Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 13

Dead
Does anyone else feel sad that this guy is no longer with us? I know he was a terrible guy and all that but he was still a human being and no person deserves capital punishment. I guess the only reason I say this is because he has very little to no sympathizers. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.70.12 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawyers shot
During the course of the trial, seven of the people who worked as lawyers for Saddam were shot. Four of them were killed. This should be worth a mention in the article, since it's blatant proof for biased circus, whereas none of the lawyers for prosecution were threatened or harmed in any way. For the sake of history. Jei (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this curious and shocking info.84.51.86.42 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chair
Hey in regards to the picture of Saddam sitting on a chair; the chair is referred to as a throne. It is not a throne, but rather a chair. By calling the chair a throne this article is misrepresenting Saddam as a monarchist.

In regard to the Iran-Iraq War the article asserts, "The pretext for hostilities with Iran was this territorial dispute, but the war was more likely an attempt by Saddam, supported by both the United States and the Soviet Union, to have Iraq form a bulwark against the expansion of radical Iranian-style revolution." No evidence for this assertion is cited and, so far as I know, none exists. It should be labled as an unsupported speculation rather than presented as fact. Will O&#39;Neil 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

where is the discussion old pages? there should be imho. I mind the unsupported remark in the sub : modernisation, about 'carrot and stick ' tactics. There is no doubt at all political manouvre consists of carrot and stick tactics, but this small chapter only mentions carrots, so it seems a bit on the look for nasty things to say about S. where there are not..(prejudiced or partial in effect)77.248.56.242 11:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Conventional wisdom says that both of those rationales have since been discredited by U.S. intelligence agencies for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, though at least 800 WMD shells (according to Newsweek) were found and hundreds of members of Saddam's inner circle and regime have been found in cooperation with al-Qaeda since 2002 (see [www.regimeofterror.com])[citation needed]."

Why is this here? Tcaudilllg 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Who is "regimeofterror.com"? How is this a credible account of the WMD issue? I charge bias. Tcaudilllg 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even my grandmother has such old fashion chairs and she isn't a Queen :) Deliogul 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I organised this under a heading for simplicity's sake, hope that is okay. SGGH speak! 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps someone else called it a throne, and I concurred (it's certainly looks golden and luxurious) - sorry, I don't remember any more. 172 removed the picture of Saddam sitting on it from the "Secular leadership" section of the page rather than move the picture to the appropriate place, and then did not answer this question.  I would be pleased to reupload the picture with "sitting on a golden chair" or similar replacing "on his throne", if only we could find the right place in the article, whether that be "Secular leadership" or another section.  I got the picture from http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/gifs/saddam.jpg, as displayed by Saddam Hussein.  It or a similar picture may have been using Template:PD-Old regime Iraq - I don't remember.  What suggestions do you have as to what name to use for the picture and where in the article to place it?  Thanks!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 06:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the overwhelming response, I restored it in this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeff, where is your WP:RS that asserts the caption of the image? I checked this and the caption does not mention the date the picture was taken in. Imad marie (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I based the date on the flag's use and the fall of Baghdad. Per Flag of Iraq, the pictured flag was used starting on 13 January 1991.  Per Saddam Hussein, Baghdad fell on April 9 2003.  I harmonized the date formats.  I don't think it's reasonable to assume the picture was taken much before 13 January 1991 (perhaps a few days earlier as a publicity shot for the flag in anticipation of the Gulf War), and I don't think it's reasonable to assume he had sufficient resources, good health, and black hair to have it taken after the fall of Baghdad.  I regret that I haven't had the time to research the dates in more detail.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 10:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeff, first you need to find the RS that asserts the information. Second, the caption has to go along with the context its being put in. Saying: "A smiling Saddam Hussein sitting easily on a golden chair " is definitely not related to the context of "Gulf war" it's being put in. Imad marie (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "Saddam Hussein with his flag of Iraq that flew during the Gulf War"?   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 10:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I believe it's also worth mentioning that Saddam changed the flag during the war. Imad marie (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed how? Got a WP:RS?    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 11:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a fact, do we need a reference? anyway it is cited in the same references you have provided. Imad marie (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought he changed the flag before the start of the Gulf War, based on the language "an attempt to garner support from the Islamic world in the period immediately preceding the first Gulf War" at, but now I see that you're right, he changed it on 13 January 1991, five months and 11 days into a war that started 2 August 1990. Thanks for the clarification!    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for the iraq war
"The rationale for the Iraq War the U.S. gave was because of failure to abide the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, an alleged Iraqi weapons programs, and supposed links to al-Qaeda. Pre-invasion intelligence from both the U.S. & British intelligence services reportedly validated these concerns. Conflicting reports have subsequently been produced regarding these pre-invasion studies by U.S. intelligence agencies regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, though at least 800 WMD shells (according to Newsweek) were found and hundreds of members of Saddam's inner circle and regime have been found in cooperation with al-Qaeda since 2002 (see [www.regimeofterror.com])[citation needed]." Since when does wikipedia accept a personal opinion citing a personal blog as proof? Its a little embarrassing that this slipped into a semi-protected article.
 * I can't find this that you refer to in the article anymore, but if it still exists please message me and I'll removing anything uncited or poorly cited that I find. SGGH speak! 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

British Tabloid and Saddam
Why was this paragraph removed: "A British tabloid named The Sun posted a picture of Saddam wearing white briefs on the front cover of a newspaper. Other photographs inside the paper show Saddam washing his trousers, shuffling, and sleeping. The United States Government stated that it considers the release of the pictures a violation of the Geneva Convention, and that it would investigate the photos ." ?

This is a clearly notable incident since it caused a major controversy regarding who released the pictures and how well Saddam was treated in prison.

More likely how poorly he was treated in prison. One must check the logs to see that this page has probably been edited many times by American Government stooges70.19.23.83 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no article about Saddam's incarceration, so I do not see why this should not be included. WhisperToMe 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

MisInfromations
There are clear spots of Information and knowledge mishandling in some parts of this article outlined below, Could someone please correct them:

A.In section Iran Iraq War Its written " Iraq and Iran entered into open warfare on September 22, 1980. " CLARIFICATION: It is completely wrong, the truth is Iraq ATTACKED Iran on that date. REF Final Ruling. B.In section Iran Iraq War Its Written "Iraq quickly found itself bogged down in one of the longest and most destructive wars of attrition of the twentieth century, with atrocities committed on both sides" CLARIFICATION: The sentence implies that if it was the fault of Iran that Iraq was bogged down in a war of attrition which is completely laughable as Iran was only defending its territorial integrity and Iraq was the agressor party responsible for the whole fiasco and humanitarian disaster which had been caused by it. Furthermore absolutley NO source is cited for the last part of the sentence regarding atrocities comitted by Iran though Iraq is well known for its atrocities under Saddam. Please Cite sources for atrocities comitted by Iran or Clear the sentence. C.In section Iran Iraq War Its written (Halabja Massacre)" Dissenting opinions dispute the numbers and have said the incident was actually a battle in the Iran–Iraq war where chemical weapons were used on both sides and a significant portion of the fatalities were caused by the Iranian weapons." CLARIFICATION: Another attempt to make Saddam alittle more benign has been made by making the anouncement that Iran had used the chemical weapons against unarmed civilians which is not true and to say the least is an attempted black propagada on a hijacked issue on this website which again needs and I have to say this again needs to cite its authentic sources. Iran never used chemical or biological weapons against Iraq or anyone else in fact it was Iranian Media which covered this atrocity comitted by Iraqis as alittle research would elaborate. If it was not for Iran the world would have never known about Halabja and all the civilans murdered by WMDs provided and financed by USA and European countries. No American and European media covered the event as their respective Gov. were neck deep in the atrocity along with Saddam. These same media outlets with the help of their respective Gov.s tried to put blame on Iran but were unsuccessful as UN investigation clarified matter. REF: 1.See items 6, 7, and 8 of the UN Secretary General's report to the UN Security Council on Dec 9, 1991 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.[ http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=39470] 11. 12.[ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068535/site/newsweek] 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.   "On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement" 18.  According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians. 19. Gary Sick. Iran, Iraq, and the legacies of war. 2004, MacMillan. ISBN 1-4039-6450-5 p.153 20. Gary Sick. Iran, Iraq, and the legacies of war. 2004, MacMillan. ISBN 1-4039-6450-5 p.156 21.Understanding Iran. 2003, ISBN 1-59257-141-7 p.190 22. UNO and current Gov. of Iraq along with US and coalition have not been able to find a single shred of evidence regarding the use of WMD by Iran against Iraq. No Victims No Documents No materials No nothing. 23. 24.[ http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/uscorpsiniraq.html] 25. 26. 27. 28.

In light of these sources cited on no other website other than wikipedia itself there remains littel doubt that USA and Iraq under Saddam were the monsters attacking Iran and using WMDs against Unarmed civilians including children babies and pregnant women with no regret at all. Furthermore it is also a fact that Iranians were victims of these barbaric acts. Since an encyclopedia must reflect truth not mere propaganda of those involved in this atrocity against whole humanity therefore its hoped that humainst truth warriors will tend to the article more turthfully and reflect the whole truth not just a whitewash of the more tolerable facts to certain powers. For example the whole article doesnot include the fact regarding the extrajudicial disappearances of people during his rule neither there is any mention of the fact that he took part in terminating whole villages and shifting all the inhabitants to unmarked mass graves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplerelationship (talk • contribs) 21:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * No offence, but if you are going to criticse this articles supposed lack of a neutral point of view you might want to examine your own lack of neutrality and your bias first. SGGH speak! 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which Bias? I dont see any. Everything I have said is completely backedup with citations and sources. Further research would be enlightening. And ofcourse the truth is always bitter. Specially if you have been involved with it on a negative side directly or indirectly. All I am asking here is SOURCES AND CITATIONS so that we can get the PROPAGANDA out of this article. I dont see any bias in that. No offense but it seems you are afraid of a rational discussion backed up by truth, citations and sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplerelationship (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not afraid of anything, and I have no thoughts one way or the other. I am merely pointing out that you are asking for a neutral point of view while having a point of view of your own "little doubt that USA and Iraq under Saddam were the monsters attacking Iran and using WMDs against Unarmed civilians including children babies and pregnant women with no regret at all" words like "monsters" and such accusations are hardly NPOV, while the events may have taken place, using such anti-Saddam and the UU language is a way of adding your own point of view, and that is what I was refering to. Also "atrocity against whole humanity therefore its hoped that humainst truth warriors will tend to the article more turthfully and reflect the whole truth not just a whitewash of the more tolerable facts to certain powers", not the most neutral statement ever written. I apologise if what I said upset you, unfortunately that is a drawback of trying to maintain 100% objectivity or as near as possible. SGGH speak! 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This image


Could we expand the caption on the article page to include anyone else who is int he photo who is notable? (if there are any) and also in the image caption highlight which one Saddam is for those of us who can't tell? SGGH speak! 21:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1993 June 26 U.S. attack on Iraq
At a couple of points in its history, this article has indicated that the U.S. attacked Iraq's intelligence headquarters on 1993 June 26 in retaliation for repeated violations of the no-fly zones. That's understandable, but I think it's incorrect. I've found no evidence to support the claim and a lengthy newspaper article about motivations for the attack that doesn't mention the no-fly zones. I took the liberty of altering this article to include the citation and to remove the suggestion that the 1993 June 26 attack was a response to violation of no-fly zones. John G Bullock 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have put the above reflist in so your citation will work :) SGGH speak! 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC) This is my own personal autographed ace of spades card. You'll have to scroll down to the lower right hand corner to see the pic. I got it 48 hours after his capture. I was rotating with three othr Ranger medics and got one signed for a buddy of mine too. We sat in a room with him on 8 hour shifts. Anyway, don't know how toi add it.

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia
Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if I didn't know any better, from reading this article, I would have thought Saddam was a wonderful progressive leader who brought Iraq from the Dark Ages into a modern world of freedom and progress where, as the authors so carefully point out, women have rights and Iraqi social welfare is the best in the Middle East. The only problem is that I know that Saddam was a brutal dictator with absolute power over his country, enforced by a vast network of secret police. How come this is all conveniently left out. Where is the discussion of mass graves of Iraqis? Of thousands tortured and murdered in prisons and mass graves? Even the gassing of the Kurds was painted as a "battle" between Iraq and Iran rather than genocide and blatant disregard for human life and rights. I will not change anything - but this article is ridicously biased in favor of Saddam. I did not think one could be pro-Saddam in light of what we know about his regime. But apparently, anything is possible when biases are involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.22.15 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess Saddam was fine for Sunni/nationalist Arabs but the most interesting thing about this debate is that we discussed it even before he was hanged, again on this page, and I'm sure you can find it in the archives. Deliogul 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked reading this article as well. It's whitewashed beyond comprehension.  Can you imagine an article on Hitler only speaking about his accomplishments and unification of the German people, then casually mentioning things like "Germany had disagreements with other nations"???  67.167.189.167 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also shocked/facinated by the omission of this ruler's sadism from this article. Even if the story of people being thrown in plastics shredders is false there are plenty more which aren't. Also there were his two sons, one of which murdered someone at a party with a steak knife. Plenty of the documents are now available from his regime. For example, there is a prison in the north, near Kirkuk, where 10,500 prisoners died. Executions weren't done there; they all died by torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Saddam's most famous quote!
In August 2002, saddam said:

‘Please come, I have killed enough people, somebody do the world a big favor and kill me’

Saddam is Dead, I hope everyone who supports him die the same way he died, so that the world might become a better place. I hope anyone who supports saddam that God sends them a dictator 10 times worse than saddam and shove it in their behind...................... I am an Iraqi, I will betray Saddam and his alikes, he betrayed the Iraqi people since day one, I hope he burns in hell along with his former and current supporters hahahahaha

What a famous sentence which everybody now knows all around the world. Why isn't this mentioned in this article?

Please put it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.25.71 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This or that way, Iraqis betrayed him and supported a foreign invasion force. Even the wildest dictator can't predict such a thing, at least at this extreme degree. I guess Saddam felt like Stalin when he realized that he is under the attack of Germany. Therefore, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was just a piece of paper and the crowds supporting Saddam were just sound waves which lost in the depths of the universe. Deliogul 22:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the use of the paragraph above. It simply states an opinion, and though perhaps a pretty piece of poetry, it appears to me that it does not belong here. 5:58 PM, October 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.205.126 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That quote sucks. It is simply a less refined version of what Churchill said 50 years ago: "We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We will never surrender."

Hyperion395 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Execution of Saddam Hussein December 30, 2006.JPG
Image:Execution of Saddam Hussein December 30, 2006.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrections
Unfortunately, I believe that there is a gap in the information in this article and some of it incorrect. According to the Washington Post, Saddam Hussein became an "assassination in training" in 1957, but fails his attempted assassination of the prime minister Abdul Kassem, and flees to Syria and then Egypt, where he attends an Egyptian law school (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/saddam.htm). The article does not mention any of this information, and claims that Saddam Hussein attended an Iraqi law school. It also says, in the "Rise to Power" section, that "Saddam returned to Iraq," without ever mentioning he left the country. It seems like another article is required between "Youth" and "Rise to Power" to explain why Saddam left the country and his whereabouts when he did so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.205.126 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the entire section on Saddam's alleged connections to the CIA should be erased, as it is just Leftist propaganda. The Ba'ath Party was Socialist and Pro-Soviet. Communist? No. But from Day 1 of their power Soviet Advisors were present, as well as Soviet equipment. Remember the famous incident of 1966 where the Iraqi Christian pilot defected to Israel with a MiG, I believe a MiG-19. Ba'athist Iraq was a Soviet Client State and Socialist (even if not Communist in the strictest sense). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatoUticensis (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the statement by George H. W. Bush re "What is at stake is more than one small country it is a big idea a new world order . . ." the article states it was made on March 6, 1991. This is untrue. All you need to do is check your sources! It was made on January 29, 1991 in his state of the union address. see http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3429 for instance. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.125.67 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indexing by Saddam or by Hussein
A recent editor has changed the DEFAULTSORT to "Saddam Hussein" rather than "Hussein, Saddam", with an edit summary that it is based on a comment to index it that way. I have not followed this article, and may just be behind on recent events. But this seems odd to me. Of course, it may also, unbeknownst to me, be the standard way of indexing Arabic names - I doubt it however, seeing that his sons were named Hussein, not Saddam, indicating that Hussein is indeed the name to index. However, before I do any reverting, I'll see what everybody says about this. I'll also ask the editor in question to comment on this discussion. User: (talk • contribs • count) 07:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He was sorted by his given name until a couple of months ago when you changed it. I'm no expert on Arabic names but it seems natural that since our article uses Saddam to refer to the man that we should also index him that way. Hussein is a patronym; his father was named Hussein 'Abid al-Majid. His sons were named Qusay Saddam Hussein and Uday Saddam Hussein, carrying both the name of their father and their grandfather. I see that our articles are at Qusay Hussein and Uday Hussein. I have no idea if that reflects what they were actually called in Iraq or if it is some sort of Western media convention. In any case Western media usually did refer to Saddam Hussein with his given name rather than his patronym. For other presidents sorted by given name rather than patronym we have e.g. Isaias Afewerki and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir. Haukur 08:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Way Too Little NPOV In Intro, Huge Editing To It Is Now Necessary
In the intro, there is only very brief mention of the amount of murders during Saddam's harsh, brutal and near-fascist regime, and when it is given a tiny amount of coverage here only one incident is mentioned and even that is presented in toned-town form. Only the most relevant information should be displayed in the intro and this is indeed very relevant. Plenty sources can be cited that this blood-thirsty and vicious tyrant's murders go above and beyond what the intro mentions, and so I believe clean-up is now essential. If - and only if - someone disputes this, I will put my editing on hold. But if nobody disputes it after a while, I will change it to fit to everyone's liking. 172.216.221.176 16:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need to be cautious about it. This is after all about him, not his regime, and if you're going to take the line that he's blood-thirsty and vicious, it sounds like you're planning more than a clean-up. The article needs to have an accurate account of the person's life, and he personally did many things while he was alive besides preside over the widely reported actions of his police/military. 81.96.164.105 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * These edits need to be made: please make them. We need more than a cleanup here. Despite what the user above me says, this article is deficient in discussing Saddam's regime, which because he was a dictator, belongs in this article. We need extensive discussion of the horrors he inflicted on his own people throughout his time in power: to leave these out is to actively seek to make Saddam appear less brutal. Accurate documentation of the murders, arrests and activities of the secret police (including the use of torture) is needed. It is not in dispute that he was a vicious tyrant. That's not a "line", that's a fact.58.160.66.242 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a little "pamphlet for the kiddies". WP is not censored for anyone. I'm obviously not going to directly say that he's blood-thirsty and vicious, I'm merely asserting that the more despicable aspects of his regime should be reported as well as the other parts! You're absolutely right that it should be a neutral account of his life, that is why I'm asking for ALL the information to be covered, not just SOME! there are plenty of sources for this, and all "accurate" information is conviniently left out! Let's have the truth, then...172.189.155.111 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link
Footnote 47 to The Guardian is broken. I don't know if anybody knows of an alternative? Doyley Talk 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Raisin Bran versus Fruit Loops
I don't understand why my proposed language regarding Saddam's preferred foods while incarcerated keeps getting deleted? The article which forms the basis of it is one of the more interesting ones I've seen regarding his incarceration, giving some insight into his living conditions during that period and his personal interactions with U.S. military personnel.Spirogyra 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been added and removed several times now, so per WP:CONSENSUS, it should be discussed here. For my part, this seems to be rather trivial material, and certainly not encyclopedic, therefore I'd prefer to not see it in the article.  AK Radecki Speaketh  03:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is incredibly trivial. What is next, listing his favorite brand of socks? --OuroborosCobra 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what "encyclopedic" means. I suppose it means "I don't like it."  Is the issue that he was eating "Fruit Loops" and "Raisin Bran" which sounds to some readers juvenile?  Would it be better if it said he was served "grapefruits and tea," which wouldn't sound so "silly"?  The significance of this information is not necessarily what his favorite cereal was, but that it reveals something about his condition and treatment while incarcerated.  Clearly they were feeding him those Kellogg's individual serving cereal boxes for breakfast, and you can imagine something of what transpired in his cell -- how he would probably curse Fruit Loops, and the American tastes that support it, every time they put it in his cell.  Yet at the same time, he developed a love for Doritos, another similarly tacky American snack.  The contradiction is fabulous and it reveals something of his desperation that he was reduced to gorging on Doritos, something he would have never ever touched during his time as President of Iraq.  I had omitted some information I had previously included about marriage advice he was giving to guards.  I actually thought that information was interesting, since it showed how he was developing personal relationships with guards and it also revealed how he viewed himself as an expert in all things, including matters of love, but I thought some PC thinkers might have found his comments sexist and so that might be why it was being deleted. Personally, I'd put that back in, but that's just me.  These are details that make his story *interesting*.  Spirogyra 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you can come up with something written, say, by a psychology professor agreeing with you that this gives any insight beyond that he just happened to like one cereal over another, that is almost entirely original research in an attempt to give something trivial notoriety. I must ask what would be next, noting that he wears Fruit of the Loom underwear, but uses deodorant made in North Korea, thus giving us some other deep insight into his psyche? I seriously, seriously doubt anything was being deleted because of "PC", but most likely because it didn't come off as anything but trivial. I don't think we have his conversations with his Imam either, or what he said to his mother on his 5th birthday. --OuroborosCobra 08:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. You can't clutter articles with trivialities like favourite food. However I do agree that there is a little interest in the fact that he seems to have asked for Western-style snacks. But since we don't know what he normally ate or what choice he had, or how often he actually did eat those things, it's not substantial enough to go in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually think this paragraph adds some level of being human to him. Even Hitler is not just a monster. This portion is what eventually led me to stop believing blindly that the coalition forces, specifically the usa, did not lie to justify the invasion. Though I agree that this fact is not encyclopedic, I wish for a way to keep it. Monsters are human, too.74.67.17.22 (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What cereal he ate did that? You need to go back to logic classes... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

]== Saddam capture ==

I think Wikipedia shouldn't simply be a rehash of aggregated CNN and Fox News exerpts from over the years and should actually include less favourable media information. The fact that there were dates growing from the palms around Saddam's "spiderhole" when he was supposedly captured on December 13 (a time when Bush was focused on re-election) has become yesterday's news by now and is common knowledge. As are the many facial inconsistencies (notably the eyes and teeth) between the captured Saddam and the real one. I hate to say it but the newer slim-toned Saddam with the ovular headshape and the mysterious never-before seen-mole above his left eye was a fake. Anyway here are two very interesting links. The first one is unique because its probably been banned from television and the second one is nothing short of shocking if you listen closely. Below that is what should give this legitimacy from a mainstream standpoint. Also if you google Dieter Buhmann you can find tons of information regarding the reality of Saddam's doubles.

I'm not asking for Wikipedia to be a cosy little corner of cyberspace for conspiracy theorists to dwell in, but I do expect it to present an accurate overview of world events. That of course, would be a little more difficult.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SffdvpNGQBs

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nSG-f-rdC3w

According to Yahoo, a respected mainstream news provider, the body double theory has "credence" -

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070412/139/6egz2.html
 * I wouldn't have called Yahoo a respected mainstream news provider. And while you say that Wikipedia has rehased CNN and Fox, you have just given us a rehash of sensationalist news stories about conspiracies, and told us that we should take those news stories as fact over CNN's and Fox's. I'm not being hostile, I'm just pointing out how weak some news stories and sensationalism can appear. Credit can be given to the body double theory, because one does exist, and I believe it is given in the article. However "the reality of Saddam's double" in his trials, well... reality is your opinion isn't it. :) SGGH speak! 11:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And the line that no double was used, and the real Saddam was tried and executed is also someone's opinion. If there are objective reasons to call this into question, such as the mole feature mentioned, then until that's looked at and discounted scientifically, the matter is open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes its all good. As long as the matter is open and we're not too quick to dismiss scientifically backed ideas as conspiracy theories (which I know can get annoying), then all is fine. I should probably have included the now fairly well known report regarding Saddam's wife from the Russian newspaper Pravda and other several other news outlets. What I sometimes get unhappy with is not the fact that our mainstream news media do not believe these reports, but that it pretends they do not exist. This particular report I had to find via detailed searches on google, whereas it should have made headlines when it was published in April 2004. Here is the link -

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/366/12494_saddam.html

--80.175.110.17 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased
Why are the editors of this article so silent about the genocidal crimes and htared of Saddam towards Iranians? It is very biased. And of course Al-Jazeera ommits his last racist remarks towards Iranians. Of course. Al Jazeera is itself an Anti-Iraniast Pan-Arabist source. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Omitted/fabricated information
Among other issues, this post neglects to mention that Saddam spent years as a torturer prior to assuming leadership. This is crucial to his later leadership methods, which routinely involved torture and extensive use of secret police. But I guess since the article doesn't mention THAT either, the writer didn't think it would be a problem.

The section on infrastructure seems to be mostly fabricated. There is extensive evidence that Saddam rerouted most of the power to Baghdad, and failed to maintain or build infrastructure outside of the city. Furthermore, it is blatantly false that he "modernised" the economy, since they had no economy to speak of despite being rich in natural resources.

This article is incredibly biased and needs to be completely rewritten.58.160.66.242 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA involvement in 1963 assasination
I believe "Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963." Should be changed to "Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963, aided by the CIA." Since they didn't have a chance without the CIA's help. I think it should be shown somewhere in this article that the CIA had an essential role in Saddam's rise to power.

source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,817834,00.html "A few years later, Quasim was overthrown in a CIA-assisted coup." I'm having trouble finding a news article more specifically concerned with the 1963 events. But CIA's involvement is Historical fact, backed up by CIA officials.

I think the coup is important in Saddam's life because: 1) He participated in a failed assasination attempt earlyer (some say he was the gunman, he himself admits to having kept the weapons) 2) That's the major turning point in Iraqui history that lead to him taking power.

I'd rather let someone else do the editing, as there may be more to discuss regarding this issue. --140.77.129.149 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for a CIA link except that they certainly had eyes on the ground. Saddam was certainly no western tool as he had strong communist links with Russia and had nationalized Iraq's oil assets shortly after seizing power. 81.208.106.64 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Video
I am doing a long term study on death, suicide, and other death related things, so could somebody give me a link to an uncut version of any videos relating to his death? Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Jimmy666 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Letter
I have removed the letter since the only apparent purpose of it to show the dictator in a "more Human light". I realize this will probably be reverted in the next minute or so (in fact it probably already is as I'm writing this) and I know the people who usually win "edit wars" are the ones with the most time on their hands (no pun intended) and as such I'm not even bothering after my first edit, but I ask others to consider this for a permanent change to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.78.148 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * lols ironically your comment share an uncanny resemblances with Sadam's. i see death in your near future. may you fade into nothingness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.143.116 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FBI Interview
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index.html read this article. in it an FBI agent who interviewed saddam on his mindset before during and immediatly after the war. I think its very relevent information. but i was wondering where to include it. do i put it in the 2003 war segment? or maybe make a seperate section for it? any thoughts? Gailim (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say place in an existing section, or perhaps on the section of his capture (seeing as interview took place after that). SGGH speak! 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bush's successor
Hi this might just be me but there is a paragraph which doesn't make any sence to me, currently it is written in the article:

"Bush's successor, U.S. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001)"

I looked in the Dictionary and it says that a successor is "a person who follows next in order"

So isn't it the case that Bush is the incumbent (i.e. has no successor as yet) and that Bush's predecessor was President Bill Clinton?

Meaning that the paragraph should be written:

"Bush's predecessor, U.S. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001)"

Apoligies if I am wrong! But maybe it might be better to clean up the paragraph to make it clearer anyway? 193.35.129.161 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of "George H. W. Bush"? The father of George W. Bush? The PREDECESSOR of, Bill Clinton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.182.96 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In a section called '2003 invasion of Iraq' wouldn't it be better to be less ambiguous about which Bush? does seem unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fen croft (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the huge majority of people to read this article would be aware that Bush Snr. was the president for the first gulf war, and Bush Jnr. for the second, by process of elimination anyway, but it may be good practice just to be specific. SGGH speak! 11:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Morris, Roger, "Remember: Saddam was our man",
Does anyone have a copy of this reference: Morris, Roger, "Remember: Saddam was our man", New York Times, March 14, 2003 ? (Imad marie (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

totalitarianism
This is a loaded and disputed concept, and its application here is POV. I don't think WP should take a stand endorsing the concept, at all. This goes for all the articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question/comment about the "main photo" of Saddam Hussein.
I wonder why the article's "main photo" of Saddam Hussein is the one from his capture? It should instead be a photo that is more general/neutral. This one is not, and to be fair it's one of those that doesn't really shows how he looked like. And what people in general think of when picturing him ("man in army-uniform and/or man on trial with beard.")194.52.183.204 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, Saddam is most known as the president of Iraq, his main picture should show him as a president. (Imad marie (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I changed the pic to one showing him as the leader of Iraq (Imad marie (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

'''

A leading member of the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which espoused secular pan-Arabism, economic modernization, and socialism, Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup that brought the party to long-term power. As vice president under the ailing General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam tightly controlled conflict between the government and the armed forces — at a time when many other groups were considered capable of overthrowing the government — by creating repressive security forces. In the early 1970s, Saddam spearheaded Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had long held a monopoly on the country's oil. Through the 1970s, Saddam cemented his authority over the apparatuses of government as Iraq's economy grew at a rapid pace.[6]

As president, Saddam maintained power through the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and the first Persian Gulf War (1991). During these conflicts, Saddam repressed movements he deemed threatening to the stability of Iraq, particularly the Shi'a, who were pro-Iraqi but sought to overthrow the government; and Kurdish movements who waged war in the hope of gaining independence. While he would remain a popular hero among Arabs for standing up to the West (from 1990 onwards) and for his support for the Palestinians,[7] Western leaders continued to view Saddam with deep suspicion following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Saddam was deposed by the U.S. and its allies during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Captured by U.S. forces on December 13, 2003, Saddam brought to trial under the Iraqi interim government set up by U.S.-led forces. On November 5, 2006, he was convicted of charges related to the executions of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites suspected of planning an assassination attempt against him, and was sentenced to death by hanging. Saddam was executed on December 30, 2006.[8] His execution aroused controversies and protests by some and praise by others all around the world شبابه ********************************** Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti was born in the town of Al-Awja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.252.122 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton used inspectors to try and kill Saddam
This article is American propaganda. The Washington Post knows that the US tried to kill Saddam in 1995, see 100s of likely loyal Saddam followers died at his hand. Non-Americans will tell you that the UN inspections were infiltrated by American spys to do this (that's why the fuss about "inspecting his palaces"). It just makes it really obvious how slanted and pro-Israel you are if you leave out such important information - even when it's in your own newspapers. 86.155.142.129 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're article makes none of your claims. It doesn't even have the word "inspector" in it. The article discusses a 1995 bombing campaign and some of its goals, it says nothing about inspectors being used to find targets, acting as spies, etc. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is obvious American propaganda, that doesn't even bother to mention that America attempted to trigger a major coup against Saddam. The American newspaper doesn't connect the dots or say anything about the abuse of the UN inspections (was it Scott Ritter who turned out to be CIA or was it someone else?). You're not going to allow any references from the Middle East, no matter how reliable, to insert information, in order you can pretend the US's hands are clean. 86.155.142.129 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying anything, but you have not presented a source, Middle East or not, that backs up your claims. The funny thing is that this article tends to be called propoganda by both sides. Americans and such feel that it doesn't talk enough about Saddam being a genocidal tyrant in the vein of Hitler and Stalin. You and others think that it is pro-American. That says to me that in fact we don't have either pro-American or pro-Saddam propaganda, since neither side thinks it defends their point of view. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Saddam the writer
Does someone know anything about his litterary work?Mitch1981 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Saddam was not a writer. Please don't claim that. --212.99.225.66 (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Saddam Hussein - Romance Writer (Who'd have thought?) Lars T. (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Modernisation
Why do we have two sections: Modernisation and Modernization program ?? Imad marie (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes by User:172
172, stop making bulk changes, they are uneasy to track. Imad marie (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub article
I created a test sub article of this article: User:Imad marie/Saddam and CIA

Any suggestions for the title of the sub article? I was thinking of:
 * 1) Saddam and CIA
 * 2) Saddam and USA
 * 3) Saddam and USA collaboration
 * 4) United States-Saddam relations

Imad marie (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created the sub article: Saddam Hussein - United States relations. Comments are appreciated. Imad marie (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Shahada
The link to shahada is incorrect, it should be Shahadah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.51.144 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a fairly moot point as it was all in Arabic and Arabic spelling uses a different script. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "socialism".
The second paragraph of the article reads "A leading member of the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which espoused secular pan-Arabism, economic modernization, and socialism, Saddam played a key role in the 1968 coup that brought the party to long-term power." Two sentences later, the article discusses Saddam's nationalization of resources and rapid economic growth.

This is much more in line with state capitalism. - signed by an anon IP

Nancy.paras (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Saddam" vs. "Hussein" on second reference
It's common for the media to refer to him by his first, rather than second name. But in an encyclopedia reference, what is the precedent for using his first? I realize there are Stalin and Lenin, for example. I'm wondering if, in this case, it's more appropriate to use 'Hussein'. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andaroocorp (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See, "Hussein" is the name of Saddam's father - it is a patronymic. In any case, people in the Arab world prefer to refer to him as "Saddam," so we use that. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Saddam feared getting AIDS
Someone should get an update again, because I have news that Saddam feared getting AIDS and venereal disease while he was in prison. Read more about it here. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see where or why this is needed, as everyone fears AIDs or any STD. 146.235.66.52 (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC) MPA

Marrage
This article uses the word "Marrage" quite a lot, there is no entry for this word in a dictionary. I think it should be "Marriage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.56.164 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Changed. Lars T. (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue transcript between Saddam and his executioners is incorrect and unsiurced
Despite the video of Saddam execution is published everywhere, the transcript published on this article contains tow lines that were actually never enunciated:


 * [Voice] You have destroyed us, killed all of us, our nation is ruined.
 * [Saddam] I helped you survive. Iraq is nothing without me!

This dialogue has never taken place anytime during the conversations Saddam had had with his executioners before the immediate hanging. The article says the source are BBC and Aljazeera websites, however, no sources were provided.

Here's the BBC article on Saddam's last moments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218875.stm

And from Aljazeera English: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DD8B7E9F-7FCA-4AD6-B67C-EE5A98530946.htm

Nowhere on these two sources it's cited that Saddam has said:

'''I helped you survive. Iraq is nothing without me!''' --Sabotage (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the whole section until someone can provide a source. The al-Jazeera link you provided does have the following:

By several accounts, Saddam was calm but scornful of his captors, engaging in a give-and-take with the crowd gathered to watch him die and insisting he was Iraq's saviour, not its tyrant and scourge.

Munir Haddad, an appeals court judge who witnessed the hanging, told the BBC: "He said we are going to heaven and our enemies will rot in hell and he also called for forgiveness and love among Iraqis but also stressed that the Iraqis should fight the Americans and the Persians."

Another witness, national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, told The New York Times that one of the guards shouted at Saddam: "You have destroyed us. You have killed us. You have made us live in destitution."

Al-Rubaie told the newspaper that Saddam responded: "I have saved you from destitution and misery and destroyed your enemies, the Persians and Americans."
 * Those last two lines sound an awful lot like the passage you say doesn't exist; my best guess is that this was a original translation of the video by someone that was never published anywhere. My guess is that the above last two paragraphs are the sentences that were translated that way in Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. The two lines I proposed to be removed were never spoken in the video that was spread all over the world. Mowaffak al-Rubaie wasn't present in the execution room, at least visually in the video, nor he did speak with Saddam while he was on the execution deck. The conversations that are reported between them are said to be held in another room where many of the then Iraqi government officials has met him and had had heated discussions with him.

Bottom line is, the actual video of execution, which that paragraph was a transcript for, has never contained a discussion between Saddam and Mowaffak al-Rubaie or any other man regarding those specific two lines

I do agree, however, that the whole transcript translation was rather poor. I suggest that we make efforts to provide a better translation and put it back in the article, or maybe move the whole transcript to the specific article on Saddam's execution. As a native Arabic language speaker, I propose this as an accurate translation:


 * [Saddam] God is Great. Palestine is Arab (This was also never spoken in the video. It should be removed as well)
 * [Voices] May God's blessings be upon Muhammad and his household.
 * [Voices] And may God hasten their appearance and curse their enemies.
 * [Voices] Muqtada [Al-Sadr]...Muqtada...Muqtada.
 * [Saddam] Muqtuda? (sarcastically) Eeeeh.. is this manhood? (better than bravery)
 * [Voice] Long live Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr.


 * [Voice] To hell.
 * [Saddam] The hell that is Iraq? (Arabic: جحينب هو عراق Ghihyneb hew A'raq)
 * [Voice] You have destroyed us, killed all of us, our nation is ruined. (This was never spoken)
 * [Saddam] I helped you survive. Iraq is nothing without me! (This was never spoken)
 * [Voice] Please do not. The man is being executed. Please no, I beg you to stop.
 * [Saddam] (Recites Shahadah) There is no God but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah and I testify that Muhammad... --Sabotage (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can publish an original research translation. Also, even if you disagree with al-Jazeera's interpretation of events, the fact that it is published in a reliable source means it can be used in Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that transcript translation which you now claim (truly) to be original research existed for months in the article. Actually this article has lots of original research, like the translation of Saddam's last letter, to which the source link is dead! Anyway, I also wasn't disagreeing with anyone, whether Al-Jazeera or BBC. Once again I was stating the simple fact that these two lines:
 * [Voice] You have destroyed us, killed all of us, our nation is ruined.
 * [Saddam] I helped you survive. Iraq is nothing without me!

were never spoken or heared in the video. I say "the simple fact" because it's based on a video footage, which is spread all over the Internet, and which there's a global acceptance that it represents the actual last minutes of Saddam's execution; unless someone brings a reliable source that the video was fabricated.

There's a big difference between claiming that some conversation has took place somehow, somewhere, during the execution and between saying that it was spoke and heared in the video. This .ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20070129&articleId=4620 article did a great job in analyzing the different transcripts from different sources. None of which contained the above two lines. Sabotage (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is horribly, horribly, BIASED!!! FIX!!!
Jesus Christ, it is nauseating to find such an bias, non-NPOV, article like this on Wikipedia. The ammount of half truths, misconceptions, and weasel words on this page is ridiculous.

Who wrote this ...? A triumvirate of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore ...? I'm not a republican supporter but this article doesn't even seem to attempt to present a neutral point of view, making it read hard for me to take Wikipedia seriously at the moment. Looking only at the introduction..., there is absolutely no mention of Saddams cruelty and tyranny, zero mention of the hundreds of thousands of civilians he directly perpetuated the death of, no trace of the the proven geonocide, chemical attacks and nuclear weapons research he was involved with. Why? Why? Why?

The best part about the intro is that it's wrapped up with this nice, little piece of garbage "his execution aroused controversies and protests all around the world." Gee, that about defines weasel words. His execution obviously aroused controversies and protests all around the world... events with worldwide repercussions seem to have that effect. This closing sentence gives the impression that the execution was widely condemned all over the world... which it very well might have been. However the execution was also celebrated all over the world, and was probably found acceptable by a huge, silent, majority of global spectators.

Apparently the people who have the ability to edit this article would rather pervert knowledge in the interest of their own political agenda rather than providing objective information in the spirit of Wikipedia. Way to go guys keep it up.

Hyperion395 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the man himself, not how he ruled a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.136.78 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One could easily make the arguement that it is your above statement that is "horribly horribly BIASED". One must always be aware that, if one sees something to be biased, ones own position may be equally biased in the other direction. Your statement "addams cruelty and tyranny, zero mention of the hundreds of thousands of civilians he directly perpetuated the death of, no trace of the the proven geonocide, chemical attacks and nuclear weapons research he was involved with. Why? Why? Why?" is probably more POV than most of this article. SGGH speak! 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not only a heavily biased article but has also been heavily edited by conspiracy theorists and anti-western ragtags. 81.208.106.64 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a very interesting opinion, 81.208.106.64. Would you perhaps be willing to provide factual evidence? 75.189.132.215 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How many hundreds of thousands did the Americans kill (directly or indirectly) in their recent invasion? 84.9.33.11 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, roughly 1.2 million less than the regime itself did. @@@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.45.206 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since far more than that fled the country after the invasion, they couldn't be killed there. Lars T. (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Help needed
Since I am a new user, I cannot make any edits onto the article, so can someone cut and paste the following which it doesn't say anywhere on the page: Saddam's goals were:
 * The ellimination of ethnic Shites
 * The persecturion and gassing of ethnic Kurds
 * The wanton destruction of their property
 * The establishment of a Sunni-Arab ruling class
 * No elections except for Bath Party candidates

Please thanks! X Ray Tex (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a reason why new users are not allowed to edit this article. All of your above points must be referenced to actual reliable and unbiassed documentation which showes that these were Saddam's actual goals as opposed to being things that he did while in power. For example it could be pointed out that there was a Sunni-Arab ruling class before Saddam came on the scene, the "elimination of ethnic Shias" assumes that being a Shia is an ethnicity rather than belonging to s religious belief system. Until you learn some of Wikipedia's basic rules and beliefs, e.g. Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) and need for references etc., you should not edit controversial topics because you could be accused of being a vandal. Discussing your issues on a Talk page on the other hand is not only acceptable but is the correct thing to do with any potentially controversial edits. Dabbler (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, there wasn't so much a Sunni ruling quarter as their was Arab; Arabs of course being the predominant ethnic group with regards to numbers. The confusion surrounding Saddam wasn't so much that his trustees were all Sunni Arabs, but that they came from his home town of Tikrit and many were also relations of some kind. Tikrit in turn lies in a region of Iraq in which the majority of the population is Sunni. But if anyone followed the events in Iraq, particularly at the top, they'll know that the Ba'ath Party (with two "A's" Mr.X Ray Tex) is indeed Pan-Arab but not alligned to a religious group: two out of three of Saddam's Prime Ministers in the 1990's were Shi'ite; Saddam's former information minister is Christian; one of Saddam's last remaining cabinet allies, active when the Ba'athists were ousted, who had been a founder member of the party was Kurdish. The Iraqi Ba'ath Party was in any case formed by Shi'ites from the onset. Outside of Iraq, the Iraqi branch of the Ba'ath Party in the Lebanon was headed by an Arab of Greek Orthodox faith. Away from Iraq completely, the Syrian Ba'athists are led by Bashar al-Asad, who, like his father from whom he inherited the seat, is a member of a relatively minor faith which identifies as Shia Muslim (even if not wholly accepted by the wider Shia community), this despite nearly 80% of Syria being Sunni; as for Bahrain, a largely Shia country, no fewer than two political groups among Shi'ites have been in alliance with their local Ba'athists. There is no need to add all that extra communication just to create provocation. Evlekis (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Mister, you may know how to spell the party name but you are talking nonsense. I don't care about your so-called "non-Sunni Arab" part of Saddam's deal because it is a plain known fact that any non-Sunni Arab didn't so much "serve" the regime but rather collaborated so as to save himself from the dangers of what happened to the rest of the ethnic group. Elvekis, do you know about Halabja mister? Most probably not, so I'll tell you - it was a war crime in which Iraqi government war planes flew over a town populated by Kurds and spray-gassed the population with a nuclear substance. He killed 10,000 in one day, is that not Mass Genocide?? And what if they were Kurds? They were Iraqi Kurds - so they were his OWN PEOPLE. It wasn't just Iran he went towar with, and Kuwait he was invading, but he waged a war against the Kurds who he couldn't assimilate into Arab - and then he went to war with the Shites when they tried to revolt against him. He crushed the revolt and killed tens of thousands - he held a country of 30 million hostage, food shortages, starvation, collapsed economy, NO OIL exportation, and what did the idiot do? Develop WMD cuz his intent was to destroy the Earth. What you say about other countries - Mister. You get the Labour Party in the UK and the Labour Party in other countries - it's not the same one, it is just a name. But whilst the majority Shites and Kurds lived in Shanty Town Iraq, some left with no houses, how about Saddam's minority? Living in palaces and luxury hoes with the breaze of the Mediteranean flowing through. Saddam's son had a passion for BMW and Mercedes whilst Iraqi's rode camels. And did you know that not all of Iraq is even Muslim? How must life have been for the poor Christians of Iraq subjected to Saddam's Islamic Sharia Sunni-only hostility. You cannot even imagine the carnage that Iraqi Christians suffered at the hands of that animal. You want to learn your facts before you go defending tyrants. X Ray Tex (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image sources
Many of the images used in this article as tagged with (the deprecated tag) PD, and the reasoning given is that the image comes from "Iraqi News Agency". As no verifiable source information was added, many of these image have been tagged as no-source. Also, I'm not sure that images from "Iraqi News Agency" automatically qualify as fair use. --Abu badali (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but it does fall under. --Ipatrol (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

broken citations
i'm seeing a lot of references leading to pages that are no longer available. Could someone please fix this Seektrue (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which ones are not available? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV section title
Kauffner keeps changing the title of the "Secular leadership" section to a title that clearly violates NPOV. Kauffner can you please explain yourself, or alternatively, please stop messing around like this? Thanks! csloat (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Secular leadership" is just not true. "Leader of All Muslims" was one of Saddam's official titles and he added religious script to the Iraqi flag. Kauffner (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We can certainly include that information but it doesn't at all dispute his secular leadership. Every scholar on this topic agrees that Saddam used Islamic trappings to bolster his secular leadership and to appeal to pan-Islamists.  Besides, you're not changing the title to "Religious leadership," which I'm sure you know would be complete nonsense; you're changing it to the ambiguous "Domestic policies and personality cult," which says nothing about Islamism and really doesn't accurately summarize what the information in this section is about.  Personality cult is one aspect of his secular leadership as mentioned in the article, but it is not the only thing covered.  His posturing as an Islamist is also mentioned already in the article.  Your changes do not reflect the argument you are making, and the argument you are making is wrong anyway. csloat (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * His Islam was "posturing", whereas his secularism was, what? The real deal? Secularism was a pretext to crack down on the Shi'ites. The original reason Saddam was considered secular is because his background is Arab nationalist. But there is no contraction in being both religious and nationalist. In fact, it is Ba'ath Party doctrine that Arabs are the superior race partly because they are more spiritual. Kauffner (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All experts on this topic agree he was a secular leader and that his islamism was a pretext. Your claim that secularism was a pretext is not supported by any reliable source of which I am aware.  If you have one, please cite it and we can add a sentence or two to the article indicating that one source thinks otherwise.  And you probably already know this, but "Arab" is not the same as "Muslim."  Anyway you still haven't defended your change to the article, which had nothing to do with this discussion -- the discussion about Saddam's islamism is engaging perhaps but irrelevant to the change you were making. csloat (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo
Under the capture section the word "transported" is misspelled "trasported".
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Done Spiesr (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FIRST gulf war??
The gulf war involved all the countries of the gulf. Saudi arabia, qatar, kuwait, uae, jordan and so on fought against iraq. The more recent American invasion of Iraq was in no way a gulf war. The saddam hussein article refers to the 'first' gulf war which is historically and factually incorrect. Someone please correct it. Take out 'first'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.235 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. All wars have near numerous different names, which someone wouldn't like. Unfortunately, this article is filled with so much nonsense that is far more pressing than the naming of a war, more than I can even list here. I can't even read much of it, but thankfully wikipedia isn't my sole source of information. --MercZ (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Gulf War" refers to the location (the Persian Gulf), not the combatants involved. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Two issues with the top comment. The claim that Jordan was involved in the 1990-1991 conflict with Iraq is incorrect. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan remained neutral, much to the consternation of other Arab nations as well as the American Congress. Jordan maintained fairly friendly ties with both Iraq and the West during and after the conflict. Many Arab nations curtailed their own relations with Jordan as a result, however. The U.S. Government provided Jordan with an incentive for repairing Jordanian-American relations, namely signing a peace treaty with Israel. The claim that 1990-1991 conflict was the "first" Gulf War would be further disputed by many of the countries in the Persian (Arabian) Gulf. Many individuals in Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., consider the Iran-Iraq War to be the "First" Gulf War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.3 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've often seen the second point, on the Iran-Iraq war being called the "first Gulf War" even in western sources. Considering the fighting was on nations on either side of the Gulf, the impact on Gulf shipping, and the involvement of other nations such as the US in naval operation in the Gulf relating to that was, I can see the reasoning there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error - Family section
editsemiprotected

and most [notoriously], whenever Iraqi athletes performed poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crickman1 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hala Hussein's Age
editsemiprotected It says she was born in the late 1970s. But her Wiki Article states the year is 1972. Maybe someone could fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.208.215 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ good spot--Jac16888 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

When was this international aid relative to the gassing of the Kurds?
In this sentence in the Iraq/Iran war section, I'm a little confused: "Instead Iraq received economic and military support from its allies, who conveniently overlooked Saddam's use of chemical warfare against the Kurds and the Iranians and Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons."

This is referenced to a book to which I do not have access. In the context of the paragraph, it seems to be referring to the year 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran, but the gassing of the Kurds was in 1988, right? Was he already developing nuclear weapons in 1980? I would definitely prefer to have the supporting quotation inserted into this reference. johnpseudo 17:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Osirak facility was up as early as 1977 in relation to Iraq's nuclear program, and was attacked by Iran in 1980, and destroyed by Israel in 1981 (see Operation Opera). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so this addresses the nuclear weapons development, but what about "use of chemical warfare against the Kurds"? Also, the word "conveniently" seems to be implying a particularly cynical point of view. johnpseudo 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ugh
i know you guys are religiously left-wing but come on, where is the section on the horrible things his regime did to political prisoners? what possible left-wing goal is served by giving this wannabe stalinist a pass? are you proud of polluting the minds of people with your distorted "history?" do you wonder why respectable schools don't accept you as a source? are you just waiting until january 21? shameful, really, plonkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.18.61 (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ERROR IN "MARRIAGE AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS"
IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THAT SECTION IT HAS SADDAM`S DAUGHTERS MARRIED TO WRONG BROTHERSSAYBOW69 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

CIA involvement in 1963 coup
I removed several lines claiming CIA involvement. The article by the UPI writer  merely claims CIA knowledge of the events in 1958, and flat out denies any involvement of US assets in 1963- not what the wording of the article implied, which was outright action on the part of US intelligence. Batvette (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Batvette, do you believe it is true that Saddam Hussein worked for the CIA before he took power in Iraq? I just heard someone in class say that he did and the teacher was like LOLOLOL It is true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.205.120 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the provided sourcing on that claim, namely a UPI article from 2003. It claims Saddams attempt on Quesaim's life was AUTHORIZED by the CIA, yet he was funded and under control of the Egyptians. Further reading makes it clear that by "authorized" the author only claims that the CIA gave the okay for it to happen and that the US interests' benefitted from the action, not that it was planned, sponsored or in any way initiated by the US. If you or your teacher have a more factual account then please by all means provide a link. Do I think he "worked" for the CIA? Oficially, hell no. However he was a thug and the CIA pays thugs, often not even telling them they are with the CIA. I'm more inclined to believe people will jump to blame the US for every mess in history. Batvette (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Misspelled
You misspelled "Kurdish" in the opening section.

97.120.93.246 (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for helping out. Lars T. (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cairo Law school
According to the following, Brittania Encyclopedia, and MSN's Encarta. Saddam went to the Cairo Law School to do his law degree. He's also mentioned on the following wiki catagory regarding the ulumni of Cairo university Can anyone confirm this? Faro0485 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Troll bait removed. SGGH ping! 22:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fake Saddam Hussein
No one seems to have noticed that the ruler at the top of the article is not the prisoner at the bottom. He might pass for Saddam Hussein's defectve twin with crooked teeth. Even Saddam Hussein's wife of 25 years swore that he was one of Saddam Hussein's doubles. The men in the side by side prisoner photographs barely resemble each other. For larger photographs of Saddam Hussein and the sacrificial lamb, download "The Capture, Trial and Conviction of Saddam Hussein - Another US Intelligence Farce" at http://www.sott.net/signs/editorials/signs20061106_TheCaptureTrialandConvictionofSaddamHusseinAnotherUSIntelligenceFarce.php And download "Our "Saddam" prisoner in Iraq - is NOT Saddam!" at http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/05-16-05/discussion.cgi.50.htmlMarkOller (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncited claims
"He also hated Jews, Iranians, Shiites, and to some extent, Kuwaitis and Westerners." This may very well be true, but it's a pretty strong accusation to make with no citation. --Admit maybe (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. That's hardly even verifiable. csloat (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is verifiable. see this Three Whom God Should Not Have Created. the article is locked so i can't fix it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.221.163 (talk • contribs)
 * Please show the evidence for this. At best what is verifiable (at least based on the Wikipedia page) is that in Con Coughlin's opinion he hated Iranians and Israelis.  Really not notable at all here. csloat (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a reliable source that attests to the presence of the plaque on saddam's desk in that article. cited as "Kengor, Paul. The rise and fall of a dictator. The Washington Times, January 7, 2007". 85.64.221.163 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
"While Saddam has no official marital history he is believed to have been married to at least four women, two of whom have been confirmed as his wives,"

The above is what we call a contradiction. No official marital history yet he has confirmed wives? What does that mean?

Screen317 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Great video link
Could some one please add this great video link to the external links because it is locked. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sgx_FHsq5M&feature=channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.204.81 (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Very biased article
I came to this article in search of reasonably neutral information about Saddam Hussein, but I am disappointed. E.g. the sections about his social welfare programmes or the conflict with Kuwait are very biased. Try and read the chapter "Tensions with Kuwait" and you'll see what I mean. Everything is described from a pro-Saddam point of view. --Sasper (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I too found the article biased, but from the other side. The discussion of Sadsam's family, particularly the descriptions of his son Uday, who lived lavishly while "the ordinary Iraqi starved." Not only is this not cited, but it is unneccessary in delivering the objective message that intended for display. This is not the only bias found in the article, nor is it an indication that the user above is incorrect in his/her analysis of pro-Saddam POV; I believe the entire article should be reviewed as to provide the most objective account of history as possible. Paynethomas (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to put anything but being apologetic for Saddam. There's very little mention of any abuses undertaken during his regime, only continual white-washing. The truth is being lost between the anti-war and pro-war audiences --68.95.148.181 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So add what you think is missing — as long as you give sources... Lars T. (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard to do, I'd imagine, with how hard it is to see whether something's POV or not, especially in charged topics like this. Then there's the matter of what or what isn't a weasel word, politically tilted, and so on until an editwar comes up. Eventually gets to the point where it isn't worth it anymore.

I mean for one thing, where's the mentions of the Anfal Campaign? Saddam's oppression of various political factions? Saddam usually being mentioned when dictatorships were brought up? Reading this article one would think Saddam had turned Iraq into a paradise during his rule. I mean even Stalin's article makes room for his faults while acknowledging his attempts at modernization... --MercZ (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the constant conflict and takeover before Saddam's reign, He did make Iraq a MUCH better place. Just becouse it was not great for everyone, or as nice as other countries does not mean that his achievments in creating stability should be tossed aside.--Utkarshshah007 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

the man did not make it better he killed off kurds because of their religion. you think this world would be better if hitler was in power and we never stopped him. by now yes he would be dead but you think the world would be better cause of all the jews he killed. Genocide is not something that benefits this world. Hitler helped better german technology and their economy but at what cost? 6 million dead jews? and how about taking over poland and many of the other countries he took? but see for saddam those people dont even have a sewer system.... take a look at his palaces..... you tell me if he really benefited them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.59.167 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV means "good" and "bad" so lets stay neutral. SGGH ping! 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is indeed partially biased. There should be a session about his crimes agains humanity. Its true that Saddam Hussein,in the beginning of his rule,did provide better life conditions to the iraqi society. But after he attacked Kuait and lost the war he became a parasite.Slaving,killing and torturing his own people, just to maintain his power at all costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.20.250 (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. He did do these things (slaving, killing,torturing his own people). But only because he needed to keep three separate factions that hated each other for years in line. Look at Iraq now. The entire country is in a three faction civil war, with Sunnis fighting Shi'ias, Shi'ias fighting Sunnis, and Kurds fighting them both. At least while under Hussein there was a semblance of peace. This is what I see there. Saddam did his job well in terms of keeping the three factions in line. But the by-products of this are the mass killings, the torture and enslavement of his own people, because they keep people afraid and unable to react to things.Rts117 (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree with that approach.77.83.253.148 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is far from neutral. We're not covering his radicalism enough. The article makes him look somewhat reasonable, something he was far from being. This article will never be an FA without more coverage of the other side if the story. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

 * 02:27, 8 February 2008 Steel changed protection level for "Saddam Hussein" ‎ (Anon vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop])

It's been a while since this article was unprotected, and I'd like to check if semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming the views of regular editors, I've contacted Steel, who was the last admin to protect this article. --TS 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Post mortem


 * Well in retrospect that was a bit of a mad thing to do, I'm sure you'll agree.


 * I've reverted to the revision of 02:34, 15 September 2009 by Tobebot.


 * One possibly non-vandalistic change is that article now says:


 * In August 1995, Rana and her husband Hussein Kamel al-Majid and Raghad and her husband, Saddam Kamel al-Majid, defected to Jordan, taking their children with them.


 * Before I reverted, it said:


 * In August 1995, Raghad and her husband Hussein Kamel al-Majid and Rana and her husband, Saddam Kamel al-Majid, defected to Jordan, taking their children with them. 


 * The names of the wives had been swapped. If this is vandalism it's rather subtle, and in any case it reveals a problem in our coverage of Saddam Hussein's family.  The article on Saddam Kamel names his wife as Rana and the article on Hussein Kamel names his wife as Raghad.  In other words, the names of the wives were consistent with the other articles before I reverted.


 * The histories of those other articles show no recent vandalism. They could be incorrect but if so the change cannot be written off as vandalism because it is consistent with what other articles on Wikipedia have said for years now.


 * The edit that changes the names to make them consistent was here. It was made by


 * That's pretty good.


 * Another edit I would draw attention to is this, which was reverted. It may not have been suitable for Wikipedia, but it was not vandalism.


 * And yet another edit: this and this, both vandalism (watch closely) by an editor who is autoconfirmed. Semiprotection would not have stopped this vandalism.


 * But obviously the level of vandalism was very high. Semiprotection is probably appropriate to this article. But see what we gained by just a few days of unprotection: somebody spotted and fixed the apparent error in the names of the daughters, Rana and Raghad. --TS 00:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In view of the above I've edited the article to reinstate the reversion of the names. Saddam Kamel was married to Saddam Hussein's daughter Rana and Hussein Kamel was married to his daughter Raghad. --TS 01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper English Grammar
Would someone with the ability to edit this page please correct the usage of "massive amounts of troops" in the Gulf War section? It's "a massive amount of force", or "massive numbers of troops"; as written it looks silly. Thank you. 174.46.172.13 (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * fixdPeter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

September 11
Hey, why isn't there any mention on this article about Saddam's plot to blow up the WTC on september the eleventh 2001? This was a huge event for America and probably the world (caused the war on terrorism) and since Saddam ordered the attack I think some mention should have been made on his own article! It is ridiculous the sort of bias on this article when Saddam's role in the terror plot is not mentioned! I mean give me a break, plz!Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For facts like these you have to go to FoxNewsPedia. Lars T. (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Saddam had nothing to do with September 11 attack on WTC. I suggest that you stop watching Fox News as the previous commenter pointed out. --Salehjoon (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect that Peter Napkin Dance Party does not watch Fox News, but rather was making a political joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.130.230 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article tagged?
Why is the article tagged with "multiple issues"? I cannot find any information on this on the talk page or in the archives. Maybe the issues have been fixed, as the tags are quite old? Offliner (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The intro should include his best-known moments such as his gassing of the Kurds when he tried to ethnicly cleanse all non-Iraqis during the war. Human Rights Believer (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

article clean of any criticism
Am I the first one who wonders there is not a single line of criticism in the article? It is all about how Saddam modernized this, won that war and so on... From reading the archives I get the distinct impression there is a well hidden edit war going on. Crass Spektakel (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As you've noted, something is weird with the downplay of the terror and manslaughter character of his regime. Seems like the Let the reader decide is not fullfilled, and WP:NPOV in some way failed to deliver an objective view of his "achievements". Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Saddam did meet his wife before their wedding
It states under Saddam's marriage and children that Saddam never met Sajida until their wedding, but this is not possible because Saddam was raised by his uncle Khairallah Talfah, who was Sajida's father.

Source: http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/biography_saddam_hussein.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenttowsley (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words
I just finished reading this article and it seems to me that there are a lot of weasel words and bias in it. The first part is decidedly pro-Saddam, the second part has quite a few weasel words such as "conveniently ignored." Is there anyone more knowledgeable on the subject who could make it more neutral? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged death
Why is no mention made a his former doctor claiming that he died of lymphatic cancer in 1999. I can't find the original article as I don't read Italian anyway but here[ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31718 ]68.59.177.3 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

he died in 1999.--KAWASAKI (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Trial
In the trial section, it says "On 30 December 2006, Saddam was hanged.[8]"" While this is in no way false or innaccurate, the use of his first name seems reasonably unproffesional. I reccomend it be changed to either "On 30 December 2006, Hussein was hanged.[8]," "On 30 December 2006, he was hanged.[8]," or "On 30 December 2006, Saddam Hussein was hanged.[8]" The last seems most professional as the first or second might be confused with the younger brother mentioned in the same section. Thanks DerBarJude (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming for this discussion. Lars T. (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the truth?
Saddam Hussein was provocated to attack to Kuwait while Kuwait was provocated to weaken the economy of Iraq. Who was behind these provocations? U.S.A! Read also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.199.249 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a political views page. xXSc3n1cXx 13:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXSc3n1cXx (talk • contribs)

Date of Birth in dispute...
Date of birth is listed as 28 April 1937. This is a birthday that he selected. The year is absolutely correct, however, Saddam was never sure of his original date of birth because it was not uncommon in Iraq for records to not be kept. As a result, usually wealthier families where able to register their children. Those that were not registered were "given" a birthday of July 15th. 28 April 1937 is the birthday of Adnan Khairallah, Saddam's first cousin and brother to his first wife. It is reported that Saddam was jealous that he never knew his actual birthday, and chose Adnan's birthday as his own. 69.178.97.158 (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

year of birth
saddam was 2 years younger than his wife sajida, however both of them are listed to have been born in 1937, which isn't possible. either saddam's year of birth needs to be changed or sajida talfah's must be. most likely his wife's year of birth is the incorrect one since there is less information available on her than her husband. i have noted this on sajida's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.195.147 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

saddam and his wife
saddam did meet his wife before their wedding, his uncle (sajida's fahter) raised him.

sources:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1957&dat=19931205&id=0BYxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LOEFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4316,876174

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/biography_saddam_hussein.htm

http://www.yourdictionary.com/biography/saddam-hussein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.195.147 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Crimes against Humanity
I wanted to bring up the fact that Saddam's genocidal practices and crimes against humanity are sorely underrepresented in this article. They are overwhelmingly pertinent to this article, and to consign such information to a brief mention in the trial section is a disservice to Wikipedia and to the hundreds of thousands of victims of his murderous, intolerant regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishjpm153 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he was a socialist, a secularist, and sworn enemy of the United States is enough to make him a good guy in Wikipedia's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It must be remembered that, bad as he was, there was insuffient evidence to charge him with very much at all for his trial. Wikipedia must reflect what is known and not present what we think we know as fact.Wayne (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The War Crimes section on GWB is ten times longer and no historian would even pretend to compare the two. This page is revisionism plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That might carry some weight, except that there isn't a "War Crimes" section in the GWB article. In fact, the word "war crime" isn't present in the article at all. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 68.17.202.123, 1 September 2010
Please change: citing evidence of repeated Iraqi violations of the "no fly zones" imposed after the Gulf War and for incursions into Kuwait. TO: due to an attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush on April 13, 1993. Sixteen men, said to be in the employment of Saddam Hussein, smuggled a car bomb into Kuwait with the intent of killing Bush as he spoke at Kuwait University. The plot was foiled when Kuwaiti officials found the bomb and arrested the suspected assassins. Bush had left office in January 1993. The Iraqi Intelligence Service, particularly Directorate 14, is thought to be behind the plot. Because that is what was used in the G. H. W. Bush Wikipedia entry. The attack on the Iraqi Intelligence Service was authorized by US President Bill Clinton.

CliffVDY (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

non-neutral "perceived"
The word perceived is non-neutral in the lead: "By 2003, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush perceived that Saddam remained sufficiently relevant and dangerous to be overthrown" It is as the word "learned." Instead, you have to use a word like "felt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.184.12 (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Offensive photograph
I am particularly offended by the photograph on the LEDE of the article. It shows the Butcher of Baghdad in his heyday when he caused suffering to millions and millions of ordinary Iraqis. I agree that there should be a photo of the butcher but it really should be one from the last days, such as him in court with with beard, or when he was caught by the US troops, or when he was being treated for dental diseases on camera, I would prefer the one in which is was hanged by the hands of justice for his killings of the Kurds etc. but it would also upset some of the Human Rights lobbyists. So perhaps the best photo might be with him fretting at the point of death, just before he was hung by the scruff of the neck and starved of oxygen. Can I please obtain a concensus for this? Freedom Bringer (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We should show him as how he was best known. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want it known that he was such a butcher, why would you hide an image that supports showing how offensive his actions were? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Better still, as Freedom Bringer only refers to "the buthcer" and not even naming the subject, perhaps he/she could provide us with a photo of the subject wearing an apron and chopping meat in his "butchery"! When you overuse a term, it becomes trite and loses its impact. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if you'd followed the events, you'll have known that "the butcher" was sentenced to death for ordering the killings of the Shi'ites in Dujail, 1982; this meant that he would not be tried for the Hallabja gas attacks and that in turn caused an outrage among the Kurdish population who had felt cheated. So learn your facts before you print such terms as "butcher" using the official language of sanction. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlock
Unlock the page now !! --93.82.3.193 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Is there a specific edit you wish to make? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cult of Personality
I'm curious as to whether Saddam really did have a cult of personality, or merely the appearance of one, to a public willing to accept him despite his many faults. How does 'personality cult' square with the Muslim distaste for idolatry? What did ordinary Muslims in Iraq really think about his image plastered everywhere? Kelt65 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture
Can the picture of Saddam be changed?

This is not representative of him before he was executed. He is also grinning. Appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.115.253 (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly say Saddam was more influential as President of Iraq for some 25 years than as a dead man, wouldn't you? For this reason I'd say the opening photo is certainly representative of him. The article already has other pictures of him such as when he was captured. --Mrdie (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.192.138.96, 21 January 2011
The article has clear bias towards Saddam Hussein, being described as "venerated" lack of content on genocidal campaigns, over-emphais on his economic programme and emotive responses from his family over his death substantiates this.

90.192.138.96 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it.


 * Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. If you can supply such a reference, please reinstate your request. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 09:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

False claims in article
This article makes the false claim that the GW Bush administration stated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This is both a FALSE and UNCITED claim within this article.

The GWB administratoin NEVER claimed that WMD were in Saddam's possession, the only claim ever made by the GWB admin was to the effect that Britian believed Saddam had WMD. Eithrer clear up this bogus statement or another page will be created around Saddam Hussien that is not politically colored as this article is. Also, cite clear and credible freferences for claims made in the article.

By 2003, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed that Saddam maintained links to terrorist organizations, had weapons of mass destruction, 99.2.69.235 (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Items Found on Saddam Hussein At Capture
There is currently no mention of the fact that, upon his capture, Saddam Hussein had a "Nestle Kit Kat Chunky" chocolate bar on his person. I believe this requires prompt correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.224.180 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Do most articles discussing the arrest of criminals, traditional or war criminals, state what food items they had on their person? What relevance or notability does this serve? Are you going to present a source? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm currently looking for an acceptable source. However in a number of videos, easily accessed online, there are a number of empty "Nestle Kit-Kat Chunky" wrappers clearly visible in his hole in ad-Dawr. As for the necessity of this information being contained within the article, if we are to get rid of all the spurious content on Wikipedia we won't have much left at all! It's simply another fact that is quirky and of interest to most people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.224.180 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That other stuff exists is not justification for your stuff being added. If you yourself think this is just a "quirky fact" rather than something notable, then I think this discussion is over. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument was not "other stuff exists" but simply that an interesting fact had been overlooked. It is interesting as he decided not to consume that final "Nestle Kit Kat Chunky" and in years to come scholars may wish to muse over this fact. But if no record is kept on Wikipedia, then this information may be lost. And it will be on your shoulders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.224.180 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so this is trolling. Bye now. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello could someone please make the following correction. In the section 'Personality Cult' it states that Saddam 'enacted statutes' but this should be 'erected statues'! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaurusLeeds (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Buffer State?
I was surprised to read the article assert "Iraq was strategic buffer state against the Soviet Union and Saddam was often seen as an anti-Soviet leader in the 1960s and 1970s." In fact, in 1972 the USSR and Iraq signed a formal alliance, "The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation", wherein they promised to support each other when threatened and to avoid hostile alliances against one another. The Soviet Union supplied the majority of Iraq's military equipment throughout this period including over a billion dollars in military assistance. Iran was the US's buffer state up until the Shah's fall in 1980, not Iraq, which was generally seen as a Soviet ally. In fact, the US only restored diplomatic relations with Baghdad in the Reagan era as a reaction to Iranian gains in the Iran-Iraq War. To quote the Wikipedia Article on The Soviet Union and the Iran–Iraq War, "Iraq had been a very close ally of the Soviets since 1958 and in 1972, the USSR and Iraq had signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in which both countries promised to help each other under threat and to avoid entering hostile alliances against one another. Iraq had replaced Egypt as the Soviet's chief partner in the region after the Camp David Accords."--[User:Clickmr] (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Supergun / Project Babylon
In the article Project Babylon it says Saddam commisioned the supergun project. Should a reference be added to this article. John a s (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Right to Exist
Under the Oil Vouchers section should be a Right to Exist section describing the right to exist of Iraq and the various people, political entities, and functions of society in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.128.138 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Source: White House page on Saddam
Here are archives of the White House anti-Saddam Hussein pages

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20040701000000*/http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/tales.html

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Surname
Shouldn't he be referred to as "Hussein" in the article, rater than "Saddam"? (92.7.5.239 (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

Grammar error?
In the section entitled 'Incarceration and Trial', this sentence: "Various sightings of Saddam were reported in the weeks following the war, but none was authenticated." should be "Various sightings of Saddam were reported in the weeks following the war, but none were authenticated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by I386freak (talk • contribs) 07:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhabs he was a kurd!
Perhabs Saddam was a Kurd from Tikirt. In the past Tikrit was dominated by Kurds as inhabitant, as well. Here I have one evidence for this hypothesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pbwdsp26gc

I am not sure but i think it could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.76.131.209 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Gay porn films
According to the tabloid Weekly World News, Saddam Hussein once starred in gay porn films. Is this true? If so, please add that into the article. Bawitdaba1999 (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source, or even a real news source. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

why isnt cia involvement of propping up saddam mentioned in the article even once?
read the title. how is wikipedia a reliable source of information when you censor things like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.164.244 (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"who conveniently overlooked Saddam's use of chemical warfare against the Kurds and the Iranians and Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons"
This statement is very misleading where placed. Nearly all the outside support for Iraq was before Saddam had done these things. Also the "blatant violation of internal law" is only alleged, there was never a conviction for this. The Iran/Iraq war section is very POV, since the considerable human rights violations by Iran receive much less mention, in fact, they are barely mentioned at all other than the "human wave" attacks, and even that is mentioned as if it were just a battle detail, not a human rights violation far worse quantitatively than the chemical warfare attacks.--174.50.65.152 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bill Burr on Opie and Anthony made a claim I'd be interested in learning more about
Bill Burr said 2012/04/02 that Saddam was trying to get oil barrels seen in terms of Euro/barrel. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWCO8NPhhS4#t=14m50s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.201.168 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2012
suzanne mubarak is represented as a male in this section

122.161.158.219 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. She is only mentioned in one section and she doesn't seem to be represented as male. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Grammar mistake
197.247.240.40 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"At the time, the Ba'ath Party was more of an ideological experiment then a strong anti-government fighting machine."

Then should be than.

Purpose of the invasion
The article states: "In March 2003, a coalition led by the U.S. and U.K. invaded Iraq to depose Saddam". This is not accurate. The stated purpose for the invasion was the weapons of mass destruction. Regime Change is a concept that came up much later.

JG Estiot (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The war resolution also cited Iraq's role in "supporting and harboring terrorist organizations," "brutal repression of its civilian population," "refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq," etc. Congress formally endorsed the vision of bringing democracy to Iraq during the Clinton Administration; the war resolution cited the need "to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but the main argument to invade Iraq was weapons of mass destruction.... --TIAYN (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So how would you like to amend the text?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

the end of Saddam's presidency - disputed?
The article mentions April 9, 2003 as Saddam's last day in office. I know the U.S. declared April 9 to be the end of major operations, but I don't think that really means anything unless there is some sort of international agreement. So my question is, what makes that date "official"? For the record, some other countries (such as Indonesia) still recognized Saddam as the president of Iraq, and Saddam considered himself to be in office, up until his execution. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits made by user CJK removes backed up stmts that Reagan aided Saddam in his war against Iran
Hi all

I am referring to this edit made by CJK: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam_Hussein&diff=565693061&oldid=564634489

He (assuming gender here) has removed stmts that say the Reagan administration gave "agricultural" aid to iraq that was actually for supporting saddam in his effort against iran in the war. As you know Reagan had by then decided that letting iran to win wasnt in the US best interests.

I have checked the source. It does uphold the statement as it was before this removal. I have also found other sources (not in article) that state these "agricultural" aids were solely made to help Iraq beat Iran.

The edit has also altered transcript of a negotiation taking place between saddam and US. Prior to this edit the transcript made clear that Saddam was using the threat of attacking Kuwait as leverage to make US to allow him to gain lands belonging to Iran in their war efforts. But the edit removes this transcript. I havent had time to properly check this part of this edit.

Will someone please help me look into this to make sure relevant facts stated by sources havent been omitted?

PureRumble (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that I removed stmts that say the Reagan administration gave "agricultural" aid to iraq is utterly false. The statement is still in the article.


 * CJK (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. My assertion that you removed a stmt that said Reagan gave aid to Saddam in order to help him to beat Iran is not utterly false; instead it is completely true. But i understand that what i wrote above could be interpreted the way you did.


 * But still your edit removes the fact that the aids Regan provided to Iraq was not solely out of compassion for the iraqi people (if he had any at all), but instead the primary objective was to help Saddam to beat Iran.


 * The idea that it was for agricultural benefits was just a cover up of the Reagan admin; reliable and well backed up sources make this clear. I am assuming good faith but cant help to notice that your edit injects exact the same idea that Reagan wanted people to have of these dealings with Iraq back then.


 * Can you please also shed light on the other aspect of your edit too; the removed transcript of the negotiations between Saddam and US? The transcript showed that Saddam tried to use the threat of attacking Kuwait as leverage to make US to allow him to have another piece of Iran. He stated this in clearest of language, making the transcript into another hint that US and Saddam had dealings/cooperations in Iraqs efforts against Iran.


 * When you reply please use proper indentation as i do when replying to you. Following arguments without indentation is tricky. PureRumble (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The agricultural aid is mentioned in the article so I don't know what your problem is. The transcript provided had absolutely no source. Even if there was a source the statements on Iran are not terribly relevant compared to the statements which I quoted. When you reply please use proper English as I do when replying to you. Following arguments without proper grammar is tricky.


 * CJK (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * CJK. You missed part of my concern regarding your edit. I will repeat it again.


 * My concern is not that a stmt regarding Reagan's agricultural aid to Iraq has been removed. I repeat that this is not my concern.


 * My concern is that a stmt that made clear that Reagan gave aid to Saddam for the purpose of fighting and defeating Iran has been removed by your edit.


 * Reagan gave part of this aid in the disguise as "agricultural" aid. He wanted to hide the fact that the aid was in fact for assisting Saddam in his war effort against Iran, by making others to believe that he just wanted to assist Iraq's agriculture.


 * Your edit has removed the true intention of the aid, and replaced it with the notion that Reagan wanted people to believe; that it was for agricultural aid.


 * I'm gonna look into the other aspect of your edit (the transcript) and be in touch with you here.


 * By the way, your stmt regarding my grammar has a tone to it that is uncalled for. I think my grammar isnt so horrible that you are having difficulty to comprehend my comments. On the other hand I have followed your discussions on the Iraq War talk page; you hardly ever use indentation, which gives merit to my request for you using indentation.


 * Best regards, PureRumble (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it can me modified as The Reagan administration gave Iraq roughly $4 billion in agricultural credits to bolster it against Iran. CJK (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013
Please fix the broken link in the article's first paragraph.

In the discussion of Saddam Hussein's name, the "reference 3" URL is broken:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/saddam_hussein.html

It should be:

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/indepth/words/saddam_hussein.html

Thanks.

70.48.15.233 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: This has been addressed by another user. Thank you for the notification! Dana boomer (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2013
Date of birth is registered wrong, it really was...28 December 1937

Ma3una (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its disputed when he was born. --TIAYN (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As TIAYN says, there are disputes about when he was born, as is mentioned in the second reference of the article. If you have a reliable source that gives the 1937 date, please provide it, and begin a content discussion here on the talk page, rather than using the edit semi-protected template. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
A great deal of this article is lifted straight from the transcript, word for word, of a video series called Wars Against Saddam, but I do not see any mention of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.66.76 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013
Change any instances of the transliterated name التكريتي spelled "Al-Tikriti" to "At-Tikriti" in accordance with Arabic phonetics. The ت, which is a "sun letter," would be assimilated into the definite article ال(Al-) in spoken language. Because the transliteration is meant to convey proper pronunciation for people unfamiliar with Arabic script, it should reflect the proper way this name would be pronounced.

50.174.188.38 (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AS I am not an expert on this, I need more evidence first... -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request .. Thanks
{Edit semi-protected} The 1991 Uprising has not been mentioned. It is as Important as the "Genocidal campaign against Kurds" section, as there was a genocide of the Shia in the centre and south of Iraq. It is also the first true "Arab Spring" revolution against one of the dictators in the region.

There is a goog Wiki page but that needs to be linked here too. 1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Theres thousands of things not told here and no possibility to tell them. The former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein was not executed as justice for crimes he committed, but for his opposition to Wall Street, political analyst Caleb Maupin told RT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.152.215 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Style whilst President of Iraq
The Most Honourable Saddam Hussein, President of the Republic of Iraq.

EDIT REQUEST 2
I think it's worth mentioning that renowned neuroscientist, Dr. Michael Persinger, during his YouTube lecture titled "No More Secrets," stated that the US government found Hussein by using psychic Sean Harribance, with whom Persinger was researching at the time.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note: YouTube is NOT a reliable source. Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)