Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 11

US Supplied Chemical Weapons?
From the Wikipedia article... 'Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the twentieth century. During the war, Iraq used US supplied chemical weapons against Iranian forces fighting on the southern front and Kurdish separatists who were attempting to open up a northern front in Iraq with the help of Iran.'

Did the USA really supply him with chemical weapons? What's the source for this? I know it's great fun to bash the USA, but I'd like to see proof of such allegations.

Here is a source about German involvement... http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

Bajama 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Barry Mann


 * I added citation needed tag. This is an uncorroborated fact.Brian23 14:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed US to Western and added a reference. If anyone else has anything to add, feel free.Brian23 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs severe rebuttals and MANY more factual/cited support. There is NO mention of the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, for example. MUCH more to follow....

At the present time, there is much controversy and much disagreement. This article is severely flawed, yes. It will need to be fixed such that it is more neutral, yes. Emphasis on corroborated facts, please. weblady 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mention the Kuwait invasion then give a link to April Gaspie.

There is plenty of evidence that the US supplied him with the chemicals he needed to create "chemical weapons". But then again, maybe the US thought that he needed gas gangrene, botulism and anthrax for some legitimate purpose. Here are just a few links, there are many more to be found:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html  User: Imparcial 08:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Like for using against Iran, for example. Some commentators recently have lamented that Iran wa shelping us depose Saddam and has seemingly turned on us. Sound familiar? Also, keep in mind that there are no ethics when it comes to arms sales. Wahkeenah 09:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gas gangrene is a medical condition, not a weapon. Edison 17:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Items (Will Be Added Incrementally)

 * "Saddam tightly controlled conflict between the government and the armed forces by creating repressive security forces and cementing his own authority over the apparatus of government."


 * Iraq had a constitution 1968 to 2003. Power and authority was given through the constitution. Article 37 of the Iraqi constitution makes the ruling council "the supreme body of the state". According to the constitution: the chairman (Saddam) and vice chairman are answerable to the ruling council. Any member of the ruling council (Saddam included) can be removed and even tried by two-thirds majority vote of the ruling council.


 * If Saddam had authority over the government how was it possible for him to be dismissed easily by 2/3rds majority vote of the ruling council and even impeached according to the constitution?


 * It is disputed because other sources CHALLENGE that claim. Disputed claims and allegation should provide the source of the claim and allegation and it should be challenged and questioned until it is proven or disproven.


 * People claiming to have been married to Saddam. This is only claimed by a few and this claim is only supported by a few. A single source claiming something does not make it true. --Jfrascencio 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of references state this. How many of them do you want? What is the big deal anyway. Of all the things Saddam has done, marrying three wives ain't even on the top 100 of bad. Caper13 07:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The TRUTH is very important. People die and nations are destroyed based on lies.
 * The Sources are they credible? Are the unsubstantiated claims by one person?


 * Where did the tyrant (sic) hide his stolen billions by Barry Wigmore
 * http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=425767&in_page_id=1770


 * Bride of Saddam, Matched Since Childhood by Marth Sherrill on Jan 25, 1991
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/bride012591.htm
 * The above article makes unsubstantiated claims. Saddam's never had a divorce. The above article appears to be a propaganda peice since the first Gulf War.


 * Saddam's billions by Michael Harvey
 * http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,,20999268-5006029,00.html


 * Sources have been presented and now they have to be CHALLENGED, because other souces state that Saddam is STILL married to his FIRST and until proven otherwise ONLY wife.


 * Prove that Saddam has a top 100 list of bad things he did, you're making stuff up. --Jfrascencio 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Name three times when the ruling council overruled Saddam. Or one, even. Wahkeenah 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I have to find records of votes that occured in the ruling council. I do not think this information is available easily in the west. The ruling council according to the constitution vote on many things, including on the decision of going to war and making peace, the budget, ratify treaties and international agreements. Saddam is only one member of the ruling council and his vote is no greater than the vote of any other member on the council. --Jfrascencio 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The Iraqi constitution can say lots of things. If I am not mistaken the East German constitution also allowed people to freely emigrate. That didnt stop the guards from machine gunning people who tried prior to 1990. Consensus (and the prevailaing worldview) is that Saddam was a dictator (as per the dictionary definition of dictator). As a dictator, he could ignore the constitution, or deal harshly with anyone who challenged him on constitutional grounds. If you are trying to make the case that Saddam was a democrat because the constitution was superfiially democratic, you arent going to get very far with that. It is a known fact that Saddam had political rivals executed or tortured.Caper13 07:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if they dared to overrule Saddam on even such matters as the color of the wallpaper in the men's room, let alone any political decision. Wahkeenah 19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Caper13 is correct. Dictators always use constitution as a cover. But their terror is shadowy. But the US also to keep the world market open did so many atrocities in Vietnam and other destination. The US is a role model for world democracy but the CIA did everything behind the scene. DoDoBirds 11:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I presented a source, the Iraqi constitution from 1968 to 2003. This source challenges the claim that Saddam used the army to control the government. That is disputed by another source and the VERY least should cite the source that makes the claim that Saddam used the army. SOURCES should be cited. You make a claim you CITE sources.


 * You're just making assertions without backing them up.


 * You can't just discount the source that CHALLENGES the original claim without presenting the SOURCE for the original claim.
 * --Jfrascencio 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The constitution is not a source for how the government of Iraq actually functioned. Only how it was supposed to function. The Iraqi constition can not challenge other sources that says Saddam used the army to maintain power...it could only be used as a source the he shouldnt have done so. The constitution is a set of rules...not a history of events. It itself could be A source, that Saddam acted unconstitutionally, and in fact his recent trial and guilty finding that sentenced him to death pretty much proved that as president he acted unconstitutionally. If you really want a source cited that Saddam used force to maintain his position, it wont be hard to provide one, but its like asking for a source that the sun is hot. Caper13 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disputed Item: "Soon after becoming deputy to the president, Saddam demanded and received the rank of four-star general despite his lack of military training." This is unsubstantiated and the source is "Sada, George, Saddam's Secret". --Jfrascencio 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a book written by a former Iraqi general. Its only used as a source that Saddam held the rank of 4 star general despite never having served in the military and being refused admission to military academy as a youth. If your problem with the source is that the citation is not fully documented, I will complete the rest of the documentation for the source (publisher, date, etc) Caper13 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody could claim that they were member of something and were at a certain place at a certain time. Could it be believed he is who he says he is. It is still a claim by one person and it was not substantiated by any other sources. This person was never heard of before and only appeared to make various claims such as Iraq having WMDs, since no WMDs were found, his credibility is in question. There are no records for him before 2004. He just appeared out of nowhere. --Jfrascencio 20:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone claimed to be an Army General, and wasnt, and wrote a book about his experiences, I would think there would be legitimate sources that would point out that he lied about being in the Iraqi military. I am not aware of any that do. Assuming he was a General in Iraq, his observations and writings are relevant. Caper13 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. He released his book on January 2006, the government he served in the millitary under was overthrown and aren't available to comment. 2. Many people claim to be someone that they are not. It is appealing to authority. Just because someone says it does not make it true. Especially someone trying to gain credibility by claiming to be someone and being at a certain place at a certain time without proof. --Jfrascencio 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting speculation, but that isnt proof he is lieing. If someone lied about being a general in Saddam's Army, it wouldnt be hard to prove he was lieing and someone would have done it. Its not like nobody knows who the generals were in Iraq. The Iraqi army DID receive a fair amount of attention from foreign sources over the last 20 years. Caper13 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disputed Item: "Saddam repressed movements he deemed threatening to the stability of his rule, particularly those of ethnic or religious groups that sought independence or autonomy, such as Iraq's Shi'a Muslim, Kurdish and Iraqi Turkmen populations." Repressed means to put down by force and intimidation. The claim is too general and sources to specific incidents should be presented to support the general conclusion. The power in Iraq was the ruling council, not Saddam according to the constitution. Any member of the ruling council could threaten his position as Chairman. The ruling council may have tried to quell elements that were trying to overthrow the government. It is the ruling council which has POWER, not the chairman (Saddam). --Jfrascencio 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of argument I will accept that de jure power in Iraq was the ruling council, but the de facto power in Iraq during this period was Saddam due to his control of the military and intelligence apparatus. That the constitution said one thing, and reality was another is not unusual in many countries. If you looked at the Soviet Constitition during the 1940's, it would have indicated that Joseph Stalin was not in control of the government. Stalin and the NKVD would have disagreed and those who made a point of trying to address this were dealt with. See Great Purge. There appears to be little or no evidence that the ruling council ever acted in opposition to Saddam in any matter of significance. So, in fact, Saddam ruled the country as a dictator though his legal position was much weaker. Caper13 19:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. You are assuming the very thing that is to be proven. Begging the question 2. The systems in other countries have no relevance to how the system in Iraq functioned. It does not prove that the Iraqi constitution was not followed. 3. The voting records in the ruling council have to be obtained. What you're arguing is like stating there is no evidence that there is a mouse in that box without even bothering to open the box up. --Jfrascencio 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is full of proof in the form of citations from reputable sources that the Iraqi constitution was not followed. Reality shows that the Iraqi constitution was not followed. Saddam was just found guilty of crimes against the people of Iraq by a legitmately convened court. You have offered no proof that the Iraqi constitution WAS followed...and the existance of the constitution itself does not constitute proof if it the terms were ignored in practice. I have seen no reputable sources offer evidence that The Ruling Council, and not Saddam, was the real power in Iraq, and lots of reputable sources offer evidence that Saddam acted as a dictator. It has been proven that Saddam ruled as a dictator. There is no assuming here...That is reality. Caper13 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. The court was legitimate is your opinion. It could be argued it was not. Iraqi laws have to be thrown out for the court to be legitimate, but this is not the issue at hand. 2. Again you're begging the question. 3. Here is a link that indicates that the constitution was followed http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/981015-in.htm 3. If you have sources, provide them. You have provided none and the original claim in article has provided none. 4. What sources in the article show that the constitution was not followed. Most URLs in article have no relevance to the Iraqi government functions. 5. Remember there is/was a demonization campaign against Saddam and Iraq. Sources connected to the U.S./U.K. government and media are not valid and must be scrutinized. --Jfrascencio 22:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not my opinion. The court was convened by the legitimate democratically elected government of Iraq, under the auspices of the new constitution of Iraq. Most countries around the world diplomatically recognize the current government as the legitimate government of Iraq (The UN), Iran , The United Kingdom , Syria , Jordan , France , Germany, Canada , The Philipines , Japan , The USA (obviously) , Australia , ... Do I need to contnue? The government is legitimate. They have the right to pass laws and convene courts, therefore the court was legitimate under Iraqi law. If you are saying that you won't accept any US or UK media sources because they are biased...(NY Times, CNN, BBC, etc) then I am afraid your position is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Oh, and I read your link, and other than being (sorry...no offense intended) mind numbingly boring (Soviet Coal Mining Production Reports were page turners by comparison), it really doesnt prove anything other than Saddam chaired really boring meetings. It does not prove that Saddam was subservient to the ruling council. All it proved is that he went through the motions of having the meetings now and then. If there wasnt ample evidence that Saddam ruled the country as a dictator you might be able to go somewhere with this, but it just ain't so. Caper13 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of those nations also recognized the previous government of Iraq, so that point is moot. However, this was not the original topic at hand and it diverted to something else. I accept western sources, just that western sources concerning Iraq should be questioned. Why did he bother to follow the constitution then, just for show? Why even bother with that if he had absolute power. He chaired meetings of the RCC because that was the only way he could have got anything done. Those meetings can be chaired by the vice chairman and members of the RCC according to the constitution. A government that does not have the participation of all its citizens and was formed under the occupation of another country is not legitimate in my opinion, but that is just my opinion. --Jfrascencio 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Point isnt moot. At one time, Saddam's government was recognized as the legitimate government of Iraq. Now, the current government is, and as such they have legal authority. I think your question is...Why did Saddam decide to observe some aspects of the constitution and not others? Because he chose to for whatever reasons he had. Perhaps because he enjoyed the process. Perhaps he felt it gave him legitimacy. But there is little doubt that had Saddam wanted to, he could have either had the entire ruling coucil liquidated and replaced with other candidates had they proved troublesome, or he could have eliminated the entire ruling council as an institution itself. Why he chose not to is speculation. I will point out that the current government was selected through a democratic election in which all Iraqi's could participate. Sovereignty was transferred from the occupying forces to this government. During the occupation, Iraq was NOT a soverign state, but the international forces are no longer there as occupiers and there there at the invitation of the sovereign Iraqi government, which could remove the invitation at any time they decide. Just because a government is removed by force and a new one established under the auspices of occupying forces, doesnt make the new government illegitimate. The current governments of Germany and Japan (in which US and allied forces still are present) were formed under the same circumstances after 1945. Caper13 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Subservience to a higher body of power within the executive or judicature is not a determining factor in relation to assessing whether a dictator acts unilaterally; it can simply be that he is popularist, or that his authority is acceded to willingly. Using this same principles, UK Prime Ministers and can be said to be dictatorial as the oversight responsibility has no teeth. Similarly, when Nixon resigned Ford expunged his record. Systems of governance mean that the political system is often convoluted. Neverthelss, it is wrong to use Western models of democracies to adjudge islamic theocracies or ones that implement Islamic fundamentals of law and governance although not strictly Shariah Law (as in Iraq).

The label of dictator is a convenient term and carried with it a connotation which may be useful to an extent but it is incorrect factually; as there was a functioning system of goverenment, electorial and democratic... notwithstanding the fact that he was installed by a CIA backed operation, a ruler of a sovereign nation should be recognised as such,

Avenger786 04:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Avenger786, 9th Jan 2007
 * Tony Blair is not a dictator because if the MP's in the Labour Party voted to remove him tomorrow, he would be gone (and evidence shows that this sort of thing does happen in Britain from time to time), rather than the dissident MP's being rounded up in the middle of the night, taken to the outskirts of town, and shot in the back of the head. Nixon resigned because he would have been removed by a vote of Congress if he hadn't done so. Prima facie evidence he was not a dictator. If Nixon was a dictator he would have either ignored the threat of impeachment and ruled on in defiance of it, or used force against the congress. The term Dictator is a western term, originating in Republican Rome who ruled without oversight and with absolute power (for a set period of time). Today, it describes a ruler who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. Saddam theoretically might have been removed by a vote of the ruling council, however all evidence shows that Saddam used his power to crush any opposition to his rule, and the ruling council was effectively toothless when it came to controlling him and exercised no control. Caper13 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Disputed Item: "However, no conclusive evidence of any kind, linking Saddam and bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization has ever been produced by any US government official. It is the official assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community that contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda over the years did not lead to a collaborative relationship. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was able to find evidence of only one such meeting, as well as evidence of two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has found no other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq." The Senate Committee concluded that while there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda, there was convincing evidence of hostility between the two entities." Not so much disputing the item insomuch as long as it is sourced.  I think this statement is in great need of supporting documentation.  --ThiefCorbin 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, at least we must modify this statement as a claim rather than a corrected fact. Otherwise, it would be the same thing to say al-Qaeda and Saddam worked together just because they were both anti-American. Deliogul 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam's 'son' Ali and dictator dispute
Just to point out that the article states that Saddam has a third son named Ali, from his second wife Samira Shahbandar. I would like to point out that this is very hotly disputed. Saddam's daughter Raghad claims that Saddam has no sons other than Uday and Qusai. She has also suggested that the Ali in question is one of Saddam's grandsons. However, most Iraqis seem to insist on the existence of Saddam's son Ali. Some have suggested Uday deliberately kept Ali's name very low profile because he so resented his father remarrying, to Ali's mother Samira. The British newspaper The Times issue from yesterday, 6/1/07 has a little article on Ali as well. The infamous Iraqi rumour mill has come out with many stories, with my cousin confidently telling me once that he used to drive an old VW Beetle (or 'Brazili' in Iraqi slang) around Baghdad and many others suggesting that he now lives in South-East Asia. To be honest, we dont know the truth but I think the article should have a little bit about this controversy. About the dispute regarding the dictatorial nature of Saddam's regime, well there isnt one. Saddam was by all accounts, autocratic and beyond the law. He by his own account stated several times that 'Saddam is the law' in Iraq. His intolerance of political dissent, even from within his own party, mirrored the actions of several dictators in history, notably Stalin and Hitler. In fact, several journalists have noted the presence of books about Stalin in Saddam's offices and he had many in the Iraqi secret services trained by the Stasi in East Germany. This of course didnt mean Saddam sympathised with Communism, on the contrary, he bitterly opposed it. It would seem he was more interested in Stalin's method of rule than political ideology. Dr. HM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.137.148 (talk • contribs)

"Arabic Standard Time"
I just searched wikipedia, and there seems to be no such thing. Can anyone find out what time zone Iraq is in and add it please? Thanks. dposse 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Iraq is in UTC+3 (UTC+4 Summertime), I hope this helps. AxG   (talk)   (sign here)  21:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant the name of the time zone. Eastern Standard Time is a real time zone that i'm currently in. It has its own article and everything. I just would like some clarity to this. dposse 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if time zones have standard names outside the US and Canada or even if these names are even standard through each particular time zones here. eg..I am not positive that the names here (Atlaantic, Eastern, etc are Official or are just Local dialect. Do people in Brazil and Columbia etc consider themselves in the Eastern or Atlantic, etc time zones or do they have their own local names for them? In any case, I suspect any name for the time zone that contains Moscow and Iraq are localized thingsCaper13 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of localized names, and UTC+3 is apparently called "Arabia (not 'Arabic') Standard Time" in this part of the world. Wahkeenah 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, everyone. dposse 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

honor killings
The article lists "honor killings" as part of Sharia law. This is false. They are a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one. This should be corrected by those who are able to edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.93.93 (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have a source for this? dposse 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Source 1 - Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

“There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing”. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings.

First of all, in order to sanction killing, it must be through a binding verdict issued by an authoritative law court. Individuals themselves have no authority either to judge cases or pass judgments. Therefore, a Muslim should not sanction such killing because doing so will be leading to the rule of the law of the jungle. A civilized society cannot be run by such laws.”

Shedding more light on it, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

“Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93)

The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments.

It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”

Moreover, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, member of the North American Fiqh Council, adds:

“In Islam, there is no place for unjustifiable killing. Even in case of capital punishment, only the government can apply the law through the judicial procedures. No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge.

Honor killing could be a wrong cultural tradition. It is unjust and inhumane action. The murderer of that type deserves punishment.”

Quoted from http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543392

Source 2 - Aside from this the issue is already clarified on another Wikipedia site : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Honor_killing_as_a_cultural_practice_or_religious_practice

"Honor killing is forbidden in Islam.[14] There is no specific mention of the practice in the Qur'an or Hadiths. An honor killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against the woman, and is technically forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Some Islamic religious authorities and Muslims, disagree with extra-legal punishments such as honor killing and prohibit it, since they consider the practice to be a cultural issue."

Avenger786 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Court drops Kurd charges against Saddam
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

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

They killed Saddam, which was the only thing they wanted, so they don't need to find him quilty from another case. After the end of the trial, we can discuss what to do with the decision of the court. Deliogul 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is vaguely similar to the case of Kenneth Lay of Enron, whose conviction was overturned or "vacated", due to the fact that he had died. There's no point in putting someone on trial, or completing their sentencing or appeals process, when they are dead. Wahkeenah 19:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that might have been because he was in the process of appealing it when he died. (Kenneth Lay) Caper13 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wahkeenah 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tapes reveal plan to "exterminate" Kurds.


This is probably nothing new, but i believe that it should be added to the article. Just what part of the article, i leave up to you. dposse 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This should not be added until the tapes, the actual audio is released and available for anybody to listen to them. --Jfrascencio 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? It meets all requirments for adding it to the article. I just placed it here on the talk page because i was unsure of where it should be placed. dposse 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The audio tape must have been in Arabic, because those alleged to be heard on the tapes do no speak English. The tapes have been translated through a translator. Also no information was given about what those tapes are. LABELS have been provided to the tapes. The only thing that can be added is that an audio tape was played and it was LABELED that it was two of the defendants speaking and referring to a LABELED context.
 * It can't be added to the Trial of Saddam Hussein, because it is no longer the trial of Saddam Hussein. The only parts "identified" or LABELED as Hussein. It can only be added as an alleged voice on an alleged tape LABELED as Hussein's is quoted as saying such and such in unkown context. The context of the tapes are unknown. --Jfrascencio 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, we could add a "After the execution" or "After death" section to explain these new developments. It's been done before, like in the Steve Irwin article. And really, all that you just said is your point of view and is completely meaningless. Of course it was in arabic, but so what? The article from CNN lists entire sections of what's said in the tape. We have infomation in this article based on less, so i really don't understand your complaints. dposse 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the tapes are genuine, then they could certainly be used as a source in talking about those incidents and would implicate Saddam and Chemical Ali in the deaths. I wouldnt think it would be too difficult to determine whether the speakers were Saddam and Ali or not, and those details will probably come out over the next few days. Caper13 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your suggestion, a biography ends after a person dies. It is not my point of view, because I am stating facts - you are accepting allegations as facts. Prove that it does not refer to Iranians soldiers, to U.S. soldiers. Prove when those tapes were made. It is a FACT, that the context and when, where, who, what are UNKNOWN. Did you listen to those tapes first hand? --Jfrascencio 22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. I am blogging this from the courtroom in Baghdad as we speak. ;) Yes, the origins of the tapes are currently unknown, but I would expect more information on them to come out soon. I'll ask the prosecutor where he got them if you want. Caper13 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Offhand, I think these recent sources, once verified a little would be better to talk about what happened in Saddam's past (and using them in those sections...Jfrancisco was asking us to expand on the incidents in which Saddam was accused of crimes and extraconstitutionality), rather than as a epilogue to his bio. There is no rule that says a bio has to end at someone's death, but I think its better keeping it in the original context, other than to possibly note the outcome of the other trials in which he was to be prosecuted, but only his co-defendants were pursued (if there are any still unexecuted by the end of all these things...I have a feeling the series of trials will go on for a while)Caper13 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The audio of these tapes should be made public. What are the responses of those who are alleged to be on the tape? --Jfrascencio 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding, Jfrascencio? The biography of someone doesn't just end like that when someone dies. Saddam was a huge figure, and news of him is still happening in the world. Look at Steve Irwin or John Lennon or any United states president. Also, according to WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I do not have to prove the tapes exist beyond anyones paranoid disbelief. dposse 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not paranoia. Any news that occurs is only contributions by independent individuals on history. There are still news articles appearing on events that occured thousands of years ago. The only purpose they serve is either to reWRITE history, make false revisions to history, or provide information that needs to be investigated further.
 * Would you accept an article on the Holocaust from Iran? You forgot this one WP:NPOV. Also, YES, VERIFIABILITY. If you want to include an audio tape as a source, you must provide a source to the actual audio. The trial should be broadcasted in full with no censorship.
 * Do not fear the principles of SCIENCE! Unless you are a promoter of dogma and propaganda. --Jfrascencio 21:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the "verifiability, not truth" means you could include something that could be false or is false, as long as a source is provided to verify that it does have a source. So it could challenged and investigated further to prove that it is false or otherwise with further sources and evidence. --Jfrascencio 21:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me try to paraphrase this policy in a way that might make more sense for our purposes. Unless a controversial item has a verifiable source...it can not be added into Wikipedia (period). The primary requirement for inclusion is not that YOU can prove it is true, but that it has a verifiable source that indicates it is true. That does not mean that the item WILL be added to the article, only that it COULD be. Whether it will be, depends on the consensus of editors. An item that can be proven false will probably not be added to the article even if it has a verifiable source, because it is unlikely that a consensus of editors will allow its insertion. Also, many items with sources may not be added for other reasons besides truth. Notability, BLP issues, etc all can play a factor. Caper13 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rise to power
Article quote: "Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963"

Dispute: It is clear that the CIA, with Israel and the UK backed the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein in the bloody coming to power in 1963.

"In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s Health Alteration Committee, as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.

Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. Almost certainly a gain for our side, Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.

As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.

According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated."

An excerpt from an article by Roger Morris ( Op-Ed ) NEW YORK TIMES Friday March 14th, 2003

Used as a reference in Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Karim_Qassim

Avenger786 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Avenger786, 9th Jan 2007

You should see these as well: ARTICLES ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEINDoDoBirds 09:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Juan Cole points out that there is conflicting evidence regarding these events. A CIA official claims that CIA was not involved. I have to say that I think the original story is very unlikely since it would've involved cooperation between intelligence agencies that represented opposite sides in the Cold War. The Egyptians were hostile to the US at the time. Another point which seems questionable in the above claims is that the Iraqi Kurds were pro-Soviet during this period. http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/conflicting-accounts-of-cia-and-saddam.html Prezen 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Name
I've always wondered why everybody refers to him as "Saddam" (my guess being that people always pick up whatever habits the media establish). Is it not his first name? The article should make this clear. And if it is indeed his first name, I see no reason to use it (as far as I know, no one refers to Bush as "George"). Bender05 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Bender05 10:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they call him "Dubya". Wahkeenah 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in the article. Hussein is NOT Saddam's last name. It is discussed in detail here Caper13 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry I've missed it.
 * No biggie. Its a big article. Caper13 10:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He wanted to be called 'Sa-DAM', with the DAM not sounding like damn but alm. Brian23 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Saddam" is what he liked to be called. It's what Iraqis call him, both his friends and his enemies, so there is no issue of it being derogatory. It is also less confusing, since Hussein is a very common name in the Arab world. A name should, first and foremost, identify an individual, not mindlessly follow a naming convention. Kauffner 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, as is decribed in the link I posted above, they use a different naming convention than we do...actually different doesnt come close to describing it, not compatible with our (western) name styles at all, so trying to pick out a first middle and last name in the way we do, is not possible. Suffice it to say, there 'could' be multiple ways to identify "saddam" and be correct, but calling him Saddam is not derogatory, is in fact probably the closest to being correct, and seems to have been Saddam's preferred choice. Referring to him as Hussein, or Mr. Hussein is probably the most incorrect way to refer to him when it comes to his actual name. Hussein was Saddam's father name and is included in his 'name' to identify his father, so it would be like if we referred to (oh, who is someone where everyone knows his father)...say the actor Mike Douglas (son of Kirk Douglas) and called Mike Douglas "Mr Kirk". Calling Saddam "Mr Hussein", is the equivalent of calling Mike Douglas, Mr. Kirk. Anyone interested in this, should read the story at the link. It is quite interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caper13 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

His father was Hussein Al Majid. He is Saddam Hussein Al Majid. This is the system that they use, so his last name or family name is Al Majid, or simply Majid. --Jfrascencio 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Execution
The cell phone is unverified until is recieves a reference. I am putting back the tag. Also, I seriously doubt that it is necessary to include Saddam's (lengthy) final letter. Please put hide tags on it or I will remove it as an unneeded space consumer. --Iriseyes 22:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Taking up space is not valid justification for removing important content that specifies a reliable source and is the factual written last letter for the person the article is written about. --Jfrascencio 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you really want us to add any one of the many major media references for the video? Or maybe a link to the articles where the person who released it has been arrested for releasing it?
 * I'm all for verifiability but I think you're going too far. --ElKevbo 22:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Got my wires crossed.  Thought you were asking for references for the video itself.  I re-read your edits and they're good ones.  My apologies!  --ElKevbo 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's ok, thank you for taking a second look. I'll find a reference for each sometime this week, unless someone else gets to them before me. (Homework...jeez...) --Iriseyes 03:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Now I know this could turn out to be a hoax, but has anyone seen the footage on www.saddamnotdead.com? If so, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.7.128 (talk • contribs) 19:42, January 10, 2007
 * I've only looked briefly, but I do know there's a link from the Article Execution of Saddam Hussein with a link to him being executed. And let me put it this way: a group of chanting Al Sadr supporters, in the Shiite Iraqi government, created a fake hanging? I'll believe he's alive when I see the Loch Ness Monster, Elvis or Tupac standing around. -Patstuarttalk 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, exactly. I'm not suggesting that anyone should try to bring that point of view over as fact here on Wikipedia, and I know that some controversy is always inevitable. But, interestingly enough and as absurd as it sounds, there is a whole article here on Elvis which documents the possibility that he did not die (in 1977 anyway). So of course we should brand the idea of Saddam still alive as highly unlikely and largely without merit, but lets not pretend that such claims do not exist and that they haven't been circulating like wild fire over the internet.--88.104.87.130 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Our job is not to propigate conspiracy theories, and the "Elvis not dead" one is old hat and not really taken seriously by the general public. Any talk of Saddam not being dead in the main article will have to be removed. Otherwise, in the Bush article, I could write "descended from Xenax in 1983." No proof against it, right? --Iriseyes 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He is dead. We must stop producing fictional ideas. We need to concentrate on the future of the article. With respect, Deliogul 21:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wikipedia is for facts. But I think this section about Saddam's body doubles is definately relevant, since the western media has reported that they do exist many times in the past. Saddam Hussein is a very controversial figure and I believe we can cover many issues concerning his life with a paragraph about them. Then the public can decide whatever they want.--88.104.106.72 12:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Just read the entry of Carper13. World politics is a far more important issue than the products of popular culture and I won't accept such a section to be created. Deliogul 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well,if you take look at Vladimir Putin's article,you will find such a paragraph there.And Kim Jong Il has an entire article about his appearances in popular culture.I don't understand why this would be 'unacademic'.He wasn't portrayed as a comedic character in all of his appearances.Dimts 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I saw some of the jokes about the Korean leader which made me laugh a lot but such products of the popular culture are for fun, not for the people who visit Wikipedia to gain knowledge about their academic thesis' and stuff like that. You can show me many articles as evidence but they won't change my mind. Deliogul 14:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Arguably there could be a separate article, but putting it on this page is questionable. I notice that the Hitler and Stalin pages don't have such sections, although there is separate stuff about Hitler, such as Der Fuehrer's Face. I recall an interviewer talking to William L. Shirer about Hitler, about him seeming to be a "comical" figure. Shirer responded curtly, "There was nothing funny about Hitler." And there is little or nothing funny about Saddam, in reality. Wahkeenah 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously asserting that media and cultural analysis are not legitimate academic fields? --ElKevbo 14:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should only contain Saddam's life. His rule and his affect on the world and on his people. Filling this article with Saddam jokes which are made in various media can destroy the structure (which is already weak) of the article. Deliogul 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A separate article would be fair. It could get fairly large, due to its currency, and putting it in this serious article would be clutter, at least. During the 1990-1991 episode, he was being called "So Damn Insane" by some American comedians. And there were the endless parodies of "the mother of all [insert subject here]" That kind of thing wouldn't really add to this article. While it's true he was demonized by the western press, he did his best to add fuel to that fire. Wahkeenah 14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. The structure of this article and how new material could negatively affect is is definitely a legitimate concern.  I also think that we share a similar notion of what such a section or article should look like.  I do not favor lists of "_subject_ was mentioned in [obscure comic book|movie|television show]" (and not just because they are usually unreferenced).  If there are legitimate scholarly or even well-written and reputable popular press analyses of Saddam's portrayal in popular culture then I think that would a totally valid and very interesting article or section of an existing article.  As Wahkeenah discusses below, how persons are portrayed in popular media can often tell you something about the people and culture those media target, not to mention the obvious things such portrayals tell us about those who control and run the media.  --ElKevbo 20:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea about a separate article.Dimts 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then create it Dimts but please don't touch this specific article about Saddam. Deliogul 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "remove any 'cultural' references from this article"... except for a link to the new article in the "see also" section of this one. However, it occurs to me that the jokes about Saddam are also part of a larger subtext which could be called "Arab bashing". As politically correct as the US pretends to be, such rules tend to relaxed in wartime. Thus we don't see terms like "Huns" and "Japs" used in newspaper headlines, since Germany and Japan are considered allies now. Meanwhile, it has been open season on the subset of middle-east countries that appear to be enemies, beginning with the six-day war of 1967, accelerated by the Iran embassy takeover in 1979 and the Gulf War of 1990-91, and kicked into high gear following 9/11/01. If there already is such an article, maybe the stuff about Saddam would be better placed within its confines. And make no mistake, a lot of this is about the free flow of oil. I saw a facetious bumper sticker awhile back that said, "How did our oil get under their sand?" (That joke kind of flows in both directions). Wahkeenah 15:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a separate article containing this info with a See also link from this article. Caper13 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thant's what we did in the George W. Bush article fiasco. Big edit war, so I created a separate article on the same topic(fictional appearances) and it turned out fine. --Iriseyes 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Dictator
1. A leader who has absolute power.
 * Since Sdam is challenged by the RCC/ruling council he is not a dictator.

2. A leader who is unconstrainted by the law.
 * Since the constitution is the founding law of the land and his powers are defined by said constitution he is not above it. All members have immunity from prosecution, but the members could vote to remove any member of the ruling council including Saddam and even impeach them for wrongdoing. Also, the chief presiding judge in his trial even stated he was not a dictator.

--Jfrascencio 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The chief presiding judge at Saddam's trial for crimes against humanity, offered his opinion, not a finding of fact. Had no more meaning than someone off the street commenting that he was not a dictator. Alternately, there is a mountain of proof Saddam did rule as a dictator. The text of the constitution is meaningless if Saddam routinely ignored it and ruled through the use of force. Caper13 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Excerpts From Iraqi Constitution
Article 38 The Revolutionary Command Council exercises the following competencies by a twothird majority of its members: (a)... (d) Taking a decision concerning the resignation of the President, and Vice-President or any of the Council's members. (e) Relieving any member of the Council's membership. (f) Accusing and prosecuting members of the Revolutionary Command Council, Vice- Presidents, and Ministers.

Article 40 The President of the Revolutionary Command Council, the Vice-President, and the members enjoy full immunity. No measures can be taken against any of them without a priori permission of the Council.

Article 41 (a) The President, the Vice-President, or one third of the members can call a meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council. Meetings held are presided by the President or the Vice-President and are attended by the majority of the members.

Article 45 The President of the Revolutionary Command Council, the Vice-President, and its members, each is responsible before the Council, for violating the Constitution or for breaking the constituencies of the constitutional oath, or for any action or behavior, considered by the Council as disgracing the honor of the responsibility which he assumes.

Excerpts from Iraqi Constitution under Sdam --Jfrascencio 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It means nothing. For example, the Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech. Just their idea of a little joke. Demonstrate that the Iraqi council ever actually overrode Saddam, and then you'll have something to argue against him being a total dictator. Wahkeenah 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been asked to provide evidence that the Revolutionary Command Council has EVER challenged or overruled Saddam and you have failed to do so. The exerpts from the OLD Iraqi constitution are meaningless in the context of what Saddam actually did and the constitutional text is not a source for Saddam's behaviour. Most sources indicate Saddam ruled as a dictator. I am not using biased sources or propaganda pieces, and Wikipedia has never viewed a New York Times obituary as anything other than a Reliable Source WP:RS. Please do not continue to revert reliable sources. Pasting sections of the Iraqi constitution without souces showing that the Revolutionary Command Council did exercise oversight on the President, in the face of countless reliable sources showing him ruling unconstrained by a legislative body, proves nothing on your part. Caper13 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate Romans because they invented the term "dictator" and in ancient times it was a job like any other job. If country was in trouble, they would call you and you would save the country :) In modern understanding, we can't draw a line between the political and the weasel meanings of the world. I think this is the problem between us instead of Saddam's absolute rule. Deliogul 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing weasely about the term nor about its application to Saddam. Wahkeenah 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly the way the term is being used. Dictator to refer to someone who rules with absolute power. There are many ways to become Dictator. Under the Romans, it was sometimes voted on to make someone dictator in terms of emergency, other times a single person made themselves dictator through the use of force. The only weasley thing here is trying to pretend that Saddam did not rule without opposition in the face of every other piece of evidence. Dictator is being used in a strictly NPOV way, to describe the nature of his rule and his relationship to other power structures in Iraq. Caper13 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The term means bloody tyrant in the popular culture which is a subjective thing. Maybe for me killing millions is nothing but for you it can be a massacare. Who decides who is tyrant ann who is not? I think there is a problem in its application to everybody. Deliogul 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See definition of Dictator . None of its definitions are "bloody tyrant". The term 'bloody tyrant' is not being used in this article. We are using the standard dictionary definition of dictator, and its use in this form is NPOV and is backed up by sources. Caper13 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, educated people can understand what do we mean by calling him dictator but others can't, because they don't have any academic understanding at all. For example, there was a show and they were asking people about the next country to attack after Iraq. American people decided it should be Iran or North Korea (which at least have some kind of logic) but they think Iran and North Korea are located in Australia. I know what dictator means and I know Saddam was a good one but what will others think? This is what I'm trying to explain. Deliogul 11:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't be dumbing-down this website to the level of those who think North Korea is in Australia. Surveys have shown that too many Americans can't find their own state on a map, never mind North Korea. However, it's reasonable to assume that many uneducated people around the world would be in the same situation. While it's demonstrably true that there many ignorant people using the internet (although none on this page), it's not appropriate to assume that the readers are idiots and might misinterpret a word. The obvious solution, if you're going to use that term, is to link to it, for possible further enlightenment... as is done with other terms all over wikipedia. Wahkeenah 13:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Suggestion that New York Times is not a reliable source
1. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". WP:V
 * Wikipedia views the New York times as a reliable source. Caper13 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

2. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." [WP:V]
 * A reliable source has been provided. The New York Times, which Wikipedia views as a reliable source.Caper13 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Your source is biased article from a hostile nation to the person the article is about. It is not a third party source.
 * That is not Wikipedia's definition of a third party source.Caper13 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Burden of evidence is on the person adding content. Since I am not the one adding content, the burden of evidence is not with me. However, I am attempting to find records of votes in RCC. I have found a vote about complying with inspectors in 2002/2003 and it was unanimous in RCC, but was rejected in the National Assembly.
 * That is not a case of the assembly overruling Saddam. Caper13 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

5. I challenge the claims in the article you are adding. It is an opinion peice and it is biased.
 * That is your opinion, but Wikipedia did not award you a Veto on what goes into the article.Caper13 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

6. The people who died indirectly from the decisions of the Iraqi government is no more than 500K, and most of that is from a brutal 8 year war with Iran.
 * Oh well, in that case, lets give Saddam a medal. I dont see how this is relavant, and represents only your opinion in any case. Caper13 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

--Jfrascencio 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From above, I gather you are basically rejecting any American or Western sources that refer to Saddam as anything other than as a peaceful democrat dutifully doing the wishes of the National Council. I could go to the trouble of providing some souce from the Middle East or some Muslim nation that also refers to him as a dictator but I assume you will also reject that as being biased against saddam in some way. As I said above, you have not been awarded a veto on this article, and continued reversions based on the concept that American sources are invalid will not only cause you problems with 3RR but also charges of vandalism for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point WP:POINT (the point being that you feel western sources are invalid). Considerable time has been spent addressing your concerns, and some changes were made in an effort at compromise, but there can be no compromise on the issue of American sources being invalid in general when it comes to Saddam. Your's is a position DIRECTLY contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and those policies will be enforced. The New York Times source is valid.Caper13 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I reject sources that are clearly biased and provides information that is false. It is not enough for an article to call a person a name. It must support that conclusion. I could get you a New York Times article that calls democratically elected leaders dictators. Also, your article is clearly biased ("brutal tyrant", "despot known as Saddam", etc.). I am not making a point. You are making a claim and you are failing to provide a neutral third party source that actually supports the claim that "Saddam was unopposed and ruled as a dictator". Your article does not say that anywhere.
 * Show where in Wikipedia it is stated clearly that the New York Times is specifically a valid source (even if states clearly FALSE information and biased).
 * 1. Define what is a third party source to Wikipedia. A third party source is a source is a source independent from the parties involved both hostile and friendly.
 * 2. Show where in wikipedia policy it states that the NYT is a valid source.
 * 3. Again, burden of evidence is not with me. It is with you. Your source does not support "dictator and ruled unopposed", regardless.
 * --Jfrascencio 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh for the love of... NEW YORK TIMES is a reliable source EVEN if you do not like what it is saying on a particular topic.  HOWEVER, you can attack that source with a contradicting reliable source in the text of the article.  Being a RS does not mean being correct on all things, it means being quotable in Whikipedia, which NYT absolutely is.  Please stop disrupting this article to make your WP:POINT BenBurch 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. This specific article by ONE PERSON is biased and contains false information. NYT in general is a valid source, there is a NYT reference in the article that I fully accept. 2. You should reread WP:POINT, because you don't understand it. It is irrelevant here. 3. The NYT article does not support the claim. 4. I am not the one being disruptive and the burden of evidence is not on me. 5. Look up reliable in the dictionary. --Jfrascencio 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is funny stuff. The New York Times is constantly being bashed by the American right wing for being too liberal, for being anti-Bush, for being against the war in Iraq, for being too soft on terrorists, in its editorial policies. If the Times calls Saddam a dictator, despite all that, you can bank on it. Wahkeenah 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Right on, Wahkeenah. I am personally opposed to worshipping the NYT (liberatian over here) but in this case they are right. The two of you need to stop fighting, and Jfrascencio, you ARE being disruptive. --Iriseyes 21:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Roger. :) Wahkeenah 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked him several times to show even one time when the so-called ruling council ever overruled Saddam. He can't or won't. So I have nothing else to say to him. Wahkeenah 21:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I think that a "Depictions in Popular Culture" segment would be of benefit to this articleSologoal 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First see the comments a few sections above under "Appearances in popular culture". Wahkeenah 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Place Evidence It Was Followed Here
1. Demonstrates that the chairman followed the constitution in requesting meetings of the RCC. --Jfrascencio 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

1. You don't go back to first principles for every claim in wikipedia. This is why we have "secondary sources". What you are doing is akin to refusing to accept a biology textbook without accompanying colour photographs of an autopsy.

2. Wiki is an encylopedia, not an academic journal. We record generally accepted theories, not debate new ones. You have been provided with many reputable secondary sources showing that Saddam ruled as a dictator. You are refusing to accept the sources because you believe they are wrong, and so are demanding that we prove our point by reference to primary sources.

Wiki isn't the place for that sort of argument. If you want to change what is generally accepted knowledge you need to write an academic article, not edit wikipedia. Iiago 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) iiago


 * I agree and think this is the main objective of this argument. Since he is generally considered to be a "dictator" even by many reliable sources including the NYT (honestly, if we are going to start debating the veracity of every media we have- even some as austere as the NYT it undermines this entire encyclopedia and we will have nothing), arguing that he is otherwise is basically original research and not the purpose of wikipedia. Trcrev 16:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NYT Article
Place below where specifically in the NYT article it supports the claim that Saddam ruled without opposition and he was not constrained by the law or the constitution and had absolute power according to the definition of dictatorship. --Jfrascencio 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They referred to him a dictator. Do you intend to continue edit warring this even after your block? Caper13 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read up on the logical fallacy appeal to authority. Just because a NYT article written by a propagandist makes a bunch of (false) claims, does not make them true. Such as the following: "one of the most brutal tyrants in recent history", "The despot, known as Saddam, had oppressed Iraq for more than 30 years", and other false nonsense. You have shown that the article does not support what it is claimed to support. --Jfrascencio 06:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He's dead. He's not going to hurt you. You don't have to protect him any more. Wahkeenah 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is Saddam, Bush, or any other leader? They are nothing more than a talking face on a tv screen. As far as I am concerned, these so called leaders do not exist. Just like to the 23 million Iraqis, Saddam was nothing more than an imaginary being as far as they were concerned that did not exist and the Iraqis went on their daily lives worrying about trival mundane things like having enough money to buy food, medicine, or spending time with family. Only less than 1% of Iraqis, actually met Saddam first hand. --Jfrascencio 20:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Though he is a tyrant, the way Bush Administration executed him using the Iraq's puppet Government is worse the Saddam's tyranny.DoDoBirds 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you have preferred they shot him when they found him? Sic semper tyrannis! Wahkeenah 11:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is something else. You are not coming to my point. If he had captured (O.K. They didn't shoot; they are polite to the world in the first phase). But why he should have been tried in the International Court of War Crimes. Why they failed in the second phase to be polite?DoDoBirds 13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument is that his crimes were against the Iraqi people, therefore the Iraqi people should be the ones to try him. Wahkeenah 16:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument sounds well, but do you think the Iraqi people were independent enough taking their own decision.DoDoBirds 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just telling you the official argument, not necessarily fully embracing it. Wahkeenah 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of the world's most influential people are dead. Do we let other people to ruin their legacies just because they are no more physically here? I mean, as I said before, I won't oppose the term dictator anymore but you must be calm and polite. Sometimes a single man can rule better than the coalition of millions but I won’t treat Iraqi people like the way many people treat Saddam’s legacy. I will wait for a while to see how Iraq exercises democracy but honestly I think they don’t have a clue about it. Deliogul 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument there. The question of whether the trial was proper and wise can be debated endlessly, but the stark reality is, as long as he was alive, there was a risk that he could return to power. He's dead, and he can't. And that's the bottom line on this situation. Wahkeenah 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say place spam here. All I got was article calling him a dictator. | western propaganda --Jfrascencio 20:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Escape
Section has a typo

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

Request for Comment
This is a dispute about whether it is acceptable to characterize Saddam Hussein as a dictator and his rule over Iraq as a dictatorship. This is based on the dictionary definition of dictator, which is here and the key passage is a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government and the Wikipedia dictator page here .23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
 * Most reliable sources routinely refer to Saddam Hussein as a dictator, including his New York Times Obituary (available here). This is intended only to comment on the nature of his power within Iraq and not as a judgement on whether it was a good thing, positively or negatively. Some might see the word Dictator having negative connotations, but that does not mean it is POV and innappropriate. As a loose comparison, The descriptor serial killer can have have negative connotations as well, but used purely as a descriptor for someone who has killed multiple people in certain circumstances and who is routinely characterized by WP:RS as such, it is perfectly acceptable to use in an NPOV way when applicable to describe his activities. Referring to someone as a dictator is no more POV than referring to someone else as a "Insert type of leader here". It is just an established descriptor over 2000 years old with a specific meaning. Caper13 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One possible usage that was suggested was to add the following sentence after he is referred to as President of Iraq. ...was the President of Iraq from July 16, 1979, until April 9, 2003. While the country was officially a republic governed by a ruling council, Saddam effectively ruled as a dictator without opposition.. This is just one option, but is intended to suggest the type of usage.Caper13 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Most "reliable" sources before 1990, never referred to Saddam Hussein as a dictator. Do you want to pretend there was no attempt by western media, especially in the U.S. to villify him, to make him this great evil, to justify war? You can't go to war against someone if their leader appeared to be decent or "good" in any way. 2. I requested that you show where in the NYT article, it supports the claim that he was a dictator. Your response: "it called him that". NYT was caught in producing propaganda in another topic, see source above. 3. Dictator classification: leaders that are factual dictators are not referred to as such as long as they're friendly to the west. Democratically elected leaders, such as Chavez and Milosevic are routinely called dictators because they're not supported by the west for whatever reason: socialism, strategic reason, etc. 4. News media are capable of propaganda and have participated in propaganda in the past. Money does influence people to write or broadcast whatever nonsense. If you think the news media can't be influenced, then you're naiive. 5. I reject this specific NYT article because it is clearly biased and contain clearly FALSE information as fact. For starters, Saddam was only president for 24 years, not more than 30. The events surrounding the Halabja incident are FALSE in the NYT article. The NYT article is NOT RELIABLE because it is BIASED and contains FALSE INFORMATION. 6. I challenged you to support that Saddam was a dictator and ruled unopposed. YOU FAILED. 7. I showed how he was not a dictator, based it on the Iraqi constitution at the time, and provided evidence it was followed. You reject the Iraqi constitution and state it was not followed with a simple assertion that is not supported by anything. 8. I presented evidence that the Iraqi constitution was followed and you develop a rationalization that it was all show without anything to back up the assertion. --Jfrascencio 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Defintion of Dictator
 * 1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
 * 2. a ruler who is unconstrained by law
 * I have addressed this above already. 1. The Iraqi constitution limited the amount of power that the chairman and president of Iraq had. For example, Saddam could only select a Vice President, he could not select the members of the National Assembly or the members of the RCC. He could be removed by two-thirds majority vote in the ruling council. 2. The constitution is the founding law of the land and Saddam was constrained by it. 3. Making an assertion that the constitution was not followed without backing it up is not valid. 4. Developing a rationalization such as it was all for show or meeting were chaired because Saddam liked doing it are not valid refutations for a source that shows parts of the constitution being followed. --Jfrascencio 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think it depends on how you intend to use it. The article currently says he was the "President of Iraq"; are you proposing to change that to "dictator of Iraq"? I see nothing wrong with the word "dictaror" being used as it is used in Joseph Stalin.--Rudjek 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the term is hard to understand for simple readers like Americans who think that Iran is located in Australia but then I decided to withdraw my opposition to the term. Saddam was the fifth president of Iraq, at least officially, so his title in the info box will remain. On the other hand, as long as being used correctly and parallel to its meaning, I accept the usage of "dictator" in the article. Deliogul 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My views on this point are similar to user Deliogul; that is, Saddam's title was President, and his methods were dictatorial and can be demonstrated as such within the article. No point in pounding this nail in with a sledgehammer. Wahkeenah 01:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * President is the right term though he was dictatorial. Then we can call George Bush also a dictator, as he hadn't any mandate to scheme things without Congressional degrees in most of the issues of Iraq. Mostly all are his personal or from others on personal level.DoDoBirds 01:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bush is not a dictator. Wahkeenah 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said Bush is a Dictator, but his actions seem like that.DoDoBirds 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the Dictator page. There is no comparison. Wahkeenah 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rudjek. Dictator should be used here in a manner consistent with other articles such as Joseph Stalin. PubliusFL 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rudjek, Deliogul, etc. As I have said before the term should be used carefully so that people do not get the term confused with its colloquial meaning.  I think the suggested edit is acceptable Iiago 09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)iiago

I want to bring something to your attention
A lot of the American sources are misleading. For example the media has totolly lied about Saddam Hussein's last statements and delibertly lied about the video. Ask anyone who speaks proper Arabic about what Saddam Hussein said in the video. CNN has omitted the fact that Saddam Hussein said "Iraq was turned into a [living] Hell." I will let every editor decide for themselves what is rationale, but I want this fact to be noted.

74.101.98.235

DOCUMENTATION OF WESTERN SUPPORT FOR IRAQ WMD PROGRAMS
EVEN AFTER THE IRANIAN GOVT COMPLAINED TO U.N., THE U.S. CONTINUED TO SUPPLY WMD TO IRAQ--RUMSFELD HIMSELF WAS THE ENVOY

COMPANIES PROVIDING WMD SEEDSTOCK ARE LISTED ON THE LAST LINK

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82

Edited by Joyce Battle

February 25, 2003

(See the offical documents showing the US government authorized chemical and biological weapons sales to Iraq, knew about their usage and continued their sales. Rumsfeld met with Sadaam, shook hands with him and assured the continued support of the United States, while at the same time assuring the Iraqi government that no arms would be sold to Iran. The official documents find that Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities came in part from U.S. companies)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm

Declassified Secrets from the U.S.-Iraq Relationship

Saddam a "presentable young man" with "engaging smile," Let's "do business," said British Embassy in 1969.

Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1984 with instructions to improve relations, Despite chemical weapons use and sanctuary for terrorists.

U.S. construction giant Bechtel planned to evade 1988 CW sanctions, Now has biggest AID contract for reconstructing Iraq.

New declassified documents reveal secret U.S.-British-Iraq history; Saddam Hussein Sourcebook published by National Security Archive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/international/middleeast/18CHEM.html?ex=1030248000&en=b0ae2fbb743e693d&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/NYTimesArmitageIraq.htm

August 18, 2002

Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas

By PATRICK E. TYLER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program. (excerpt)

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm

"Between 1985-89, US firms exported Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatam, Brucella melitensis, Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene), Clostridium tetani (tentanus), Escherichia coli, and 'dozens of other pathogenic biological agents,' to Iraq." Iraq's Biological Weapons Program Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey, California —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.7.68.61 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Bombing of restaurant
Ths section "Escape and capture" should include mention of the failed attempts to kill him by bombing. There were reports that he had certainly been killed by the bombing of his palace, then there were reports that he had certainly been killed by the U.S. bombing of a restauirant, the al-Sa'ah, in Baghdad where he was supposedly having a meeting with his sons and aides after the completion of the invasion of Baghdad. See www.prisonplanet.com/smart_bombs_aimed_at_saddam_killed_families.html] and. These reports appeared to just peter out with no followup on how many people who were not Saddam were killed by smartbombs launched at civilian areas. Edison 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The bombs were smart, but Saddam was smarter. For awhile. Wahkeenah 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Name translation
Is the follow statement in the footnote discussion of Saddam's name really necessary? Can it be removed?
 * (in Iraq also a term for a car's bumper).

--Dpr 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Ba'ath or Baath
Which is it?? The article on the Ba'ath/Baath party does state the alternate spelling, but this article alternates between the two.

Request for Comment
This is a dispute about whether it is acceptable to characterize Saddam Hussein as a dictator and his rule over Iraq as a dictatorship. This is based on the dictionary definition of dictator, which is here and the key passage is a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government and the Wikipedia dictator page here .23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
 * Most reliable sources routinely refer to Saddam Hussein as a dictator, including his New York Times Obituary (available here). This is intended only to comment on the nature of his power within Iraq and not as a judgement on whether it was a good thing, positively or negatively. Some might see the word Dictator having negative connotations, but that does not mean it is POV and innappropriate. As a loose comparison, The descriptor serial killer can have have negative connotations as well, but used purely as a descriptor for someone who has killed multiple people in certain circumstances and who is routinely characterized by WP:RS as such, it is perfectly acceptable to use in an NPOV way when applicable to describe his activities. Referring to someone as a dictator is no more POV than referring to someone else as a "Insert type of leader here". It is just an established descriptor over 2000 years old with a specific meaning. Caper13 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One possible usage that was suggested was to add the following sentence after he is referred to as President of Iraq. ...was the President of Iraq from July 16, 1979, until April 9, 2003. While the country was officially a republic governed by a ruling council, Saddam effectively ruled as a dictator without opposition.. This is just one option, but is intended to suggest the type of usage.Caper13 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Most "reliable" sources before 1990, never referred to Saddam Hussein as a dictator. Do you want to pretend there was no attempt by western media, especially in the U.S. to villify him, to make him this great evil, to justify war? You can't go to war against someone if their leader appeared to be decent or "good" in any way. 2. I requested that you show where in the NYT article, it supports the claim that he was a dictator. Your response: "it called him that". NYT was caught in producing propaganda in another topic, see source above. 3. Dictator classification: leaders that are factual dictators are not referred to as such as long as they're friendly to the west. Democratically elected leaders, such as Chavez and Milosevic are routinely called dictators because they're not supported by the west for whatever reason: socialism, strategic reason, etc. 4. News media are capable of propaganda and have participated in propaganda in the past. Money does influence people to write or broadcast whatever nonsense. If you think the news media can't be influenced, then you're naiive. 5. I reject this specific NYT article because it is clearly biased and contain clearly FALSE information as fact. For starters, Saddam was only president for 24 years, not more than 30. The events surrounding the Halabja incident are FALSE in the NYT article. The NYT article is NOT RELIABLE because it is BIASED and contains FALSE INFORMATION. 6. I challenged you to support that Saddam was a dictator and ruled unopposed. YOU FAILED. 7. I showed how he was not a dictator, based it on the Iraqi constitution at the time, and provided evidence it was followed. You reject the Iraqi constitution and state it was not followed with a simple assertion that is not supported by anything. 8. I presented evidence that the Iraqi constitution was followed and you develop a rationalization that it was all show without anything to back up the assertion. --Jfrascencio 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Defintion of Dictator
 * 1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
 * 2. a ruler who is unconstrained by law
 * I have addressed this above already. 1. The Iraqi constitution limited the amount of power that the chairman and president of Iraq had. For example, Saddam could only select a Vice President, he could not select the members of the National Assembly or the members of the RCC. He could be removed by two-thirds majority vote in the ruling council. 2. The constitution is the founding law of the land and Saddam was constrained by it. 3. Making an assertion that the constitution was not followed without backing it up is not valid. 4. Developing a rationalization such as it was all for show or meeting were chaired because Saddam liked doing it are not valid refutations for a source that shows parts of the constitution being followed. --Jfrascencio 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think it depends on how you intend to use it. The article currently says he was the "President of Iraq"; are you proposing to change that to "dictator of Iraq"? I see nothing wrong with the word "dictaror" being used as it is used in Joseph Stalin.--Rudjek 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the term is hard to understand for simple readers like Americans who think that Iran is located in Australia but then I decided to withdraw my opposition to the term. Saddam was the fifth president of Iraq, at least officially, so his title in the info box will remain. On the other hand, as long as being used correctly and parallel to its meaning, I accept the usage of "dictator" in the article. Deliogul 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My views on this point are similar to user Deliogul; that is, Saddam's title was President, and his methods were dictatorial and can be demonstrated as such within the article. No point in pounding this nail in with a sledgehammer. Wahkeenah 01:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * President is the right term though he was dictatorial. Then we can call George Bush also a dictator, as he hadn't any mandate to scheme things without Congressional degrees in most of the issues of Iraq. Mostly all are his personal or from others on personal level.DoDoBirds 01:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bush is not a dictator. Wahkeenah 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said Bush is a Dictator, but his actions seem like that.DoDoBirds 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the Dictator page. There is no comparison. Wahkeenah 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rudjek. Dictator should be used here in a manner consistent with other articles such as Joseph Stalin. PubliusFL 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rudjek, Deliogul, etc. As I have said before the term should be used carefully so that people do not get the term confused with its colloquial meaning.  I think the suggested edit is acceptable Iiago 09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)iiago
 * Agree with Caper13, Rudjek, Deliogul. He was clearly a dictator, whether the NYT thinks so or not. The term should be applied carefully though, as all have mentioned. Also, Jfrascencio's argument was a bit off-putting for the caps and rudenes... --Iriseyes 13:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree that the term "dictator" is acceptable, but should be used carefully (as with Joseph Stalin). I'm sure the official position was that Saddam was a president who had to adhere to this or that Iraqi law.  If we're to split hairs, ok.  Saddam was a president with limited power under Iraqi constitution.  But really, was he?  Maybe I've got a head full of lies and propaganda, but for my part, I'd say Saddam was a dictator.  My perception is that most of the world sees it the same way.  Careful application of the term "dictator", noting the offical position (that was was president) prior to using it, seems most acceptable.  Thernlund (Talk 17:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that the "western definition" changed when he become an enemy of US in the 1990s, as long as he was an ally of the US, he was described as a President. Wikipedia should be careful to not fall in that semantic game. Dentren  |  Ta lk  22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)