraq Scott#967 or #1264-1273 if they would be large enough. Of course, we'd still have to check the copyright issues... Nyttend 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[16] would also be nice. If we can't find a good free picture, could we email the owner of one of these for permission? Nyttend 15:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Now he is dead we should have a pic from when he was President, having an up to date pic is only relevant for living people and it would be less POV and more respectful to the Iraqi people, SqueakBox 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's already another thread updiscussion on the picture. --weblady 01:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at Talk:Saddam_Hussein#NPOV_Picture --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Events Tag

With Saddam now dead for almost 5 hours now, his life is no longer a current event. I'm going to remove the Current Event tag because nothing in the article is expected to change as a result of further developments. Most sources anticipate an anonymous burial at an unmarked grave, but even if a burial section is added to this article, it will be the only major change to the article due to current events. Discuss here if you feel the removal of the tag is premature. Zelmerszoetrop 07:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current event tag should be removed from the top of the article, but it should be in the "execution of Saddam Hussein" section. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Good call. Zelmerszoetrop 07:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should wait until 24 hours after his death before removing it. Before that it is very likely that the international reaction may bring about the need to update. 194.204.106.155 12:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Denied. Some people in the world are still asleep, it wont be a current event for those wikipedia users until they have woken up and talked about it. Wikipedia IS NOT just America and CNN ya know. JayKeaton 12:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the current event tag remains on the section discussing his execution. Zelmerszoetrop 07:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The only part that is current is the world reaction. This part should be edited after the fact when the controversy dies down. For the whole article, yes, the Current Events tag probably can be taken down now. --weblady 01:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Saddam is dead, therefore his life and hence his biography no longer reflects rapidly changing events.

Protection

I think we need protection for the article until the heat cools off SACP 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How much more protection do you want? You have full move protection, and a semi-protected article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is Saddam survived by (at the time of his death by execution)?

Saddam's family and relationship history is very confusing. Could someone please include a simple one-liner:

"Saddam is survived by wife(s) < names >, son(s) < names >, daughter(s) <names>."

Bonus points for including their ages. ~ Eric 67.42.131.27 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A reputed son, Ali, although there is much confusion on this count. 3 daughters, the eldest two of which are widows, thanks to their father. Mother, and ex-wives Illigitimate children?? Probably many, given Hussein's habits. --weblady 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rise to Power section

The Rise to Power section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power, totally lacks mentioning of the fact that he used to execute his political opponents. This fact is widely known and citable:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1100529.stm
• http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGIC,GGIC:2006-49,GGIC:en&q=Saddam+Hussein+executed+opponents

His "rise to power" was a bloody one, so please mention this. John Hyams 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Information now exists. John Hyams 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Must be included. --weblady 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And now someone deleted it!! John Hyams 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it needs to be restored. It's part of the historical record. --weblady 18:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mock elections & dictator.

It is ridiculous not to state the plain facts in the name of supposed neutrality: Saddam held fixed elections through oppression and most news agencies and governments considered him a dictator. I added citations as deemed necessary, but since this is a controversial article right now I'm opening up my edits to discussion before someone else does. -- Kevin Browning 08:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speaking of mockery and elections, remember that election he held ca.2000, where amazingly enough he got all the votes? Contrary to rumors, the ballot had two choices:

__ Saddam if you do

__ Saddam if you don't

Wahkeenah 08:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

that's the second funny thing you've said! --WikiSlasher 10:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hush, or they'll delete this one, too. Wahkeenah 10:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see my true, relevant and referenced edits have been removed with no comment on the talk page. Does anyone wish to explain this action? If I don't get an explanation for this unwarranted defense of Saddam in violation of the truth and value of this article in a timely manner, I will simply put it back, and in an even more blunt fashion. -- Kevin Browning 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever put back the true and necessarily included fact that Saddam was generally considered a dictator. However, I see it has now been removed again. I don't have the time to play games about including what should be an elementary point of an article about a dictator: the fact that virtually all major news agencies referred to him as one. Hopefully some rational users will reinstate this basic and vital information to what has potential to be a great article. Thanks. -- Kevin Browning 09:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an item on the term dictator updiscussion. The term needs to be included because it's one of the terms that has been widely used to describe him. There are many references to it when the article is revised. --weblady 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I think the photo of his infobox should be changed to a photo which was taken during his reign.You know,where he has his famous mustasheDimts 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this a little here. Some photos considered are: [17] and [18] --ElectricEye (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A photo topic is updiscussion. --weblady 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at Talk:Saddam_Hussein#NPOV_Picture--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Invasion Term

Do you believe it is neutral to use the phrase "invasion of Iraq." What one person may call an invasion, another person could call a liberation, or something else. Maybe it would be better to replace the word "invasion," which seems to be a biased word with the term "entry" into Iraq.

Raindreamer 12:56, 30 December 2006

2003 invasion of Iraq is the name of the article it links to. You could neutralize it here, but it would still have to link to that article. The article says "The stated objective of the invasion was 'to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.'" Let's see how it worked out: (1) was easy, since there weren't any; (2) was relatively easy, as Saddam was in no position to do much terrorism support once he was driven from power; (3) should have added from Saddam and then it would have been "mission accomplished". The question is whether "invasion" is considered to be a negative. Battle of Normandy is called an "invasion", and few would argue that D-Day was a negative overall, as it led to Hitler's defeat. Wahkeenah 09:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Invasion" is a neutral word because that conflict was by definition an invasion. An "entry", as you put it, into a country on which you declared war is called an invasion. Some may call it an act of liberation, others an act of conquest, but "invasion" is the term for the act itself. KeL 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Invade" means "to go into". Typically it means forcefully and quickly. "Entry" also means "to go into", but without any qualifiers. Invasions are entries, but not all entries are invasions. "Invade" is the right term here, I think. Wahkeenah 09:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Refused to wear cap

Finaly Saddam was refused to wear the "BLACK CAP" over to his head, when he was about execution. Guddu 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, he seemed to be dressed rather casually, considering it was supposed to be a necktie party. He was dressed warmly, to keep him from getting cold feet at the last minute. Wahkeenah 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article. --weblady 01:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC) He refused to wear it just to look good at the end ! --

Please add oc:Saddam Hussein

Thanks, and Happy New Year.

Done, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant to the article. --weblady 01:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

by who?

On November 8, 2005, Adel al-Zubeidi a defense attorney during the Hussein Trials on the legal team representing Taha Yassin Ramadan was killed. On June 21, 2006, the chief defense attorney for Hussein and his brothers, Khamis al-Obeidi, was kidnapped and killed

who killed those two? someone should add that. --SummerThunder 11:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there room? --weblady 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Italy is part of the EU

From the article: Also, Italy, Malaysia, the EU, Pakistan, the Vatican, Libya and others... Italy is part of the EU, it should therefore be deleted from that enumeration.--134.130.4.46 12:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Saddam at the gallows?

Is it really necessary to have a picture of Saddam at the gallows in the section on his execution? It strikes me as gratuitous. TimTim 12:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough picture, but I guess it is considered rather important for depicting the execution? Snailwalker | talk 13:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But we don't need to 'depict' the execution; we simply need to document the notable facts about it. I don't see that the picture adds anything useful to the article. TimTim 14:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth hurts. Positive or Negative, all facts apply. 67.8.238.211 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Only the notable facts need documenting. TimTim 14:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a picture of Saddam at the gallows in the section on his execution? It strikes me as gratuitous

It is gratuitous. But, the standard media is doing it so much that it's effecting Wikipedia a bit.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is necessary. In fact, I think not. We don't have death shots of every celebrity and should not have them in this case either. That's macabre. --weblady 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed them twice since (with explanation) they had no encyclopedic value and only appealed to vicariousness and morbidity.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 10:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the wikinews article before re-adding picture that doesn't improve this article.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 10:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, That Guy. I think you are right on this one. --weblady 18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast of execution

Despite this however, countries such as the United Kingdom are unable to broadcast the execution due to national television restrictions, which deem the event "inappropriate" to broadcast.

Could someone make it clear that it is just the execution itself that can't be shown; footage of him being led to the gallows has been broadcast on BBC News 24 and Sky News many times this morning. 81.145.241.67 13:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Is there any reason they cannot shot the execution on the web? I mean legally?sorry show the exe..?

Not relevant to the article. --weblady 01:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reaction to Execution

The Execution Timing shows how little Bush understand or care about the feeling of Arabs and Muslims, before the End of the holly Hajj pilgrimage and on the 1st day of Eid Adha, even Arabs those whom hated Saddam, Found Bush timing to order the release of Saddam for execution by the Iraqi shiats is Wrong and offended many, thank Bush, Now more people hate us Americans for his stupid actions.

the Since America and Britain were once friendly allies with Saddam Hussein at a time when he was executing the worst of his atrocities, I find it strange that there is not an echo of laughter over the moral superiority expressed by these same countries when discussing Saddam, and their gleeful jumping up and down over his execution. Why are we not discussing the giant elephant in the room: that America and Britain only expressed outrage over Sadddam's barbarism TWENTY YEARS TOO LATE and that they too should be held to account? Saddam was armed and funded in part by the administration of George Bush Senior, so why are not senior members of that former administration being held to account too? Have I not made the most obvious point in the history of the universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.154.66 (talk • contribs)

The talk-page is not for discussing politics but how we can improve the article. Snailwalker | talk 13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put. None of this should be mentioned in the article anyway. It is all speculation. The fact the UK and USA were "too late" by this persons own view is down to many factors. One is the people of Iraq. John Major (the prime minsiter of Britain at the time of the gulf war) stated that he decided not to get Saddam out because he had already promised the people of Iraq he wouldn't, because they believed it would make things worse. Major decided to uphold his promise as he belived if he hadn't have done so, that the people in that country would never trust a British PM again. There are also many, many other factors (too many to go into) as to why it took so long to get this man, but this page isn't for me or anyone else to lay these out. 74.65.39.59 17:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts only, with references. This is not a treatise on international relations. It's a biographical article on Sadaam Hussein. --weblady 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Iran's reactions

Iran's reactions need to be properly covered as Iranians suffered from Saddam as (if not more) Iraqis did. Therefore a reaction from Iran naturally deserve to be covered much more than a reaction from a European or south american country etc. Sina Kardar 14:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If I remember from the news at the time, they were "Satisfied" with the sentencing. If you take my word for it.81.156.123.153 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's their official low-key response. For their real reaction... well, what's the Persian equivalent of "YEE-HAH!" ? Wahkeenah 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Youth

He was sentenced to death in absentia. Saddam studied law at the Cairo University during his exile.

The first sentence doesn't make sense under the YOUTH category (his death sentence is not part of his youth - unless he was sentenced to death during his youth). It should be place under other categories. If this article is opened again, please try to elaborate on the second sentence because it also doesn't make any sense too - it may/should be part of another paragraph of this category and be explained further. Besciamella 15:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it to mean that the Qassim government sentenced him to death for his participation in the assassination attempt, which happened when Saddam was (officially) 22 years old. If this were referring to the sentence that got him executed this morning, it wouldn't say "in absentia" Nyttend 16:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay.. got your point there.. Maybe if this article is opened again you can place there that the death sentence happened when he was 22 years old making this article more reliable.. ^_^ Thanks for the info.. Besciamella 15:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Youth" section, particularly in the second paragraph, has some extremely inappropriate language that should be changed immediately. The language will be obvious to the reader. There is similarly inappropriate language in the current description of Hussein's death.

Time of Death

I have seen several accounts of Saddam's time of death varying by about 10 minutes. I was wondering what we should use for the official time of death in this article. Also, the time of death at the top of the page is not the same as the one in the Execution section. Also, should we continue to list it as both local time and UTC? Bradkoch2007 15:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There's alot of confusion in the Media. I'm not sure all the facts are in yet. Try to find some reliable sources that state the time. Also, i believe that we should use both times for now. It's important that we tell what time he died at in Iraq, but at the same time, make it clear what time he died at to the rest of the planet (which is why "UTC" is used). dposse 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, does it matter one whit? The verifiable facts are that he's dead and that he died on 30 Dec 2006. The only reliable source for minute details of the event is a grainy, poorly produced cell phone video that lacked any timestamp display. Nothing else is verifiable. I'd suggest taking both times away; they're not relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.181.153 (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

I know it really doesn't matter if we have it down to the minute; we just need to state one time and state it consistently. As I pointed out, the times still differ in the article. We need to state one consistent reliable time throughout the article. I suggest that for the time we state something along the lines of "at approximately 6:00 AM local time (03:00 UTC)" and just go with the round hour as an estimate. Agree or disagree? Bradkoch2007 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The time on the picture says 11:52. Is that the "live" time, from whichever time zone? Or was that the time on a re-broadcast? Wahkeenah 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know that I would worry about getting the time down to the minute. Most would probably feel that stating the date would be enough. Going further, saying 'around' the 'whatever oclock' hour would be fine. Its not like whatever time given was absolute anyway. It was probably just some guy looking at his watch or a programmed camcorder. I'd use local time with the UTC offset. Caper13 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue might be important because of the question someone raised about whether the holiday had officially begun yet or not. What do you know about that subject? Wahkeenah 04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage and family relationships

I would move this section to after 'Rise to power'. This section after 'Youth' somehow disturbs the flow of events. John Hyams 16:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the strictly biographical information needs to be kept separate in a biography section at the top. It's fine. But there were, in this case, family events that were political and these details can be put where they belong in the political account. --weblady 01:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still think otherwise, becuase many events that occured in the 90's are described before the reader can understand how he rose to power. Britannica does on its own article what I suggested (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041630/Saddam-Hussein). John Hyams 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll have to check out how they did it. Thx, John.--weblady 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A.S.

As far as I know, the phrase "Alaihis salam" is used for prophets and Gabriel (Jibreel). It means "peace be upon him". The question is why does Saddam have that at the end of his name in the "Youth" subarticle. I mean, does he even deserve peace after what he has done? Please correct me if I'm wrong

http://islamicweb.com/begin/key_term.htm#P.B.U.H.

Fix it. It's not understood by most readers. --weblady 01:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing {{npov}}

• I'd suggest you all, not feed the troll. (re: above 'dictator' discussion) The guy is clearly enjoying the argument, and not businesslike and level headed on this.
  
     Since there is no consensus or disputed discussion indicating that the article is pov ahead of the tagging, such should be dismissed with contempt. Please stop wasting our time! If you can't list five to ten bulleted or numbered reasons which support your pov that the article is pov (THINGS MORE substansitive than choice of a single word!), please supply a shorter list as things which need adjustment— not disrupt WP (See WP:POINT) with unprofessional biased edits that make us all look bad. Such IN-YOUR_FACE templates must be used cautiously, are always controversial, and demand a list of 'problems' as seen by the tagger. They should not be used to hold good editors hostage to one persons slant on reality. She/he may be biased and unable to judge dispassionately. Any such tagging should be preceded by {{fact}}, {{disputed}} AND such line tags with appropriate discussion... not the shotgun of this insulting over arching tag! Best regards // FrankB 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag is argued above. This article is far too pro US, and if you havent been in on the discusion please check it out before removin g the tag,. IT is bad form to remove an NPOV tag without resoving the dispute, SqueakBox 17:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I did peruse the disordered talk above, and some points were raised and dealt with. To better see where I'm coming from, I invite you to add to the discussion at User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award and make some concrete suggestions as to how to get the message through to people that all such tagging needs a punch list other people can work against to clear such objections.{{I2]}YOUR arguments above were typically POV, and almost irrationally sophomoric and in a word stubborn.

   Since I've challanged you to put up or shut up, kindly ennumerate what is POV now... preferably by first inserting less offensive inline tags in sections or lines which you find off NPOV. You can imbed numbered inline comments in most all tags, and all will ignore extra arguement fields as well, so you can document your objections in one pass, then discuss using your own diff and elaborate for the rest of us; If you don't, your take deserves being treated with contempt, as you are disrespecting the rest of us and the project as a whole.

   I see you in gross violation of WP:POINT and am amazed at your childishness given your user page biography.

This kind of trolling doesnt help resolve anything, so I for one wont take Fabartus seriously any more, and will not be responding further to his comments, SqueakBox 18:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For those into tracking incoherency, User_talk:Fabartus#Your_trolling_my_user_space documents more of my discussion with this POV editor that won't back up his assertions.

   It includes matters he'd rather you not see, apparently, as he's vandalized his own talk to hide them. So they're on the thread given— just in case this is his typical behavior and continues to cruise for an RFC.

   I also put together WP:DT (Wikipedia:Dispute templates) so he could educate himself on adding non-disruptive inline tags instead of 'bombing' articles with unjustified banner tagging against WP:POINT. Happy new year to all! // FrankB 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"lawyers, officials, and a doctor."

Do we know yet if these were Iraqi people or American? dposse 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Probable that there may have been international officials, but was an internal judicial exercise, so could have been all Iraqi. Some of his Lawyers were American ACLU types, iirc, and so likely to have been present. Suggest such minutia can wait while news accounts settle out. The edit trail is getting murky with all the fiddling small changes. // FrankB 17:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraqis. View the videos. --weblady 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reaction from countries

Who cares what all these countries thought of Hussien's execution...that section should be seriously trimmed down. It's cute that someone took the time to create it, with all those nice flags, but do we really to know what Finland or the Republic of Ireland thinks of his death? Scott 110 17:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. This is an encyclopedia, and anyone who reads it and wants to find out the reactions of countries other than the US, Iraq and Great Britian will find the infomation very interesting. dposse 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia and we dont just care what America thinks. Thios is not an American encyclopedia, SqueakBox 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be complete with all the opinions available of every country.. if possible. 67.8.238.211 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not unless the reaction is bigger than the rest of the information. [It isn't.] This article is not about some international treatise on public relations. It's about Sadaam Hussein. Period. --weblady 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott -- You need to calm down, okay? Nomore POV from you. We need to document this, world opinion is crucial to this article. Nuff' said. Crud3w4re 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

POV balanced

The article was under heavy influence from propaganda touting an antiwar agenda. I've tried to restore the balance by pointing out that Iraq was a Soviet ally, not an American ally during the Cold War. I didn't remove a number of claims that I consider to be mendacious, eg the claim that the US supported the Ba'ath party together with the Egyptians since I can't *prove* that its wrong, only that I consider it an extremely unlikely piece of propaganda. Nor did I delete Heller's ridiculous claim that there were no Iraqi troop concentrations in Kuwait.Prezen 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its far too pro western in its outlook, we need more info from the Arab world, that is part oft he poc v problem. Both pro and anti war sourced amterial needs to be in the article to ensure NPOV, SqueakBox 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is not achieved by including POV from both sides.Prezen 12:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your information squekbox, but I can assure you that this article is about as natural as it can possibly be. "Far too pro western" is nothing but an accusation without any factual support. Reading your comment above and this one, I can't help but wonder about your feeling against "the west" or "the US" to be more precise. Please do not edit Wikipedia if you have such strong feeling against any nation or civilization. It will just end up becoming another POV article. Thank you, (Eddie 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Dont tell me not to edit wikipedia, I have more experience than most of the editors here and like with many other bios I am concerned with NPOV. Not only pro Western but pro Bush, SqueakBox 19:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the biography should not represent a pro Western or Arab point of view nor should it be pro war or antiwar. In short, the biography must represent the life of the individual in terms of significant events known to be factual and as distributed proportionally within the constraints of space. In my estimation, the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that were murdered in the wake of Mr. Hussein’s ambitions, regardless of reason or intention, are more significant than any other part of his life. However, those murders are the least represented component within the current version of the biography and thus, the biography is found to be wanting. Veritas 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but howe many lives did he save? With the West encouraging racial divisions I expect we shall see another Rwanda. I think we need motrer Arab sources and more criticism, for instance there has beenm massies of criticism in the press about the fairness of the trial but until I added something a bit back nopne of it surfaced on wikipedia, SqueakBox 19:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How many lives did WHO save? Saddam? Excuse me, but Saddam was a mass murderer. Saddam had people's children raped in front of them to force them to talk. Talking about how many lives "Saddam saved" is an insult to those who were massacred by his criminal regime. Caper13 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear SqueakBox,

Your question above, which argues that Saddam Hussein actually saved more lives than he destroyed, is your apparent opinion and cannot be supported by the facts or any combination and/or extrapolation of facts. Moreover, any such argument is in direct opposition to the United Nations, almost every society in the world, all evidence supplied at trial, and is also an insult to the hundreds of thousands that were murdered by Mr. Hussein. You likewise contend that the West is encouraging racial divisions, thus, you anticipate a Rwanda like situation. However, the West and especially the United States has invested vast treasure and many lives to achieve precisely the opposite and no economic or ideological argument is present that could possibly conclude otherwise. Furthermore, demographics support the fact that the West consist of more racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance than any other society in the history of the world while the United States has promoted the same by many times more so than any other society in history. The simple truth is that the various religious sects within the Arab nations and/or tribes have been slaughtering each other for millennia, long before the West existed, and Saddam Hussein was more of the same but a mass murderer nonetheless and despite your invalid opinions. Veritas 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts, Squeakbox, with references. --weblady 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User 172 rolled back my changes returning the pro-Iraqi bias to the article. I've tried to restore it to a more balanced state.Prezen 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Playing Cards

From the "Escape" section: "they captured the former president's personal secretary Abid Hamid Mahmud, Ace of Diamonds and number 4 after Saddam and his sons Uday and Qusay." Maybe I missed it earlier in the article, but the Ace of Diamonds and number 4 are just thrown in without explanation that I could find. I know what it means, but some day someone will not know. Maybe a short explanation of the playing cards is appropriate? 69.249.18.49 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)kingsley911

• Go ahead. One question: Is al-Sadr in the deck? Wahkeenah 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an educational article and needs to be accessible to an audience. --weblady 01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An explanation of the playing cards situation is easy, it can be described quite readily but not easily explained regarding tbe important side-effects it has.

By changing the situation from 'we need to get these people who you aren't familiar with' to 'this is only a card game you know quite well and by removing more cards we win' much ground is gained by those who want to get those people. The humans are secondary because a card game is much more accessible to the general public.

Instead of humans like us, they are have been reassigned as cards in a deck.

I could rant all night long about the implications of this type of 'game', but it shouldn't be necessary for the Critical Reader.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate tag

How was it possible that the article was locked with an inappropriate tag? An admin should remove it, please!

SqeakBox: The article is NPOV. You have made edits in another article defending another dictator, Fidel Castro. When you write “With the West encouraging racial divisions” this strikes me as paranoia. You say you have a level 5 in Spanish. If that is true you could understand poetry. Here are the words of Octavio Paz, the main debunker in Latin America of stupid anti-West sentiments [P.S. Paz's words have been removed but can be seen in my talk page].

―Cesar Tort 20:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The article isnt locked. As soon as I put the tag on I have tried improving the article for NPOV. The media is far less pro Bush, even the US media, than wikipedia in this case. We need much more critiscism of this anti Saddam line. What about the criticisms of the trial? Of the hanging? Of the invasion? Just a deathly silence. if the article was pro saddam i would fight to get it poved in the other direction. I think is encouraging racial divisions, as the press are saying, the Sunni's see the hanging as a personal attack and racial tensions massacre people ebery day in Iraq. Nice poetry, vaya bien, SqueakBox 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussain's Body Doubles

Just wondering if it would be relevant to have a section in this article dedicated to Saddam’s body doubles? --D.Kurdistani 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links, about Saddam’s doubles
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1076722002
http://www.samsloan.com/saddams.htm
http://www.maddogproductions.com/ds_saddam.htm

Interesting detail if there is room in the article. --weblady 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of trial

There is a huge amount of media coverage of the trial's unfairness. Attempting to censor this in wikipedia is appalling. Where are people coming from? Doers nobody here care about wikipedia, only editors who want to stitch up saddam? SqueakBox 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam was convicted by a legitimate court according to Iraqi law. Thee opinions of some ProSaddam organization is just POV pushing. Are you suggesting that Saddam didnt commit the crimes he was found guilty of? Caper13 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Members of the judging team were all American puppets and you don't have to be a genius to know that. I am not from Iraq and I don't like Arabs but these can't change my opinions about the trial so we don't have to be pro-Saddam to talk about unfairness of his trial. Let me put it this way, Saddam rule caused deaths (like all other rules) but it wasn't the job of America to judge him. Deliogul 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like POV to me. 69.234.201.208 21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

All of you, please, read the template at the top of this page. As for you, Squeakbox, find notable "media coverage of the trial's unfairness" and I will revert anyone who attempts to "censor" it for you.Bduddy 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The trial before the SICT failed to satisfy international fair trial standards. Political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal. The appeal process was obviously conducted in haste and failed to rectify any of the flaws of the first trial.

Amnesty International AndyMcCarthyUK 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The trial satisfied Iraqi law. Those are the standards that are relevant. There is no such thing as a commonly agreed upon set of International Fair Trial Standards. What is put forward as these standards is simply one group's opinions of the way they think things ought to have been done and their view is POV. Saddam was tried for crimes committed in Iraq, by an Iraqi judge under Iraqi law. Though it isnt relevant, while his trial wasnt perfect...and no trial is (which is why that whole argument is a canard...unless the trial was perfect, it is tainted) much of the violence against witnesses which you cite, was committed by groups SUPPORTING Saddam. Iraq is a sovereign state and no outside group has authority over its judicial system to dictate the terms by which a criminal who committed crimes in Iraq, will be tried. Most of the complaints are nitpicking by those seeking to discredit the result.

Caper13 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Iraq is a sovereign state and no outside group has authority over its judicial system". What kind of a dream world you are living in? American and British troops are controlling the area and only Iraqi people who have power in the country are the allies of America (Barzani, Talabani). Deliogul 10:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, that's the way it works. If you don't like it, go to Iraq and become a citizen and vote. Works the same way there as it does here. If you don't like a political party, you make a campaign against them. This is not the place to debate whether or not the Shiites are allies of America. 67.8.238.211 13:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Barzani and Talabani are not Shiite, they are Kurdish. Barzani is the warlord of a powerful Kurdish clan and Talabani is the leader of the Kurdish nationalists. Please, you don't even know who is who! "If you don't like it, go to Iraq and become a citizen and vote" come on what is this! Occupation forces are ruling the country and Iraqi people have no power to say something against it since there is no democracy. Iraq is in, somewhat, a civil war. There are no peace birds and happy people voting for their future. Please come back to reality. Deliogul 13:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you rot in hell with Saddam and the rest of his cronies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.8.238.211 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

He's dead. The trial happened. If you dispute its legitimacy, this is not the place to get into a pi$$ing match about it. Wikipedia is not a forum for your personal opinions. Get references or cool it. --weblady 18:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of references to the US/UK (CPA) decision to try SH (who was a prisoner of war) in a country under occupation and without the wherewithal or history to provide due process. In my view, as time passes this will become more apparent. Here is one such reference:

Court Should Overturn Verdict, Death Penalty "The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven other defendants before the Iraqi High Tribunal for crimes against humanity was marred by so many procedural and substantive flaws that the verdict is unsound, Human Rights Watch said in a 97-page report released today"[19] Judging Dujail, The First Trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal

and another: "The IST is an Instrument of U.S. Policy. It is not Legal, Independent or Impartial" [20]

If you have trouble with the trial this is not the place for your beef session. Saddam Hussein is found guilty, tried and he is dead. This is not an article about the philosophy of law, the legality of courts or politics. It's a biographical article about Saddam Hussein. References and stay on topic PLEASE. --weblady 04:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To 67.8.238.211, I guess you are also from that divine fate believers. You must learn about the region first so you can understand that more than half a million civilian deaths have another reason instead of just being the God's big plan or the divine fate. Deliogul 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be no interest whatsoever in even acknowledging that there has been public criticism of the trial, the amnesty link above has actually been disputed by some editor whose opinion, compared to theirs, doesn't matter one tiny little bit.

This leads me to believe that this page is only going to fall into mindless edit wars until this is old news, when reasonable editors can actually get some work done. In the meantime, as is usual at a time like this, this will always be NPOV. If the people here are not biased, then how can there be no suggestion of cristicism of the trial? Is anyone suggesting that no one has critisised it? You guys do research the subjects you write about? Why has no one suggested the "international reaction to the trial"? or is it not being covered in your papers. 88.105.23.193

NPOV

I cant belive on this article regarding Saddam that it's seen ok for people to type biased reports coming from there own political beliefs. This is supposedly supposed to be a netural report, yet it has rubbish information saying Tony Blair and George Bush are war criminals and should be punished in the hauge for there illegal occupation of Iraq, which of course is totally debatable.

Is this is a unbiased netrual encyclopedia for people to read and learn off, or a propoganda web site for muslims and other people who dispise the Western world to vent there anger on ??

Please whoever is in charge of moderating Wiki, please sort this article out as it's very offensive and not at all eduacational to anybody doing any research on Saddam's life.

Neil Of Cardiff 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Neil, click the edit button and change it yourself. This is a wiki which anyone can edit, so it's possible that there are mistakes. --Majorly (Talk) 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a war criminal is a strange thing because you can't be one before you loose the war. Believe me, Bush would become a war criminal (and directly be hanged) if Iraq would invade America. Saddam was officially the president of Iraq and there is not a divine fate or the justice of democracy in this situation. Deliogul 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you guys talking about? First off Neil, I dont see the section you are refering too, where does it say Bush and Blair are War Criminals? I will gladly erase it like I have erased other non facts w/o citations. And Deliogul? What the heck are you talking about? Iraq invading America? Would the UN approve this liek they did the Iraq war? Plese keep your POV off of Wikipedia -peterp —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

If you had come on 10 mins ago Pete you would of seen the paragraph so dont call me a liar. It was on there as thats why I made this comment, So dont call me a liar as I am not in the habbit of making such things up. Also I am not going to get involved in a political debate with you, this is neither the time or the place. I have just checked the article and thankfully it's been removed so obviously I'm not the only one who though it was wrong to to type such biased garbage. So now I am happy anyway.

Neil Of Cardiff 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Neil, one of the down sides of a wiki is that individuals intent on vandalism or point-of-view pushing can take advantage of the very system that allows us to accumulate a depth of knowledge that makes such good articles. In high traffic articles such as this, such vandalism will not last long (indeed, probably less than a a minute). Thanks for pointing it out, but in future it would be a great help if you could revert such editing yourself. Rockpocket 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Neil, Next time just erase wrong info. At least we are both now happy! Wrong info or non cited info like you pointed out should be removed and I thank you for pointing it out... 66.31.222.89 peterp

Of course Iraq can't invade America! I was just thinking but enough is enough. People come and say he was a dictator. He was one but we don't even call Stalin a dictator here (his dictatorial rule is in the article but his occupation was being the generaly secretary of the communist party) so we must call Saddam the fifth president of Iraq. Also, it is not the legality of something which makes it good. Whatever UN and you people say, entering a country by force and causing the deaths of thousands is no good but whatever. I'm just angry because of that guy who thinks the execution was the divine fate and it was according to the God's plan. Now, this is unrealistic. Not what I wrote... Deliogul 22:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the American attitudes here highly revealing. And highly depressing for the rest of us. The guy with visiopns is [probably a paranoid schizophrenioc and would be well advised to see a doctor...all this stuff does kill people.......every day, SqueakBox 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Theoretically, everything that happens is God's will... including the Republicans getting whomped in the recent American elections. Wahkeenah 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear SqueakBox,

Your question (in POV) above, which argues that Saddam Hussein actually saved more lives than he destroyed, is your apparent opinion and cannot be supported by the facts or any combination and/or extrapolation of facts. Moreover, any such argument is in direct opposition to the United Nations, almost every society in the world, all evidence supplied at trial, and is also an insult to the hundreds of thousands that were murdered by Mr. Hussein. You likewise contend that the West is encouraging racial divisions, thus, you anticipate a Rwanda like situation. However, the West and especially the United States has invested vast treasure and many lives to achieve precisely the opposite and no economic or ideological argument is present that could possibly conclude otherwise. Furthermore, demographics support the fact that the West consist of more racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance than any other society in the history of the world while the United States has promoted the same by many times more so than any other society in history. The simple truth is that the various religious sects within the Arab nations and/or tribes have been slaughtering each other for millennia, long before the West existed, and Saddam Hussein was more of the same but a mass murderer nonetheless and despite your invalid opinions. Veritas 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox: This is a wikipedia. If you have something to add, then get a reference and make it neutral and informative. This is not the place for political bombast and nationalism. Get to the point and provide an acceptable reference. weblady, 6:16, Dec 30, 2006

Peterp, please calm your butt down. In my eyes, Bush and Blair ARE war criminals. And secondly, Iraq had been excluded from the UN before the time the US had attacked him. -- WiiVolve 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is NPOV. Stop making suppositions. If we are going to say that, then the Former Soviet Union leaders are war criminals for attacking Afghanistan.. just because some people die, doesn't make them war criminals. Get over yourself and let's get back to the subject at hand.67.8.238.211 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam's hanging is just another case of a nation's people getting revenge on the guy who oppressed them for many years, as with the French Revolution, Benito Mussolini, the Ceauşescus and so on. In the end, Saddam got what he gave to countless others. Whether it made good strategic sense to overthrow him is another question altogether. Wahkeenah 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is your opinion Wahkeenah. Wikipedia is about facts. --weblady 18:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's why my comments are mostly here rather than in the article. The debate should be done on the talk page rather than through constant reverts and reverts-of-reverts in the article. That's the wikipedia ideal, anyway. Wahkeenah 13:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

conspiracies section

The conspiracies section seems to onnly be about his execution. Perhaps it should be moved to the actuall article about the execution? Ilikefood 22:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The information about the execution should follow the technical details about the outcome of the trial as it was its logical outcome. --weblady 19:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

Some 'clever' person changed 'Saddam' to 'Bush' around in the artice, and I also spotted some nonsense about a sexy general.. 89.10.26.141 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It looks like it's been dealt with. If, however, it hasn't yet, it will soon will be. dposse 22:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

News wire?

As approximately one-third of the introduction is about events that unfolded in the last two months, and as the events of one day are described at roughly the same length as the events of twelve years, extra vigilance is required to ensure that the latest news stories are not given undue weight. Saddam's execution deserves about one sentence in the lead: we do need paragraphs about Saddam's emotions, statements, or appeals in the moments leading up to his death. While such things make for great news stories, they have only a minor place, if any, in ecyclopedic articles. Remember, the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and clearly Saddam's brutal rule, rise to power, and foreign relations comprise a larger chunk of the article than his execution. This article should not become a news wire; that is what Wikinews is for. -- WGee 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Since his death is a recent event, it's logical that wikipedians would want to have that infomation at the top. It's also very logical that the recent events would get more attention, since the Media covered them more closely than the death of a United States President. However, when things cool down, all of the infomation should be placed in the proper sections. Yes, i said all the infomation. While we do have the requirement that this article be NPOV, what he said before he died is relevant. He was, after all, a leader of a country. We do need the infomation about the appeals, his emotions, and his finals words because that's history. If there's one thing that Wikipedia is for, it's for writing about history. dposse 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This always happens in historical accounts, if you've noticed. D-Day was more important than some anonymous Tuesday, for instance. The amount of line space on each item needs to be alotted on an importance basis, such that the most important items to the life of Sadaam Hussein receive the most line space. Sort of obvious, isn't it? --weblady 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro text is getting out of hand

The intro as it stands right now is overlong and turning into a debate. Basically there is too much information that really cannot be made NPOV without going into an indepth discussion. Just look at the second paragraph--it's ridiculous. The intro should give just the plain facts and leave all that controversial debate to the body of the article.

I will try to rewrite the intro into something more like that of Slobodan Milošević, another controversial figure where the intro smartly avoids going into points that are best left to indepth discussion. Notice that article's intro gives adequate context without jumping into things like "He was and remains a popular hero..." followed by a sentence like "However, he is hated by many Iraqis for the murder of their relatives and loved ones..." Just a no-nonsense summary of what happened. KeL 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on that fact that this shouldn't be a debate, but rather a historical account. Editing needed. References required. --weblady 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Trial section also "out of hand"

Is it just me or is the trial section (a) way too long (particularly for a topic about which there is a dedicated sub-article) and (b) very poorly written as it consists entirely of bullet points followed by dates and descriptions of events? Would anyone object if I (or someone else) tried to shorten it to its essentials while leaving the details to the appropriate sub-article? --ElKevbo 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. If you are willing, go ahead and do so. The section should not be a timeline, but rather in parenthetical form. Pepsidrinka 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the rest of his life, the trial space is too long. But I suspect people are recording it disproportionally because it just happened. Needs to be adjusted to its proper place in the whole account. --weblady 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the execution Video (Posted by Investigative Reporter Robert Paisola)

I've made the section much shorter. Please feel free to further edit it as necessary and desirable! --ElKevbo 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Execution

"Film footage has been aired on American television up to the time of the noose being wrapped round his neck, however the full execution can be viewed on the Internet."

We aren't advertising his execution, are we? Someone who reads this will immediately go off to YouTube or Google Videos and look for it. I strongly suggest that we remove the last phrase "...however the full execution can be viewed on the Internet."

-- WiiVolve 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there was video at all isnt even notable. Why do we need to mention it. This is not the evening news. We are writing an encyclopedia article. Caper13 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that there is video is very notable. They made the video for the Iraqi people, to prove to them that he died. That's notable, considering the climate in Iraq. dposse 04:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a difference between the footage on worldwide media, and the leaked cell phone. While I'm sure it's tame compared to other snuff (Not that I would know), this doesn't seem like appropriate material for Wikipedia to be linking to. PlayItBogart 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on what wiki guideline? Wahkeenah 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Caper13 and WiiVolve. It needs to be removed. It's similar to someone on the WW2 page that: ""...however many clips can be viewed on the internet." There's no reaso in saying that. 67.84.46.162 07:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is me, didn't know I was logged out. Crud3w4re 07:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

He went out in style ! Well despite all his murderous deeds & violent acts, he showed exemplary bravery at the end and went out in great style with a load of insults ! <==opinion. This is about facts and references. --weblady 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Crimes

There is almost no mention of the crimes committed under Saddams regime.

Evidence? Also, please sign your entries. The most that can be said is "assumed by some" or in different words, we need more evidence. Crud3w4re 07:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Another section in this thread talks about these events. A list with references is desirable, I think. They are a matter of the historical record. There are many witnesses. --weblady 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Iran/Iraq War section

This section needs to be divided into sub-sections, i.e. heading 4s. The war section is too long, and there must be a pointing to the Kurdish massacre, for which Saddam was executed. Someone is repeatingly deleting these headings. John Hyams 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

John, I restored the headings as the were stable for several years. See the note I posted on your talk page. [21] 172 | Talk 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

John, but we must not conduct POV here. Where's the evidence that he made the order? Yes, he was "convicted", but it is widely seen as a puppet trial. And so we cannot presume that he did it, we can only go on the evidence available. I think that two things should be looked at when it comes to wording:

Is there's enough evidence that Iraq gassed the Kurds? If so, it should be seen as fact. But if there's no real evidence, that has to be noted as well. Also, how is it proved that Saddam ordered it? If he ever ordered anything? So, I don't think it's safe to say he did these things, assume, yes. Crud3w4re 08:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is fairly strong that it happened (is it really contested that it did?) and regardless of whether a connection can be proved or not it was done under his rule so he is responsible for it.Prezen 15:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are photographs and there are witnesses. References are needed, yes. --weblady 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Gas? US backed decision?

I think we should mention something about Saddam's lawyer saying on FNC, in a call-in to Greta Van Susteren, that he alledges the US controlled the trial, and he said that Iran gassed the Kurds [I think] This should atleast be investigated. What's his lawyers name? Crud3w4re 08:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! He died? Last I heard he was going to be executed! Was it an accident? What happened?? 211.223.80.173 08:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Where you bin, boy? They gave him a necktie party last night. True to form, he was defiant to the end, getting in a shouting match with the onlookers. USAToday said he was reciting a prayer as they were giving him the "bad noose", and that his last word was "Muhammad". I suspect they sugar coated that. I'm guessing his last utterance was more like a Donald Duck imitation. Wahkeenah 08:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This statement is uncalled for, this isn't a place for your opinions of the man. Crud3w4re 08:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Somebody farther up the page called Bush and Blair war criminals. Where's your criticism of that statement? Wahkeenah 10:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't Troll, doublytrue because you don't have the talent.

If that's directed to me, I'll take it as a compliment. If it's directed at the other guy, I'll let you and it slug things out. :) Wahkeenah 11:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We are quite aware of the Bush/Blair situation and how history figures out who the war criminals and who are not. Adios, -- That Guy, From That Show! 11:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are. :) Wahkeenah 11:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

References, folks, references. Stop the pi$$ing matches over opinions. --weblady 19:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Who DELETED the section "Execution of political opponents"??

John Hyams 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

People are repeatingly deleting my edits, without any discussion. This article is not neutral, and tries to potray Saddam without the important negative facts about him. Not even one word about his family dictatorship, his $9 billion of personal wealth from Iraq's oil, and many many many many MANY other facts. John Hyams 13:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, John. The article must include the negative information as well as any positive. It must reflect the historical record or it will be worthless. --weblady 19:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of what information is included, but where. My disagreement is John simply concerns the headings. As I said earlier:

I don't understand what you mean by saying "This is part of history, you cannot simply delete this." I assume what you mean by "this" is Saddam's repression of political opponents. Repression under his rule is documented at length in many sections.

Also, your last set of comments on my talk page suggested (I assume) that a chronological organization is a "positive approach towards Saddam." This is not the case because the repression is a key part of the chronology focusing on his consolidation of power and his rule during wartime. All types of repression are covered (as of my most recent reading) in relevant sections, such as the section on the years between the First Gulf War and the 2003 invasion, or in the section covering the years of the war with Iran. 172 | Talk 05:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadhrat Saddam (A.S.)  ??

Why is his name written as Hadhrat Saddam (A.S.) in the youth section?? Lennart.larsen 09:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When someone did a rollback, they reverted back to the version that had all the honorifics in the youth section. Pepsidrinka 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete it. Not understood by the reader without more context than is necessary. Remember, this is supposed to end up being an educational article accessible to a reader. --weblady 19:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation?

can someone help translate this video http://www.alrafdean-news.net/Dec,2006/Shaaaheed_IRAQ_Sdaaam.3gp? might be useful to have it in the article traanscribed or separate but linked --F3rn4nd0 ^{BLA BLA BLA} 14:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

VANDILISM in Article

In beginning of article, there is profanity that I can edit out, because the page is closed to editing. Would someone with the ability to edit this page please remove the part in the beginning about him being a "PIECE OF S***" even though he really is. Unfortunately, it presents a bias point of view, even though it's just saying it like it is...

71.205.110.217 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the article looks like a "Baath party report on the deeds by our Leader", does that mean we should delete it? Bias points of view and all that. 193.95.231.207 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Noting that Saddam was "pwned" is not necessarily vandalism...

While the description was accurate, it was vague, and not precise; "hanged" is a more precise term describing what happened to Saddam, and, besides, not everyone understands leetspeak. That reversion probably should count as one of a good-faith edit, rather than one of vandalism, but a necessary revert all the same. oh yeah, and Saddam suxxed big time oops, personal opinion inserted! 68.36.214.143 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! --Killergon2 01:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Let's act mature about this. --69.67.229.171 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is why Wikipedia is seen as unreliable

This article is a primary example of why Wikipedia is seen as an unreliable or "not a real" encyclopedia. A neutral point of view is not obtained by adding and meshing two extreme positions or really even through consensus. Consensus is a great way to get people to agree to a middle ground for matters of opinion. But an encyclopedia is not meant to be a treaty or a document that reaches a consensus of opinions. Encyclopedias are supposed to present facts without ANY point of view, not with both.

For example, was the most important part of the Iraq-Iran war Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand? Is the most important part of Saddam's trial a state propaganda photo of his execution? Clearly there are political forces at work in this article.

Apparently a lot of people along the line seemed to forget that neutral point of view means a lack of a point of view rather than a balance between positive and negative opinions on a subject. Someone needs to clear this article up, because it is clear politics is at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.28.162 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 December 2006

Agreed, it's a mess. But it's better than it was. --weblady 19:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Who better to fix this article than those who see a problem. See your talk page for more. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to help clean it up, but with many others editing it every day, not sure that task is even possible at this point. Jaskemr 21:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I will help clean it up as well. I was the one who had it sprotected to stop the IP vandalism and POV pushing edits, and I do notice the recent improvement that some good editors have been making to correct the excesses that flowed into the article over the last couple of days. Caper13 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

People shouldn't come here and say extreme things after watching Fox News but I accept that we can't go further than a dog fight. Still, I am a rational man and I'm waiting for constructive ideas. Deliogul 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, puh-lease. You're blowing this way out of proportion. This is a very difficult article to write, and it in no way "is why Wikipedia is seen as unreliable". Wikipedia is only seen as unreliable by idiots who can't see that we use sources for everything we write, and whatever doesn't have sources, is deleted. Everyone is doing the best they can. If you don't like it, how about you come on this talk page and discuss the problems instead of claiming that we are all the problem here? dposse 22:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The video of his murder needs to be deleted everytime. Crud3w4re 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the video of Saddam's lawful execution should not be part of the article, however your description of it as a murder displays a POV problem. Caper13 01:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

But it was. [i]kill intentionally and with premeditation[/i]. You deny that? As the trial is widely scrutinized as a 'dog and pony show', I think 'murder' would be a better word to use? Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what people that support him say. Crud3w4re 01:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because a supporter of Saddam calls it murder, does not make it so. Caper13 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's POV. Crud3w4re

Lol. And your calling it murder is NPOV I suppose. Caper13 05:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By that definition, all capital punishment is murder. That's a fair question to debate, but not on this page. And there is a valid reason to provide access to a video of Saddam's death; namely, to enable those who come to this page to decide for themselves if Saddam was really killed or not. The before-and-after game-playing being done by the official sources leaves the door open to the possibility of the execution having been faked. The cellphone video makes that possibility rather less likely. Wahkeenah 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article reads like it was writted by the Baathist, to commemorate their great leader. THIS is why Wikipedia is considered unreliable. 193.95.231.207 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions and positive contribution! --ElKevbo 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Seriously though, nearly everything that needs adding is already said time and again on this page already. I'm sure I could sum it up with ardent use of copy and paste functions, but that would be rather pointless. 193.95.195.40 12:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Video

I have protected this page because I noticed people kept changing the video references to get hits from Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hqduong (talk • contribs)

The video needs to be translated before it can be distributed. We need to make note that "it is believed" that it's a Shi'te deathsquad that did this, and that US handed him over to Al Sadr's men. How do I know this? On MSNBC they were saying that they were cheering for that "Al Sadr" guy, and he's widely seen as a terrorist. Crud3w4re 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam's last words

Just following up on a topic from the archives about Saddam's last words. My wife is Iraqi and has translated his last words from the video. He was reciting the Islamic "shahada" (confession of faith). He repeated the phrase twice but was unable to complete the second time.

"I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger. I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad ..."

Regards, Kevan

220.233.30.13 23:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we already have that. dposse 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the Sh'ite deathsquad was cheering for Al Sadr, can we add this? Crud3w4re 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it add it, SqueakBox 00:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/hussein/index.html I added it -- This is the source, from CNN. "As a noose was tightened around Hussein's neck, one of the executioners yelled "long live Muqtada al-Sadr," Haddad said, referring to the powerful anti-American Shiite religious leader." Crud3w4re 01:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

According to CBS News, one man cried to Saddam, "Go to hell!" Then, Saddam replied "No, you go to hell!" And Saddam was hanged. --69.67.229.55 09:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand Iraqi Arabic and one of the man said "Go to hell..." but Saddam continued to recite the Shahadah, but was cut off the second time. -- WiiVolve 09:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive

We must not archive live discussions. The NPOV tag is discussed in several sections and as it remains in place the relevant discussions must not be removed, SqueakBox 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think was an attempt to derail discussion. Crud3w4re 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Burial

I have the news that Saddam Hussein's body was buried in his hometown tomb. Here is this link if you want to know more about it, okay? --Angeldeb82 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They're mourning over his murder. Maybe there should be a page for his supporters, beliefs, etc.,? Crud3w4re 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not a murder. He was tried and executed by the legal authorities in Iraq. This is not a place for your political opinions. --weblady 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neither Saddam was a legal ruler, nor the succeeding Government that executed him as it was installed & propped up by external forces. Thus at best it can be called "Jungle Justice" - the strongest makes the laws & punishments & carries them out.

• Strictly speaking, even calling that court a "legal authority" in Iraq is a political opinion of no small contention -- especially in Iraq. The terms "executed" or "killed" are least POV for our purposes. "Tried and executed by the legal authorities" is as opinionated as "murder", only in the opposite direction. 68.219.181.153 10:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

One of his quotes hit me the hardest. I can't remember it, and can't find it on google. It is roughly, "The worst thing is man to forget God's place." It was on during the night of his death, a news report. --69.67.229.171 05:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

2003 invasion section needs major revision

The first paragraph of this section is clearly political, has nothing to do with Saddam himself, and doesn't even start with a complete sentence. Anyone care to rewrite?

66.42.214.188 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)mbburch

Saddam as integral to U.S. policy

This language seems inaccurate:

In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces, and rapidly became the strongman of the government. 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.

While it's true that the U.S. supported any Arab leader opposed to Communism, to say Saddam, in particular, was "integral" is plainly incorrect. For one thing, until the Iranian revolution in 1979, Iran was the United States' primary ally in the region (and Iraq hostile to Iran). It was only after 1979 that Iraq became important to the U.S., and, by that time, Iraq was already part of the Soviet "camp". (As evidence of this, consider that, from the Iran-Iraq War until the present, the bulk of Iraqi military equipment has been Russian and French. By contrast, during the Iran-Iraq War, most Iranian military equipment was American.) In addition, while anti-Communist, the Ba'ath Party (in both Iraq and Syria) has never had strong ties to the U.S., preferring instead the Soviet Union because of the U.S. alliance with Israel. The comparison with Syria is apropos -- the Syrian Ba'athists are also anti-Communist and anti-radical Islamist, but also historically allied with Russia. This pattern is repeated with most Arab nationalist movements. Indeed, until the 1990s, it could be argued that the United States preferred radical Sunni Islam to either Communism or Arab nationalism, as evidenced by its support for the Saud family and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Epstein's Mother 08:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have tried to edit it, but had my changes reverted yesterday. Prezen 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Reverting POV edits by User:SqueakBox

I'm reverting this POV edit by User:SqueakBox: "...in what has been described as "a criminal act of cowardice orchestrated by American overlords..." The citation provided (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6222975.stm) is apparently intended to give the impression of unbiased reporting from the BBC. In fact, the full quote is "Many of the protesters vowed revenge for Saturday's execution, describing it as a criminal act of cowardice orchestrated by American overlords." It's not particularly surprising that Saddam supporters/protesters would say that, and the addition of that quote to the lead appears to be yet another example of ongoing POV edits by this editor. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as a certain small number of Bush supporters keep reverting any NPOV edits from any editor this article will remain dreadfully POV. This is not good for wikipedia's reputation, these people seem tot hink it is an American encyclopeida, with predictably POV consequences. You have already reverted 2 editors who inserted this material, what happened to NPOV and consensus? SqueakBox 17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not, nor have i ever been, a supporter of President Bush. However, your edits are a underhanded attempt to put anti-american POV in this article. All POV is unwanted, no matter where it comes from. That is why Jim Douglas and i have been reverting your edits. If you want to know what NPOV means, then please see WP:NPOV. Thank you. dposse 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviopusly havent read WP:NPOV which states we need both sides of the argument. The article only presents the por American side of the article. All I am interested in is NPOVing it which means both sides get to be presented, SqueakBox 17:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand what the letters "NPOV" stand for? They stand for a Neutral point of view. That's what we need to put here. Just the facts, with no leaning either way. We are writing an encyclopedia here, Squeak. dposse 18:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, this would be a good time for you to re-read WP:NPOV. This last edit, and similar edits of yours in the past, injects into the header of the article a comment that "many observers" (or words to that effect) have observed that the trial was unfair, or other words to that effect. When you provide citations for your edits, they invariably lead to quotes from clearly biased observers, but your lack of attribution in the article masks that fact. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean biased observers? Who isnt biased? Nothing I have aded hasnt surfaced time and again in mainstream westermn sources, including american media such as cnn en espanol, so I am adding mainstream opinions which are being reverted for political reasons. If this article wwas pro saddam I would be adding stuff critical of him, ie I am not pursuing a political agenda. This can not be said for other editors who seem determined only to insertty anti Saddam material in the article anmd delete anything pro him or criotical of the process wherebty he was hung. So many sources say the trial was unfair and only wikipedia wants to iognore this, SqueakBox 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the trial, with attributions, can be found here: Trial of Saddam Hussein#Criticism. Wikipedia doesn't express editorial opinions, even by implication, which, I submit, is what your unattributed comments above do. (By "unattributed", I mean that you injected an unquoted comment into the article, and only by digging through the cited source do you discover the biased source of the original comment). -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Use search and the statements come out very easily, no need for eye strain, SqueakBox 18:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote as presented in this article should stand alone, and should honestly reflect the intention of the original article. The citation is there for backup -- it should not be necessary to read it to understand the quote. As another example, SqueakBox, consider this edit, where you said: "...in a trial many considered fundamentally unfair..." [22]. If you read the cited article, you find the full context of the quote:

Saddam Hussein's trial for crimes against humanity was undermined by so many flaws, including political interference and failures to disclose evidence properly, that his conviction is unsound, the New York-based watchdog Human Rights Watch said today.

The organisation, one of only two independent bodies allowed to attend every session of the trial, also interviewed dozens of judges and lawyers. It concluded the proceedings were "fundamentally unfair".

Attributing this statement as "many believed" violates the WP:WEASEL principle, and implies a widely held belief. Wikipedia policy is that opinions, particularly controversial ones, must be attributed, not simply stated with a vague "many believe....". -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add this to the opening for the sake of NPOV? SqueakBox 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, unless you can clearly demonstrate that it doesn't violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. You can always find someone to justify any given position; the question is whether the article fairly reflects the facts. For the closest comparison, I just looked at Nuremberg Trials. While you can find observers who called the trials unfair victor's justice, that comment doesn't appear in the lead, as it would violate the "undue weight" policy. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet right now it sounds as if this trial is no more controversial than a simple criminal case, eg Harold Shipman, meanwhile we are getting nowhere in terms of removing the POV tag, ie having an NPOV article, SqueakBox 19:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Many think that Saddam Hussein was a Nazi. Do you think that should be included in the article too and that it would create more balance?Prezen 18:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No. First, we're not looking for balance. We're looking for Neutral. Second, that wouldn't help since it's highly doubtful that it's true. dposse 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC) dposse 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so. The policy states "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." and we are failing to do this on this article. NPOV is about presenting all points of view, please dont misunderstand the policy, SqueakBox 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but everything in this article has its place. If you wish to put that the trial was unfair or anything else, put it in Trial of Saddam Hussein#Criticism. Anywhere else, it is unneeded POV and it will be removed. dposse 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Review

For clarity's sake, I'm starting a new section. This is a continuation of the previous section.

SqueakBox, here are the two paragraphs that, in your opinion, violate WP:NPOV:

Saddam tried to build Iraq into a regional power. Under Saddam, Iraq fought Iran (1980–1988) and invaded Kuwait in 1990 leading to the Gulf War in 1991. Suspicion among US and UK government members (in a political climate affected by 9/11) that Saddam was attempting to build weapons of mass destruction ultimately led to his downfall. Saddam's government collapsed as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq led by the United States, and he was captured by American forces on December 13 2003. On November 5 2006, he was convicted of crimes against humanity by the Iraq Special Tribunal and was sentenced to death by hanging.

On December 26, Saddam's appeal was rejected and the death sentence upheld. He was hanged in front of lawyers, officials, and a doctor at approximately 06:00 Baghdad time (03:00 UTC) on December 30, 2006, according to Iraqi television.

Those paragraphs offer no opinions whatsoever -- they simply state the objective facts about what happened.

You have attempted to insert the following parenthetical comments:

• "...in a trial many considered fundamentally unfair..."
• "...in what has been described as "a criminal act of cowardice orchestrated by American overlords..."

In both cases, you are injecting controversial opinions into an article lead that otherwise lacks opinion of any sort. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think these particular parts are ok for the lead. But I was rather surprised that the trial section had very little on the criticism by many usually neutral NGOs about the fairness (or lack of same) of the trial and the verdict. The fact that Sadam was a murderous dictator does in no way imply that we should skim over these details. --Stephan Schulz 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate to mention the criticism of the trial in this article but as the trial has its own article any mention in this article should be very brief. --ElKevbo 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Suspicion among US and UK government members

The statement "Suspicion among US and UK government members (in a political climate affected by 9/11) that Saddam was attempting to build weapons of mass destruction ultimately led to his downfall" grossly distorts the political intentions of the administrations of United States of America and Great Britain. It is a proven fact that George W. Bush and other members of his administration claimed before the UN Security Council that they had evidence (not just suspicions) of the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, which all turned out to be entirely false. If the evidence was intentionally created to justify an attack on a sovereign country (which by the way violates the Geneva Conventions) or if the overstatement of questionable evidence was plain stupidity of some fanatics would need to be investigate by an independent international tribunal. I demand that the words "suspicion among" are immediately replaced with the word "False claims of the" or at least "Claims of the" to be historically correct and to avoid the downplaying of the roles of the US and GB government in a war, that has cost not only the lives of 3000 US soldiers but an estimate amount of over 300.000 Iraqis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.196.168 (talk • contribs).

No. Your "demands" would be entirely POV and unneccasary. The sentence is worded correctly. dposse 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "demands", but I agree with 70* that "suspicions" is problematic. We won't know about the real thoughts of the people involved for a long time, and possibly never will. "Claims", on the other hand, is verifiable and reasonably neutral. --Stephan Schulz 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we better add a section that will state that no foreign intelligence services - notably French, German and Russian ones - ever questioned the intelligence presented. If anything, they confirmed it. Therefore if the evidence was intentionally created, it was done by the Iraqs government, on Saddams orders. POV, I know, but so is the ridiculus writing above. 213.250.63.93 12:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, how quickly people forget about all the trouble Saddam caused. Saddam drew a great deal of suspicion upon himself, and as you say, many governments were convinced he had them. For 12 years he defied UN rules that he had signed off on. The intelligence was faulty as it turns out, and again as you suggest, Saddam himself probably believed he had the WMD's. So the invasion was on false pretenses that Saddam himself encouraged. Countries have the right to defend themselves. I'm guessing Iran shed no tears over Saddam's fall, as he waged war on them for 8 years. Ironically, similar action against Iran may be needed someday. Also, of the several hundred thousand Iraqi deaths, how many were a result of Saddam grabbing every adult male he could find and putting them in the front lines as cannon fodder, as pawns? He was willing to see as many Iraqis die as necessary, in order to stay in power. Both in 1990-91 and in 2003 he grossly misjudged the strength of his adversaries and the lack of strength of his military. His end was inevitable, one way or another. Wahkeenah 12:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that Saddam was an unpleasant dictator out for what he could get, and with little or no regard to the cost to others. But that does not justify the inclusion of unverified speculation and plain wrong claims. It may excuse some of the actions of others, but it does not eliminate them. It's in the nature of intelligence services that they primarily work outside the public eye. And do you have a source that any of these services supported the intelligence about WMDs? As for the rest of your comment: Can you provide some context? What several hundred thousand Iraqi deaths are you talking about? If it is the Lancet studies, I suggest you read them, or at least their abstracts, in full. --Stephan Schulz 13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by recollections of news reports at the time of these events. Saddam has somehow become a sympathic figure, as people have forgotten how murderous his regime was. His one big mistake was invading Kuwait. Until then, he had the US fooled into thinking he was an ally. From that point on, he was a thorn in many countries' sides. There is a tendency for leftists now to claim that the US and UK "lied" about WMD's. I think it's more a case of believing what they wanted to believe. And FYI, I agree with your conclusion that "claims" is a good middle-road position to take. There is no evidence that anyone "lied". If anything, Saddam's own people probably lied to him, to tell him what he wanted to hear. Such is the nature of dictatorships, and often leads to their destruction. Also FYI, I don't think the term "dictator" needs to be in the article, although it does appear in the articles of both Hitler and Stalin, the latter supposedly being a man that Saddam admired, which says a lot by itself. Wahkeenah 13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, valid points - all of them. But the problem here is that we can NEVER know the truth about anything - whether the government indeed knew he was harbouring weapons or not ETC; whether there is a link to al-qaeda ETC. we cannot profess to that, but we can say that the government SAYS or SAID Saddam was harbouring weapons. Here we would not be professing as to whether he did or did not. 'suspicion' connotes some sort of knowledge - the use of the sentence above suggests that governments did not know for sure whether Saddam had weapons or not - BUT, in reality, the governments may have know that he (saddam) in actuality had no WMD because......[insert CIA intelligence reasons here]. You don't know wheter they ACTUALLY 'suspicious'. But we do know that the governments 'said' they were suspicious etc. --ToyotaPanasonic 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw a clip the other day of Cheney saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT" that Iraq has WMD's and thus is a threat to the region. Publicly, it was not "suspicion" it was "certainty". It was also, apparently, incorrect (assuming they weren't transported to Syria or stashed elsewhere). It reminds me of a Will Rogers saying: The trouble isn't what people don't know; it's what they know "for sure" and which ain't so. Wahkeenah 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam "not dictator", judge removed

Excerpts from Associated Press Article "Saddam's defense team to boycott trial" by JAMAL HALABY, September 24, 2006:

"In a sudden move Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki approved a request by the Iraqi High Tribunal, the country's supreme court, to remove the top judge. Abdullah al-Amiri was removed after angering Kurds by declaring 10 days ago that Saddam was 'not a dictator.'"

"He was replaced by Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa, who presided over a turbulent session Wednesday in which he threw the former Iraqi president out of court, and his lawyers stormed out in protest."

Could these details be added to Trial section in summarized form?

Jfrascencio 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a clear evidence which shows the corruption in the trial and therefore should be added to the article. With respect, Deliogul 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's added to the article at all, there can be no mention of this supposed "corruption" that you speak of, Deliogul, since there is no evidence of that at all. All this infomation proves is that the former judge had opinions, and the trial wasn't a smooth one. dposse 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice, here's a link: http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15599093.htm -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This incident is already mentioned very, very briefly in this article. I contend that further details belong in the appropriate article and not this one. --ElKevbo 01:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this: "Midway through the trial, the chief presiding judge was replaced after accusations of bias were leveled." should be changed to "...judge was replaced for stating that Saddam was 'not a dictator'". The latter is more specific and more accurate and gives the reason for his removal. The former is a point of view of one side and ignores the other. Jfrascencio 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Paragraph

The long paragraph that begins "As a sign of his consolidation of power..." appears twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.118.78 (talk • contribs).

Thanks! It was removed about 30 minutes ago. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I figured someone must have moved that paragraph down at some point and forgot to delete the first one, so I got rid of it. A Runyon 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq was not a unified state.

I removed the sentence which said Saddam kept Iraq unified, supported with a quote by an Iraqi Saddam supporter. Rather, this link explains how the Kurdistan Iraq region has been semi-autonomous since the Gulf War: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/02/AR2005090202173_pf.html. After the current invasion, the north of Iraq is its own country in everything but title. Iraqi Kurdistan has its own president: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/07/kurds.reject/index.html (aside from the president of Iraq as a whole, who is also a Kurd). Although Iraq was and remains a technically unified state, the fact is that in practice, the Kurdish region operates independently and largely has since 1991. More precise language is called for, and a more reliable citation than a single quote from a highly biased Sunni sheik. -- Kevin Browning 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone put it back with no comment, so I just removed the editorial citation and put an uncited tag. If anyone can support the claim that Saddam kept Iraq unified, despite the fact that Kurdistan was semi-autonomous since 1991, he can put a valid reference. -- Kevin Browning 07:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A line needs to be drawn before and after 1991, the point at which the UN drew their own lines and began to de facto separate the country into 3 parts. Saddam could be compared to Tito of Yugoslavia, who suppressed the ethnic factions during his 4-decades rule, and once he was gone, it began to crumble. Wahkeenah 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Marshall Tito was known as a Benevolent Father. People honored and adored him. Saddam is much different, so the comparison just isn't there.Brian23 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought Saddam was also a benevolent father, as Stalin unquestionably was. I think the comparison with Tito is very good, the only real difference being saddam fel out with the West and didnt have Soviet backing to help him out, SqueakBox 15:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Int'l coalition.

I added a linked statement about the 2003 invasion being an international effort, albeit led by the U.S., but this was removed. This is an entirely true statement which clarifies the nature of the conflict. Why was this removed? -- Kevin Browning 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one is answering, I will simply put it back. I await feedback from whomever removed the statement. -- Kevin Browning 06:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with your edit. It is factual and NPOV. Caper13 06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I don't understand why that would have been removed. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam was CIA asset against Quasim

In 1959, Richard Sale of UPI reports: "Saddam key in early CIA plot"

link: http://www.upi.com/archive/view.php?archive=1&StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.

More links: http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/for-whom-bell-tolls-top-ten-ways-us.html

Please add it to proper place, I don't want to be part of edit wars.

He is not a popular figure with the majority so don't bother debating adding information of that type.

Sorry, but that's how it goes with articles with unpopular figures, the information will not be allowed.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole also points out that there is conflicting evidence regarding these events. A CIA official claims that CIA was not involved. I have to say that I think the original story is very unlikely since it would've involved cooperation between intelligence agencies that represented opposite sides in the Cold War. The Egyptians were hostile to the US at the time.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/conflicting-accounts-of-cia-and-saddam.html

Was Saddam vicepresident?

I the second paragraf in the beginning of the article it says that Saddam was vicepresident under his cousin, General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr. In the section Government positions held by Saddam Hussein it says Vice-President of the Republic of Iraq 1968 - 1979 but in the section Rise to power it says deputy to the president and Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. This source [23] which the article also has reference to says that Saddam Hussein was the vice-president of Iraq from 1969 to 1979 (not 1968!). In the second paragraf it also write about a controlled conflict between the government and the armed forces but I dont find anything about it another other place in the article.

Anyone here which know what really was Saddams title and role in the time from 1968 to 1979?

Lennart.larsen 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Monopoly

Is it verified that Western oil companies had a monopoly on oil extraction in Iraq prior to 1972. I have access to an admittedly, unreliable source, that claims a Soviet oil company was involved from 1969 and on? Prezen 14:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Soviet oil company? There wasn't a private sector in the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Western monopoly was obvious. You know after WW I, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and lost Iraq, Syria etc. French and British captured those territories (actually created these countries) and they controlled the reserves until Arab nationalists gained the power to rule Iraq. Deliogul 15:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There definitely were Soviet companies in the Soviet economy, state-owned ones. The Soviet oil company was named INO. I'm not contesting dominance of Western oil companies, just asking for a source for monopoly. And the Iraqi nationalists took power in 1958, not 1972. Prezen 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My last post didn't say that Arab nationalist took the power in 1972 :) but never mind. Here is a link for you [24]. Deliogul 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, and you didn't mention the fact that the "Western" oil companies owned the extraction rights prior to WWI either. Anyway the link is not that useful for my purpose, namely to confirm that Soviet oil companies also had extraction rights in 1972. :) Prezen 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A 'Controversy' Section?

Since this topic is filled with all the opposing statements and accounts, in majority created by the differing sources of television and newspapers, would it not be healthy to dedicate a separate "controversy section" to this article?

-Because I think the arguments we have on the discussion boards here on "who's neutral" is first and foremost caused by our sources being in opposition to onanother, and not merely which country and/or interests we hold loyalty onto.

Should we create a controversy section, it should be able to contain all the various versions of how the story goes, i.e U.S intentions and just how fair the man's trial was.

-Ambient 80.202.115.227 17:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is already an article on the Saddam trial. If you have comments on the fairness of the trial, it is more appropriate to put it there. As for the legitimacy of UN Resolution 1441 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, Saddam's biography is not the place to debate it. Caper13 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The trial and invasion sure. Those were mere examples. The issues are of course also those of the man himself which are also in high controversy, as the label for this discussion should suggest. Many articles have a dedicated controversy section. I will still claim the Saddam article should be nominated for one aswell. Ambient 80.202.115.227 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR CONCERN!

The lead paragraph of this article is terrible. It is changing rapidly and at the moment is in total chaos in that fails every aspect set out in WP:LEAD! It should be a summery of ALL the details in the article. frummer 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So exactly what remedies are you proposing? --ElKevbo 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a bash at it but would like input from a native editor, if there is one. frummer 23:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A "native" editor??? --ElKevbo 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive and POV

Please dont archive live discusions. We have a pov tag, we have talk about this tag that is unfinished and to archive said live items is not allowed according to wikipedia policy, SqueakBox 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Time of Death

I noticed the the time of death is inconsistent. In the lead paragraph is says approximately 6:10 whereas in the actual execution article it says 6:06. It seems as though the 6:10 was written earlier and is an approximation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrisch (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 January 2007

Oppression of Turkmen.

This is getting ridiculous. Every time I add something critical of Saddam (and there's a lot to criticize), someone removes it. I added a statement about how he oppressed the Iraq Turkmen, with a link explaining how (he outlawed their language) and it was taken out. I would really like an explanation for why no one in charge here is keeping this article from becoming a tribute to Saddam. I doubt I'll get it, but I'm going to keep editing this article until it's halfway truthful. -- Kevin Browning 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Little or no mention is made of his oppression of the Kurds, Shia's, Turkmen, andother minorities in this article. I realize the importance of trying to be non-biased and try to address some of the good things he did for the country and his Arabs, but some more mention should be made of his bad actions too.. This reads more like a political article if anything. --MercZ 05:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that general claims should be avoided, because they tend to color things certain colors when it is in reality a mixture. Instead of "Oppression of Turkmen", specific instances that can be backed up should be used instead. Valid sources of Saddam outlawing their language would be better than making sweeping generalizations. There are some general claims in the article that do not mention specific instances of why the general conclusion was reached. Jfrascencio 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps reverting and removing valid edits. I put back Shi'a with an apostrophe, like in the Wiki article, added the word Muslim to clarify, and put back Turkmen in repressed groups. Whoever keeps taking out these things, please either explain here or stop. -- Kevin Browning 07:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Style issue: Shia v. Shi'a and using full names on first usage.

To whomever removed these two edits, please talk about it with me here.

1. The preferred usage is Shi'a with the apostrophe. This is the form used in the Wiki article on the sect.

2. When the countries of the United States and United Kingdom are first mentioned, those full titles should be used instead of the abbreviations. This removes any possible uncertainty. -- Kevin Browning 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Headline photo

I would rather suggest substituting the photo on the top of the bibilography with a more appropriate photo for Sadam as a president of Iraq. After all, Sadam was for 30 years a handsome president without a beard, and only ended his life after capture for the last three years in this shape —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.97.254 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 January 2007

Death

Shouldn't his death come after discussing his marriages and family? Obadiaha 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Execution pic

Wha's wrong with you people, dont show his death, this is private and creates more hate in the world and within Iraq of course, what idiot put this video here as direct link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.2.200 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 January 2007

Mr IP address 66.99.2.200- Before you start assuming yourself as the mouth piece of wikipedia, may I remind you that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where information of any kind deemed worthy and reliable can be contributed by people.

If you feel death is something personal or private thing...so are a lot of issues realated to countries, beliefs, sentiments and so on. So please stop making a propaganda out of this. If this is beleieved to be an encylcopedia, then I guess in true sense it has to reflect it. There are umpteen ways of getting links of video of saddam's execution.The links were only given as a part of the guidelines of wikipedia to empahsize on the source of the information contirbuted. - My two cents purush_79 2:28PM.

Saddam's death clearly was anything but private, a very 21st century affair. But I certainly agree that any grim pictures of him or his victims dead needs to be immediately deleted from the article. There are indeed a lot of people who would rather write an anti Saddam article than one which is nheutral and fair and assumes his opponents are no more correct than his supporters, SqueakBox 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The hanging itself is a distraction from the more important issue, which is the atmosphere in which it was done, a fact which is evident from the audio of that cellphone video. It demonstrates that Saddam's enemies, the ones now ruling Iraq, are every bit as barbaric as he was. It does not bode well for the future. Wahkeenah 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does not need photos of his body or of his execution. Neither are encyclopedic and should be rolled back when reinserted. Caper13 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's your opinion, and obviously I do not agree. Wahkeenah 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Our edits collided. I tried to sort them out through formatting. If if is your opinion that the people currently running Iraq are barbaric, that is a case to be made elsewhere. Saddam is dead and the current government of Iraq is no longer relevant to Saddam. This is an encyclopedia we are writing here. Not an article for the Smoking Gun. Caper13 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast there. The atmosphere of his execution may yet influence matters in the current government. Wahkeenah 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"May yet". Wikipedia does not engage in original research or speculation. In any case, what may or may not happen in the future is not pertinent to the article on Saddam Hussein. If it is later found (in the future) that circumstances of his execution DID have an effect on later developments in Iraq, then I might change my mind, but until then...Caper13 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Caper13, using your link.. there is a section that states, "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.". Saddam Hussein hanging photo should be shown.. Wikipedia is not a censoring medium. If people don't like it, then oh well. It needs to be shown. It is encyclopedic just as pornography is encyclopedic. Brian23 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And then you'll go back into the history of this article and add it back, right? Wahkeenah 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the proper thing to do would be to add it afterward once it was documented, notable and verifiable that it did cause the effect you are predicting. Until then...WP:NOT#CBALL Caper13 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rogerini. Wahkeenah 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We should indeed cover the atmosphere of the execution and the reactions etc of the world as to it, and havfing not IMO done so fairly the article has a POV tag on it

Saddam and CIA, wow, is this for real?

No, like I said yesterday, execution is private, mobile phone was not supposed to be there, even dictators deserve silence and respect in their final hours, simple as that, no more no less. It only creates hate and possible violance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.181 (talk • contribs) 16:44, January 4, 2007

Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. dposse 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And it would be quite sad to blame "hate and possible violance [sic]" on this video or Wikipedia having a link to it. It's the actions and events in the video that may raise those emotions, not the video itself. At this point, it's a huge story and should be appropriately documented in this encyclopedia article. "Appropriate" certainly includes respect and forbearance at times but it does not include censorship. --ElKevbo 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IP 66.99.2.200, I don't really see an Encylopedia problem with putting up links or pictures. History will record 'Saddam was executed', and I'm sure this is one of the first historical executions that's not only been widely publicized but has also been recorded and viewed by over 600 000 people in the past week. Heck, maybe they'll start recording political leaders too; when they've grown old when they die in hospital beds, like Ford, or Clinton, or Fidel? What better way to show the children of the next century our heroes and villains, than with a DivX movie of their deaths?

I personally don't think links or pics belong in an Encylopedia, but that's just me. Anybody who wants to see the nitty-gritty will probably end up on youTube whether Wikipedia links them there or not, right? JimmmyThePiep 10:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures smack you in the face, they take away the grade-school niceties, and that's the way it should be. The Mussolini article has a photo of him and his partners in crime hanging by their heels, and that's good also. It all serves an educational purpose. We don't need nannies telling us what we ought to see or not see. Wahkeenah 11:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam's Obituary, NY Times

Needs to be added to External Links section of article. Obituary, NY Times, December 30, 2006 Saddam Hussein, Defiant Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence and Fear, Dies 68.228.70.223 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To be neutral and unbiased, I do not believe it should be included. There is biased misinformation in the article. 69.136.109.146 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an example? I read the whole article, and found it fairly good and neutral. --Stephan Schulz 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Brutal Tyrant"? "Despot Known as Saddam"? Would it be neutral to include an article on for example Sharon with the phrase "Butcher of Beirut" or "Zionist Nazi"? Remember that there are different perspectives. The devil to one person may be a hero on the side of good to another. However, the actual truth is people are just human capable of both the good and the bad. 69.136.109.146 07:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Language Sources

Do we allow foreign language sources to be linked to as citations? Given that this is English Wikipedia, I didnt think so, but thought I'd ask before I rolled them back. Caper13 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's always best to have an English source, but sometimes, certain information is only available in another language. Pepsidrinka 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We do allow foreign language sources, although we prefer equal-quality English ones if they are available. WP:V does not mean everybody has to be able to verify every source personally. For many topics English sources are not available or not of equal quality. --Stephan Schulz 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case though, we are not dealing with some obscure subject. If a source for a well covered topic like this is only available in Russian, (nothing against our friends the Russians), then that is not only a varifiability issue for language reasons, but also an indication that the story or facts contained within might not be true. (not a respected journal, just one guy reporting it, etc). If it was a foreign language source talking about some (to them) local issues, or some arcane subject not widely covered, then I'd be with you, but this isnt the case. Caper13 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

However, there very well may be something reported in Arabic in the Arab press that for one reason or another, the foreign press does/will not translate/report. If something is reported only in Russian about Saddam, then I agree with you, it probably isn't true. Pepsidrinka 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While English is best we cannot merely rely on English sources if we are trying to build an international encyclopedia, otherwise it would just be the encyclopedia of everything in English which is absolutley NOT what the founder Jimbo Wales said, he wanted an encyclopedia of everything that was written in English. IMO we could do with more Arabic sources in this article because it is the pro American anti Arab feel to the article that is (what i perceieve as) the NPOV problem. Something in Russian may not be true but we cannot assume that aboiut soemthing in Arabic, saddam's language, SqueakBox 15:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever references we use, it needs to be verifiable by a vast number of people. Unfortunately or fortunately, English is debatedly the most-well known langugage. I'm not trying to discourage foreign links, but how can we trust a translation? I could say I speak swahili and you would never know if the translation was right or not. That's what I am concerned about.Brian23 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Most languages are known by a "vast number of people" - Arabic is e.g. spoken by about 300 million people natively. If you have any doubt about a translation, find a speaker (e.g. via Category:User_ar or by hiring a professional off-wiki) and have him check it. Verifiability does not mean instant verifiability by everybody all the time. Most readers will e.g. not be able to verify anything about most advanced scientific topics. Learning about computational learning theory is probably harder for many than learning enough Arabic to get a basic understanding of a text. --Stephan Schulz 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen is absolutely right, sources only need to be understood by those capable of understanding them, some of the articles here are completely unintelligible to the layperson but golddust to the student, eg Regular expression. Bit sad if we cant find an Arabic speaker to translate, though, shows how off NPOOCV we are likely to be. I normally stick to Spanish bios but dont speak any Arabic, SqueakBox 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We are meant to assume good faith, saying that a translator may be lying to us is not a reasonable line of argument, as if it is followed then the integrity of all of WIkipedia is brought into question. Plebmonk 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And with a mainstream language like Arabic we should be able to scrape together at least a couple of speakers, there'll be someone who comes along and checks it eventually, SqueakBox 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why don't we write the entire article in Arabic? I mean.. someone will eventually come along and fix it right? It's english wikipedia, not arabic wikipedia. Brian23 14:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...which is why we write it in English. Duh! But, surprise, not all human knowledge is available in English, and so we use non-English sources. All is fine. --Stephan Schulz 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

...SpeakBox stated: "otherwise it would just be the encyclopedia of everything in English which is absolutley NOT what the founder Jimbo Wales said, he wanted an encyclopedia of everything that was written in English". So Jimbo Wales wanted an encyclopedia of everything that was written in English so foreign sources in the English language are in, foreign sources not in the English language out.Brian23 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To solve the contradiction, disambiguate the parse tree: Jimbo Wales said, he wanted an encyclopedia of everything that was written in English. "Written in English" modifies "encyclopedia", not "everything". And that is inexact, too, of course. It describes the English Wikepedia, only. Anyways, the official policy is to allow foreign language sources if no equivalent English sources are available. If you are unhappy with this, take it up at WP:V talk. --Stephan Schulz 16:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that a vast majority of the sources should be English. We should keep the foreign-language sources to a minimum. There are plenty of English-based sources on the article subject. The link you provided even states that since this is English wikipedia, English sources SHOULD be used. Seeing as this is a controversial subject, we should prefer English language over other languages as this article is read by mostly English speaking and capable people. For instance, we can quote Iranian News.. they have an English version. From what I have read, if there is an alternative English translation on the sourced site, use it. Brian23 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with minimizing foreign language sources, but that is a secondary goal. If there are no equivalent English sources, we should use foreign language sources. The lack of an English language source should not exclude any material from Wikipedia, the lack of any reliable source should. Of course, if there is an official translation we can reference, much better. And, axis of evil or not, do you really expect NPOV material on Saddam from an Iranian news source? --Stephan Schulz 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Execution

From wiki/Suddam_Hussein execution section: "to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations across the country". From Anita Chang, an Associated Press writer: "to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations across the country"

Can we please not just copy and paste from Anitas article. This lazy bit of plagiarism was copied then pasted by user User:BiancaOfHell. JayKeaton 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictator Claim Dispute

The claim that Saddam is a dicator is part of a demonizing campaign that began during the 1990s. All presidents of nations that the U.S. has gone to war with were called dictators even if they were democratically elected such as Slobadan Milosevic.

Actually, Iraq was Ruling Council type government under Saddam and power was through this Ruling Council. Saddam did not have absolute power if the members of the Ruling Council opposed him.

I have U.S. based sources from 1988 that always reffered to Saddam as President of Iraq and lists Iraq as a Republic. It is only just before the 1990 war did Saddam become known as a dictator and Iraq began to be considered a dictatorship.

A chief judge in Saddam's trial even stated that "Saddam was not a dictator." 121 I have valid sources for everything I stated above. Jfrascencio 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then provide the sources. The original language in the article was that he was generally considered a dictator, anyway. -- Kevin Browning 07:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a source from a book documenting the year 1988. Since it is a print material, I can not provide a link. Any source from before 1990 will always list Saddam as a president, not a dictator. The last sentence, I provided the source here. I think it could be easily verified that Milosevic was democratically elected. Jfrascencio 23:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Theories are nice. Now it would be interesting if someone could find some evidence that he ever was actually overruled by the "ruling council". Wahkeenah 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause of Death

(I'm not suggesting this go on the front page, but) Has the cause of death been confirmed? Yes, rope was involved, but I mean: was it prolonged strangulation or an instantaneous neck-break? (two common deaths by hanging)

I've been looking around news sites and this hasn't been mentioned anywhere. For a public execution (that was also secretly filmed) of a convicted war-criminal/former president of a country, there doesn't seem to be too many details. I figure the witnesses are supposed to keep quiet, but I still want to figure it out. In no way should this be published, but if anybody knows the answer I'd like to know.

(The film is sort of sketchy, and doesn't really answer this question) JimmmyThePiep 10:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Assuming the cellphone video was unedited (which appears to be the case) it's obvious he was dead within seconds, so it would seem to be the latter cause. However, don't rule out the possibility that he substituted one of his alleged doppelgangers. >:) Wahkeenah 10:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, that would be true. I guess I was just questioning because two minutes into the video the shot gets pretty dark, and then the video sort-of ends on either -part of the execution -or right after. All though, this break-neck execution makes more sense.

Cellphone pics are not exactly high-def. It took a few seconds for the phone holder to "find" Saddam in the picture. He even had trouble "finding" him when he was on the balcony, as the picture wobbles quite a bit until they are just about ready to spring the trapdoor. Once he found Saddam swinging, Saddam was in natural light except for a couple of times when his face was illuminated as someone else took a flash photo. While he's on the balcony you can also see several flashes from picture-taking. Wahkeenah 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(I think the US probably ran a DNA test to make sure it was actually Saddam Hussein. hey, Hussein had doppelgangers too?; I thought it was just Osama bin Laden.)JimmmyThePiep 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't really a doppelganger. Unless he was a complete idiot, as soon as he was close to being hanged he would have said, "I'm not Saddam!" He'd have nothing to lose by revealing that, since they were going to kill him anyway. I doubt Saddam had any true doppelgangers. He might have had subs that looked like him from a distance. But real-life doppelgangers are mostly a figment of fiction writers' imaginations (as in the film Dave). Wahkeenah 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This page either needs monitoring or should be locked for a while

In the past few hours this article has been constantly vandalised. It's rediculous how childish people behave on such articles about men with such low and evil reputation. Now the man is dead just leave it there, and start looking proper to the future, a future for Iraq and the rest of the world. Amlder20 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

People are stupid. That's a fact. There's nothing we can do except to protect our work. dposse 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Birth information

I have a few comments that I hope will be taken into consideration concerning information listed about Saddam Hussein's father and relationship to Imam Al-Kazim: 1/ The name indicated (Abd Al-Majid) of Saddam's father is not a solid fact as it is widely known that Saddam was the ilegitimate son of a premarital relationship between his mother and a person who was later to be called Abd Al-majid.

2/ Saddam is in no way related to Imam Al-Kazim as this only came to surface after the Gulf war of 1991 when Saddam decalred himself to be the descendent of prophet Mohammad and fabricated a false tree showing his descent from the prophet. At the same period he had ordered the true descendents of the prophet to show their family trees or face persecution. This was also at the time when he realized that religion could prolong and enforce his grip over the whole country of Iraq as well as draw support from many parts of the arab world.

3/ It is truely the feeling of being less than others (i.e. being an iligitimate son of a premarital relationship) that forced Saddam to make such a false proclemation of being the descendent of Imam Al-Kazim.

4/ Imam Al-Kazim is the 7th imam for the Shia, and I'm not sure where did that info of him being a sunni imam come from. Yes, he is well respected by both Sunnis and Shias, but he is definetly not considered to be an imam by the sunnis.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.93.225 (talk • contribs)

We need reliable sources to verify your claims. If you want this infomation to be included/taken out, then please give us sources. dposse 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss Changes, List Any Valid Objections

• Under heading Foreign affairs: Add detail that the attack on Osirak occurred during the Iran-Iraq war.

Why is that relevant? It is dated and the attack had nothing to do with the Iran Iraq war. Caper13 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It isn't readily apparent it occured during that war. 2. When two nations are at war, and a third gets involved, the outcome and events of the war can be altered. 3. If it wasn't during that war, Iraq would have gone to war with Israel. Jfrascencio 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be speculation and WP:OR. I would have no problem with adding the specific date that Osirak was destroyed, which would place it in the proper timeframe and which would indirectly identify to anyone that this did happen while the 1980-1988 war was going on, but it is misleading to specificaally link this to the war in particular because it would suggest a specific connection to the war, and none exists other than speculation about why Iraq did not attack Iran. Caper13 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept just including just the date as long it list the month year and day. --Jfrascencio 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Done Caper13 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Add sentence: "Since Iraq was in a war with Iran fighting for its very survival, it did not retaliate for the Israeli action." These are facts: 1. Iraq was in a war with Iran. 2. Iraq was fighting for its survival because Iran was capable of overtaking Iraq. 3. Iraq did not retaliate.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that each of those three statements are true on their own. That doesnt mean that one caused the other. Iraq may not have retaliated against Israel for any number of reasons outside its war with Iran. Your conclusion is WP:ORCaper13 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If Iraq wasn't at war with Iran, and Israel attacked would Iraq not have retaliated? Of course it would have. Iraq was very angery by Israel's actions and wanted to retaliate. Jfrascencio 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know with certainty what Iraq would have done if they hadnt been at war with Iran, and neither do you. Caper13 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Change "Before leaving, Saddam ordered Kuwaiti oil fields set ablaze." to "It was alleged that the Iraqis set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire as they were leaving. It was also alleged that the oil fires were caused by the heavy bombardment during the Gulf War." 1. It was not proven that Saddam ordered it. 2. I have a source, a U.S. marine that states that the bombardment caused the fires. 3. Both claims should be listed. 4. I will include the source.

I'd like to see a source that said that it was the US bombardment that caused all the oil fires in Kuwait. I have not heard that before and if there is proof it should be looked at. Please place the source here so it can be examine it before it goes into the article. Caper13 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently looking for sources, and found a few. I will post them later. Jfrascencio 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"U.S. aircraft had hit two oil tankers there and had also hit. Kuwaiti oil facilities on the shores of the Gulf. President Bush knew that allied bombing was causing many of the fires. In March 1992, Australian oil consultant O.J. Vialls, who maintained contact with U.S. fire­p;fighting teams in the Gulf, wrote that "in a minimum of 66 known cases in Kuwait" allied strikes blew the wellheads off oil wells." Life magazine reported that firefighters found unexploded ordinance from allied bombing "everywhere" while trying to put out the Kuwaiti oil fires." http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/98-12%20WIN/the%20u.s.vssaddam.html

This is just a source I found and do not automatically consider it factual, but should be researched and questioned further. There are other sources but they seem biased. (e.g. Bush is a warcriminal) --Jfrascencio 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Move the section Marriage and family relationship up in the encyclopedia article as it was previously. 1. The events occured before the trial and execution. 2. It is out of place talking about his end and then begin a section about the past concerning his family.

Since there are no objections, I think it should be placed after the Youth heading as it was originally. --Jfrascencio 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to as "originally". I looked through the history, back before last summer, and that section has always been at the bottom of the article. It makes a certain amount of sense to do so, as the article is chronological in nature. The personal life section (marriages) span the enture lifetime of Saddam, so dont fit nicely at the beginning of the article. Additionally, the section is probably the least important of all the sections in the article, so its position as an eplogue to the main article makes a certain amount of sense also. In any case, Its placement at the end is an editing and aesthetic choice, and not grounds for putting a dispute tag on the article itself. Personally, I vote to keep it at the end, where its been for at least the last six months Caper13 08:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• If there are no valid objections or disagreements, then I should be allowed to make those changes. Jfrascencio 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You reinserted the statement about the judge being removed because he said Saddam was not a dictator (as opposed to general perceptions of bias, but your source doesnt work. I looked through the newspaper website you sourced it to and was unable to find the story. Please place a corrected link here so we can examine it. Caper13 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The new link does work, and the story does state that the judge was removed after making a comment, about Saddam not being a dictator, that angered Kurds. That does not mean though that the ONLY reason that judge was removed was because of the dictator comment. Only that, chronologically, the Judge was removed after making that comment. It could have been the statement alone, or it could have been a 'last straw' sort of thing after a series of problems. Your source is not clear on that but your statement suggests it was only the statement that got him removed from the case. Caper13 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The original that he was removed because of "accusations of bias" is not supported by any sources. This phrase should be removed. The incident that led to his removal was stating that Saddam was not a dictator. Jfrascencio 18:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The incident you are referring to with the judge offering his opinion that Saddam was not a dictator happened on Sept 14, but the chief prosecutor called on the judge to step down for bias the day before (Sept 13) complaining that "defendants had been given too much room to threaten witnesses and make political speeches.". If a call for the judge to be removed was made the day before the judge made the dictator comments, then obviously that comment was not be the only item that lead to his removal.[25] Caper13 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it would be changed to "...removed after being accused of being lenient by the chief prosecutor and for stating that Saddam was "not a dictator." And then including your above link. --Jfrascencio 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This bit is a summary of another article (and links to that article) . Further expansion is unnecessary within the Saddam Hussein article. It is enough for this article to simply note that he was replaced after accusations of bias were leveled. The article on the trial of Saddam Hussein can go into more detail. Caper13 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating childhood photograph

This happens to be an interesting shot I've come across, with thanks to Rotten.com. It would certainly make an interesting inclusion in the sub-category for his birth and early life. Here is the picture in question, along with its source. --AWF

Great Article!

The emphasis on childhood and pre-presidential life are very valuable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.156.212 (talk • contribs)

Thank you. dposse 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:Jfrascencio

I have just reverted edits by the above user and warned him for this edit, after looking through previous edits by him, it is clear that he has some issues with this page, and his other edits seam to be biased and against consensus (totally the opposite of what he is trying to say), please can everyone be aware of this, especially with any future edits to the page RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 00:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments are not vandalism and they do not appear in the main article. Commenting is a common practice. Your claims are baseless and I challenge you to list the items you consider vandalism. I want a discussion! Jfrascencio 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read this Wikipedia:Vandalism, before making baseless accusations. Jfrascencio 01:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments within an article are vandilism, heres a couple for you; here and here. You should not add editing comments to the main article, that is what the discussion page is for. Don't forget wikipedia is an encyclodedia, your edits I have shown are unconstructive to a reader, that is vandilism. Large sections have been blanked (as in the second edit I have shown. These need to be discussed on the talk page to gain consensus RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

They have not been blanked. They are still in the article, but within a comment with an explanation (instead of deleted as others have done) as why it should not be displayed to readers but visible to editors or that a source should be provided (visible to editors but not readers). The comments are used to mark locations that need valid sources. No material has been "blanked" from the article. When I say COMMENT, I mean NOTES that are only displayed when editing the page, and are not viewable to readers of the article. There are editing notes (i.e. comments) through out many articles on Wikipedia, especially this one, made by other users.

You accuse me of blanking, when the material is still there. If providing editing notes that are only visible to editors, but not readers, get ready, ...this article is full of them! When you begin editing there's a comment right at the top! Jfrascencio 01:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Right ok ok, I get you now, will strike though all my comments, thanks for explaining that to me :) sorry for being an iniot RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 01:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology and understand how you could have reached your conclusion. It's ok, everybody makes mistakes. Jfrascencio 01:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing Is True Until It Is Proven True

Appealing to authority is UNACCEPTABLE. There are sources that stated that Iraqi soldiers tossed incubater babies in Kuwaiti hospitals on the "cold hospital floor" to die. It was reported and passed along to many media to be broadcasted in the west. Guess what, it was NOT TRUE!

It was a PR campaign by an American PR firm to promote the pending war with Iraq. The truth only came out after the fact and only received brief mention, but it was TOOO LATE and the DAMAGE was ALREADY DONE.

--Jfrascencio 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Wahkeenah 07:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What I mentioned above is officially a lie and nobody disputes it. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/incubatorlie.html

--Jfrascencio 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove it beyond that weblog's agenda. Wahkeenah 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC) But first demonstrate when the "ruling council" ever ruled against Saddam. Wahkeenah 07:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not how it works. I make a claim, it is disputed, and then I provide an argument, sources, and facts to support the claim. What I stated above is backed up by many sources. Simply search "incubator lie". My source presents facts to back up the claim. Such as the girl in the propaganda video is the daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington. This can be verified, by confirming that the girl pictured is actually the daughter of said ambassador.

It is your job to dispute facts presented. What is being disputed? You can't dispute everything. --Jfrascencio 07:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have some vague recollection about some dispute about some this woman's testimony. That has little to do with the 1990-91 war. Saddam invaded Kuwait and the UN threw him back. The collosal blunder of that invasion actually began his road to the gallows. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait, he might still be an ally of the US and still be in power. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to cite where he ever actually was overruled by the so-called "ruling council". Wahkeenah 07:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jfrascencio, according to WP:RS, blogs should not be used as sources. "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." So, unless you can provide a better source than a blog, that infomation cannot be included. dposse 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)