Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Flawed intro

The intro contains the following sentence: "While he remained a popular hero among many disaffected Arabs for standing up to the West and for his staunch support for the Palestinians,4 the United States continued to view Saddam with deep suspicion following the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

I have a few problems with this.

1. 1. I do not believe he was a hero to "many" Arabs, rather a hero to "some" Arabs. This is because many, many Arabs hate him with a true passion, probably because Saddam has killed more Arabs than any single person in modern history (last few hundred years). The number of Palestinians who may have liked Saddam and much smaller than the Arabs of southern Iraq who hate him.

No. See the citation that goes along with the sentence. 172 13:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. 2. Saddam’s support for the Palestinians has always been minor, and only increased in the last few years by his donations of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Support for the Palestinian cause had consistently been a major part of his brand of Ba'aathism, foreign policy, and personality cult, and this did not go unnoticed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Again see the citation that goes along with the sentence bringing up the Palestinians. 172 13:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. 3. The sentence begins by showing why some/many Arabs supported Saddam, then ends by saying the US viewed him with deep suspicion. This is unbalanced. There needs to be a reason to explain why the US viewed him with suspicion, especially considering there is an explanation of why Arabs like him. By omitting this reason, one can easily infer that the suspicion was because of his support for the Palestinians, and this is false. The US viewed him with suspicion because he was not upholding the cease-fire agreement, violating the UN resolutions, deceiving the weapons inspectors, and attempted to assassinate George Bush Sr. during a visit to Kuwait.

Why the U.S. viewed him with suspicion is obvious. And listing is inappropriate in the intro. 172 13:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. 4. I don't think the Palestinian issue deserves to be in the introduction, because it is so minor.

Again, the Palestinain problem was major aspect of his ideology and foreign policy. It must be mentioned in the intro. 172 13:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links with French political circles

Shouldn't "cementing close ties with French political and business circles" be replaced by "cementing close ties with French business and conservative political circles"?

As far as I know, privilegied relationships with African or Middle-Eastern strong-man regimes is a trademark of the "old Gaullist guard" (Charles Pasqua etc.). I don't know of any similar relationships with left-wing political circles. David.Monniaux 11:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Neither do I. I would not object to the change proposed above. 172 11:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the sentence. David.Monniaux 13:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saddam was deposed by the U.S. and its allies during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and was captured by U.S. forces on December 13, 2003. The Iraqi Interim Government subsequently charged him with crimes against humanity. While not incorrect, this wording lends the impression that immediately following his capture he was handed over to a sovereign Iraqi government, which had intended to put him on trial. This was not the case, with the official handover of sovereignty not having taken place and his first court appearance still about half a year away. I changed the wording. 172 13:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Bemused thoughts" (conspiracy theory about Saddam, Israel, and Wikipedia)

Just to make you all aware:

YHBT

><This interruption interrupted by Mr. Billion: IT'S A TRAP!><

Ta bu shi da yu 09:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again I have to express disbelief that the zealous guardians of this article genuinely believe it to be neutral, in its current form. Come out of the closet! do not be ashamed of your motives, admit you feel it is humanitarian and noble to defend Saddam being called "A rising star in the revolutionary Ba'ath Party", (no mention of his trial as a direct war criminal and on what suspicions), while Arik Sharon is termed "The Butcher of Beirut", (every mention of the failed attempt to put him on trial as a war criminal, though it was for indirect responsibility of allied Christian militia crimes, mind you) ... all in the same neutral Encycolpedia!

I am mystified as for the possible moral ground here; justify it instead of hiding behind a procedural beurocracy.

Why is it so important to pretend neutrality? in 50 years, Israel shall be gone anyway but your earnest efforts to that end shall go uncredited and unrewarded.

Be proud of your motives, so that one day, you will be to tell your grandchildren by the fireplace, "In my small way, I was part of that."

or perhaps I am wrong after all; not humble care for the future-but mere cowardly mathematics, weighing the traditionally shorter lifespan afflicting detractors of Iraqi leaders, compared to the relative safety and comfort of criticizing Israeli figures?

And as to this: "As far as I know, privilegied relationships with African or Middle-Eastern strong-man regimes is a trademark of the "old Gaullist guard" ..."

Is "as far as I know" sufficient for references? as far as I know, Jaques Chirac, then (1976) Prime Minister of France and later the Socialist Government of Mitterand, were solid supporters of Saddam's nuclear enrichment project, and not some anonymous old guards, Why, here is an article with a photo of the two latter day civil rights champions, discussing Sartre, the black panthers and Edward Said, no doubt, in one of their favorite activist hangouts: a nuclear reactor. [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31552 Ah the good ole days, before those beastly Israelis had F-16s] More Chirac nostalgia Iraqi contributions to French Socialist Party funds - no, no connections to Socialism as far as I know, how dare you?

Your reaction, sorry to say so, appears to be typical of what happens when people describe the events in foreign countries from press reports without having the background to know what they're talking about.

It is well known and well documented that there is some "old guard" of the Gaullist RPR party (people like Charles Pasqua, Didier Julia...) that have had some cozy relationships with African and Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes. For instance, Didier Julia pretended that his personal relationships with former baathists officials would enable him to obtain the freedom of some French hostages. For instance, from the 14 to the 17th of Septembre 2002, Julia went to Iraq with Thierry Mariani and Éric Diard – all were members of UMP, the successor of RPR.

In comparison, there does not appear to have been any kind of personal relationship involving France's left wing parties. At the time (1981-1986 or so), France supported Iraq just like a large of the West, including the United States: because Iran was the big bad villain, and Iraq was fighting Iran. As for the allegations about Joxe, they seem highly uncorroborated. Anybody can mention any politician anywhere as having taking bribes – does this mean we should believe them without proof? (Presumption of innocence and all that.)

So, my point is: the support of Iraq by the left-wing governments of the early 1980s was motivated by Iraq's taking on Khomeiny's Iran, while there existed some more personal ties with some of the conservative circles. I note that Mitterrand also approved and committed troops for the First Gulf War.

As for nuclear enrichment, it is highly disputed that Osiraq could have been used to produce weapon-grade material, given the way it was operated. David.Monniaux 09:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also as far as I (and CNN, too bad their domain doesn't inherit your Wikipedia block rights) know, Saddam ordered His Air force to Chemical bomb 60 Kurd Villages, which you continously block. Why is my as Far as I know not as good as your as far as you know?

CNN Report on Iraqi Kurds CNN Map

Stop making incoherent rants. We already cover the chemical attack on the Kurds and Franco-Iraqi relations... BTW, I am an Ashkenazi Jew and a lifelong Zionist. To me what you are insinuating above is insulting and disgusting enough to make me consider the idea of blocking you indefinitely. 172 21:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if they are incoherent to you, and doubly sorry if you are insulted by them. However if you are insulted by insinuations of sympathy to Saddam, and you consistently revert an article intro to a form which in my view is sympathetic to Saddam, what else am I to infer: the word "chemical" is nought to be found in the entire body of the article, save for my links to CNN sites (probably an oversight of one of the blockers who left them there) "Bombing Kurd villages" fails to mention the uniqueness of the first WMD attacks on civilians since World War II. This is at least as important for the intro as the foreign influence on Palestinians, considering the Kurds ARE Iraqi citizens and not foreign. Show me one profile for a world leader in wiki whose second intro paragraph blabs about his influence on a foreign nation! failing that, one must give at least one example of Saddam's brutality, take your pick: Genocide, Stalinist Purges, Mass body graves.

Nonsense. References to chemical weapons appear throughout the article, with yet more references to specific types of weapons (e.g., anthrax, nerve gas, nuclear weapons). The content on al-Anfal and Halabjah is more detailed than the content on all the battles and campaigns against Iran (even though one could argue that the latter is more pressing militarily and strategically). The intro states clearly that the Iran-Iraq War was devastating economically and in humanitarian terms; this is made quite clear as the article progresses. 172 08:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding blocking, You follow your conscience, and I'll follow mine. If you feel my criticism is injust, explain to me why I am wrong in my arguments regarding exposure and positioning of the facts in the intro.

Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks, trolling, and disruption. I am merely one in 300-or-so users responsible for enforcing them. 172 08:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To my view they emphasize Saddam's positive aspects much more than the negatives, even if they are detailed later in the depths of the article. This is what sympathetic means- of course it is not lying, but as in restaurants, location is everything. Opposing views deserve equal exposure in the same place they are discussed. Saddam's threatened and actual WMD attacks on civilians, and its political ramifications, is a fair opposing view to the Palestinian issue and the heroic stance against the west.

You are totally misunderstanding the intro. No editor to this article is saying that his interference in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his bellicose posturing against the U.S. was "heroic" or "positive." (I certainly view it as another example of his bellicose, belligerent, inflexible, and stubborn behavior, which left Iraq an isolated pariah state.) We mention that he has his admirers, however, because the NPOV policy requires us to balance the nearly universally-held view in the U.S. with the other POV (however wrong) espoused by radical, disaffected elements of the Arab world. 172 08:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I cannot stand by while children from the world over read this blatantly unbalanced article, which refers to Saddam's brutalities as gently as possible, while this gentleness is sorely lacking in dealing with Israeli figures. Let me give you a purely speculative example, of what may happen if this sort of trend isn't protested against. The 2050 Wikipedia Entry for Hitler could mutate to:

"A rising star in 20th Century German politics, espousing world unity, secular pan-Europism, economic modernization, and national socialism. Elected democratically as Chancellor (later renamed himself Fuhrer of Germany). Replaced the frail and elderly president Hindenburg. As Fuhrer, developed a pervasive personality cult and maintained power through the devastating World War II, (1939–1945), which both corresponded with a sharp decline in living standards and the human rights situation. Notable vegetarian and supporter of pacifism among his opponents. While he remained a popular hero among many disaffected Germans for standing up to the West, the United States and its Allies continued to view Hitler with deep suspicion...."

and then lengthy paragraphs with fascinating material on his romances with Eva Brown, love of Dogs and aesthetic tastes in art and architecture. Berlin Olympics to follow, softening the reader up for the unobtrusive reference to his somewhat less atrributable contributions to mankind.

Well now I can at least say I told you so. If you think a majority of Iraqi people would support your version of Saddam's intro over mine, I think you'd be mistaken.

It is absurd to say that any of the content in the article portrays him gently. The one theme that comes up over and over again in the article is that his rule lacked the consent of most elements of Iraqi society, forcing him to take repressive measures against most groups in Iraq and employ aggressive tactics against his neighbors. What does this tell the reader? It tells the reader that he was nothing more than a gangster originally lacking support from all groups in Iraq except his fellow gangsters from Tikrit. The article describes in detail how he stayed in power despite his total illegitimacy: terrorizing the Shiites, Communists, and Kurds; paying off the rest of the population, made possible by nationalizing the oil industry in 1972; skillfully playing foreign powers against each other, at least until 1991; and using the Palestinian problem to cloak his regime with some legitimacy in the Arab world. So he comes across as nothing more than a thug skillful for a while at propping himself up by manipulating all the contenting powers in the region, who lost his game as the balance of power in the region shifted in the 1990s, i.e. what he comes across as what he was, no embellishment and emotive language necessary. If this is your idea of a sympathetic portrayal, you need to reread (or read) Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. 172 10:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring mainly to the INTRO not the rest of the article.

The intro does not mention at all any of:

• the "repressive measures" (only equivocally "human rights situation" which anyone can interpret according to his/her hearts wishes;)

• terrorizing of ethnic groups also is absent.

the term "repressive security appartus" again does not reflect Saddam's barbarism towards ethnic rivals - ('security appartus' usually means secret police, Stasi type state surveillance etc)

• "lacked consent of iraqi society" also doesn't appear there in any form;

If you put all those things in the INTRO and i'll be happier. Most people only read the intro, either because they are too lazy or too unwilling to scrutinize their prejudiced views; and an equivocal intro panders exactly to those types of readers, encouraging them. The intro should be built in such a way that fairly represents the two main popular opposing views of Saddam: as a brutal dictator, regional threat of WMD and terrorism, vs. freedom fighter / modern Sallah a-Din whatever his supporters want to call it. It does the latter but not the former. Yes, you cannot avoid the possible reader conclusion that Saddam's popular support may not be despite his brutality but because of it; This is one of the legitimate paradoxes sorrounding this figure (and that of most dictators).

the two main popular opposing views of Saddam: as a brutal dictator, regional threat of WMD and terrorism, vs. freedom fighter / modern Sallah a-Din whatever his supporters want to call it Keep propaganda out of the into. Right now the intro is straigtforward, concise, and factual. It goes through-- and all it needs to mention-- all the important phases of his career, since this is a biographical entry, not the history of Iraq article: key dates, succession, the development of the security appartus, his personality cult, the Iran-Iraq War, the First Persian Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, his capture, and the trial. It will not include POV emotional reactions like "brutal dictator," "barbarism towards ethnic rivals." After all, no one wants to hear the opinion of pseudoanonymous Wikipedia editors who may or may not be authorities on the region, even if they are the near universial opinions in the civilized world. 172 00:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are still ignoring the main points:

• WMD issue
• "terrorizing of ethnic groups"
• "lacked consent of iraqi society"

do not appear in the intro in any shape or form, emotional or not. These are the main arguments of the US invasion, and would be a fair contrary balance to the other facts mentioned in the article (Arab world popularity etc), The arab POV is the only POV that the intro deems justified enough to explain and SUPPORT with facts. The US reaction is only MENTIONED, but not SUPPORTED with facts or explained. This is not NPOV. This is APOV...

And since when "no one wants to hear" unauthorised editors here ? Wikipedia claims to be unique as an editable encyclopedia - not a dogmatic shrine of duly authorised editors; wasn't it supposed to reflect fact backed universal opinions in the civilized world, even if they do irritate a minority of experts?

"Terrorizing... ethnic groups" and "lacked consent of Iraqi society" are POV; no one is interested in the interpretations/opinions of pseudoanonymous Wikipedia editors. At any rate, these points are already thoroughly evident, but worded in a way that complys with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. (The article mentions that the Ba'athists seized power in a coup. It mentions that Saddam built up a repressive security appartus and forged a personality cult around himself in order to maintain power. The article mentions the deteriorating conditions of human rights... Regarding WMDs, it is not always known when/whether or not he had access to which kinds of weapons. In order to avoid making a controversial statement on a highly politicized issue, we simply mention deteriorating relations with the West, and deal with the weapons issue in the article precisely and accurately in proper context.) You seem to be bent on turning a carefully worded and comprehensive NPOV intro into a POV one... Also, give up the notion that the intro is the only important part of the article. It doesn't matter if many people don't go on to read the article. The function of the intro is to introduce the article; it is never supposed to be considered a self-standing entry in and of itself. 172 20:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• "terrorizing of ethnic groups"
• "lacked consent of iraqi society"

You brought up these points in this discussion but refuse to integrate them into the intro.

I am allowed to state my POV on the talk page in these blunt terms, but not in the intro. You are bringing up what I was saying completely out of context. 172 16:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So in short you agree, that this article does not represent the near univeral POV of the west, because that would be too controversial to the east. And opening the intro on Saddam Hussein with a glowing "A rising star"... is much more controversial than mentioning the above bulleted points, and that he had pursued and used WMD's. Chemical attacks on the Kurds are irrefutable evidence.

"Rising star" merely refers to the rapid rise in his status within the Ba'ath party, which no one can argue with. One can even point to many declassified documents by Western policymakers taking note of his rising status in the late '60s and '70s. See, e.g., [1], [[2], [3]. 172 16:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only apparent difference between the former and the latter is where the controversy lies: the intro has no lack of courage to be bold on issues disputed in the west, but smoothes over points that are likely to anger less tolerant POVS; in other words: encouraging these. It should be either neutral on both POVS, or equally bold.

The intro is neutral on both POVs; every single statement is almost a matter of common knowledge now, after years of intense media coverage on Iraq, matter-of-fact, and straightforward. You just seem to be over-interpreting the statements mentioning his meteoric rise in the party and the popularity that he derived from the Palestinian problem. These two things are brought up because they are important features of his career, not because they are "good" or "bad." We are not interested in value judgments-- or not even supposed to be engaging in them. 172 16:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded a bit of the intro. David.Monniaux 09:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The veracity of Rabeh's claims

From the related Metafilter discussion on this issue, a few questions emerge: What has Saddam said about how he was captured? What are the details of Rabeh's identity, and how can we be sure he is who the article claims he is? The article needs corroboration from another source, as does Rabeh's assertion. A quick Google News search for "Rabeh" turns up several results, some of which call him "Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh." So there's his rank, at least. Here's a criticism of the United Press story. A guy (Illuvatar) on the Something Awful forums says First of all, there were no major Marine units in Iraq at the time that Saddam was captured. The last Marines to leave Iraq left at the end of September '03 (I was in the last Marine convoy to leave Iraq, trust me on this one). Marines did not re-enter Iraq en masse until January of '04. He also says that searching here turns up no results of any Marines of Sudanese descent dying in the time period in question, and that this search doesn't turn up Rabeh's name. And then there's the questions of why Rabeh didn't speak up at the time of Hussein's capture, and where the pictures of the inside of Saddam's "spider-hole" came from if it really was actually an abandoned well. The pictures I've seen don't look much like a well.

Only blog sources are definitively claiming the allegations are not comming from a U.S. Marine. Do you actually give that low a credibility to what a soldier from the field has to say? Obviously if that unit had 8 Marines of middle eastern decent it was likely sent on special assignments such as capturing Saddam, don't you agree? Why are there so many people that try to discount the Marine's story without using logic? I accept the possibility his story might be false, can you accept the possibility it could be true? I believe the Marine more than I believe allegations there were no Marines in iraq then (that is a very psychologically subtle way of tricking people into not even considering the possibility that the allegations could be true). zen master T 16:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"First of all, there were no major Marine units in Iraq at the time that Saddam was captured." Wrong, the Marines have been there from the beginning of the war, and will be there unil the end. They simply rotate folks thru Iraq. The idea that there were no major Marine units in Iraq at the time of the capture is nonsense. (anonymous editor)

Don't get worked up over this. I'm not flatly denying that this story might have some validity; however, this is a new claim about Saddam's capture from a single source several months after the fact, and as such it is highly suspect.
"Why are there so many people that try to discount the Marine's story without using logic? I accept the possibility his story might be false, can you accept the possibility it could be true?"
Neither politics nor ideology enters the formation of my opinion on this. I am not a conservative deriding this story as "anti-American," or whatever. Rabeh's story may be fact or it may not. But the balance of evidence is strongly against him--that is, nobody but him has made this claim, and he has provided no proof, only allegations--and I believe that until corroboration can be found, his story should be treated with great caution. Mr. Billion 21:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The balance of proof is not against Rabeh's allegations, the word of a U.S. Marine grunt is much more highly respected than all neo-cons at the pentagon's. I remember reading a "conspiracy" theory a number of months ago that stated the real number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq was closer to 5,000 than 1,500, this might explain the apparent discrepancy of not having a Sudanese Marine killed during the real Saddam capture. Hopefully whatever the truth is it comes out fully someday. It should also be noted the manner in which these conservative bloggers are attacking Rabeh's claims, they aren't trying to debunk his arguments logically, they are just trying to trick people into believing what they want them to believe (which likely causes long term psychological harm since people end up thinking less). zen master T 17:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The balance of proof is not against Rabeh's allegations"
......... Mr. Billion 20:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

huh? zen master T 23:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"the word of a U.S. Marine grunt is much more highly respected than all neo-cons at the pentagon's" You just showed yourself to be biased and ignorant, congradulations, we will now ignore you. (anonymous editor)

Thanks for attacking me personally rather than debating logically. FYI: opinion and POV is acceptable on talk pages. I am actually trying to work towards removing subtle POV and opinion from this article. You also fail to note my statement above was in response to a statement that questioned a U.S. Marine's integrity (so you are attacking me for defending a Marine's integrity, oh the irony by the subtle misdirection loving POV pushers). Let me state for the record that even though you are apparently misguided I won't ignore you. zen master T 16:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm just glad that that jackass 172 is done, maybe there can be real progress on the article now, rather than bullshit about how Saddam "never fowgott" the instability which FORCED THE POOR LAD to torture and mutilate the Shi'a and Kurdish populace. It was for unity! J. Parker Stone 09:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the asinine claims of a supposed Marine, why is this unsubstaniatied claim given any mention here? (From 12.222.234.45)

Weapons inspections

If I'm not mistaken Saddam accused the US of using weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq. This was later backed up by one of the weapons inspectors who admitted he was doing so for the US. I don't see this anywhere in the article. Although this was probably not the primary reason he rejected weapons inspectors, surely it's inclusion is worthy?

Also, I think the bit about why Saddam rejected inspectors should also include the theory that it may have been because he was arrogant and hated what he regarded as an invasion of his country by the inspectors and not just the theory that he wanted to remain seen as a threat

• • Since we are speculating about motives, consider this, President Bush wanted to invade Iraq, but needed "justification". President Bush gets the weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq, leaks the information to Saddam, Saddam reacts, Bush gets his justification and the rest is history. More or less what each President has done since WWII to get their "justification".

Fluctuating Intro

I have added a truthful and up to date summaried appraisal to Saddam Hussein.

It keeps being reverted to the previous version which began "Saddam Hussein was a rising star". Sddam Hussein came to power by killing his opponents, and remained in power by killing his opponents. The fact that there is also only a cursory mention of the Special Tribunal is ridiculous. I have now directly linked a summary of the IST's task with the article.

Please do not alter the intro backwards again!

The old intro calls him a rising star within the Baath Party, which means nothing more than he was rising up the party ranks in the 1960s and early 1970s. Is this untrue? Of course it is not. Your complaint against the old intro is dubious. Futher, by managing to fit in as many emotive terms as possible into your version, we have a flagrant violation of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Chaebol 19:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

A large slice of text was deleted. Is this deliberate, or is it unpatrolled vandalism? JFW | T@lk 16:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not Saddam Hussein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg

It's a double. I recall this video footage fooled BBC correspondant Ragi Omar at the time, but it is simply not Saddam. I am a professional artist who works a lot reproducing faces from photos and I can spot the difference a mile off. It's a mediocre double. Just thought I would let you know.

Fn 2 "Saddam"

According to the article, Britannica (since when do we care what Britannica thinks?) uses "Saddam", and links to an article (header) which appears to corroborate this. But the CBC article that "explains it all" says: "Following this convention, then, "Hussein" would appear to stand out as the obvious choice, and a few large papers have embraced it, including the Globe and Mail, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. It's also the path taken by some encyclopedias, including Britannica and Columbia." Hence the judgement that Saddam is more appropriate than Hussein, simply because its informally popular needs some explanation. -SV|t 00:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isn't because it is "informally popular". It is because it is factually correct. Saddam is what we would regard as a surname. For some reason some US sources in the 2nd Gulf War bizarrely began to use Hussein (unlike in the rest of the world, and indeed in the US media in the 1st Gulf War). Internationally, the US use of Hussein as a surname is regarded at best as a joke, at worst at worst as an example of "illiterate dumbing down" (comment by ex-US diplomat on a radio show in Ireland a year ago). FearÉIREANN^(talk) 01:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Just one minor comment on the article

Under the heading 2003 invasion of Iraq the article (19:06, May 16, 2005) states "In his January 2002 state-of-the-union message to Congress, George W. Bush (the son of George H.W. Bush) spoke of an "axis of evil" comprising Iran, North Korea, and Iraq".

I know the phrase is commonly quoted "axis of evil"; but I seem to recall once hearing in a news broadcast that actually that is a misquote, and what Bush actually said was "axis of hatred".

Just thought I'd raise this point. Perhaps someone has archives of news reports at the time, and can check up on this - assuming it is important enough that is.

Polsequ95 23:54, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Check out Axis of evil. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 15:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The photo abuse

The leak of Saddam's "IN HIS PANTS" pictures (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/20/saddam.photos/index.html), in my opinion, has nothing to do with tabloids. Rupert Murdoch may want to buy and print the pictures. But if the U.S. keeps the pictures managed, Rupert Murdoch gets nothing. It's a jail. You can't send your Paparazzi to the jail to take these pictures. The U.S. government shall be held responsible for the leak. This is an important issue. -- Toytoy 08:11, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yet there should be a way to densify the information a little bit. With three paragraphs, this part put the article off-balance; it should be one paragraph at most... Rama 08:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! -- Toytoy 09:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Archaeology of rumor

The following text was inserted by 12.74.187.234 and 209.247.222.98 to replace "(No evidence linking Saddam and the attacks of September 11, 2001, appears to have been found)" :

A Legal decision by Judge Harold Baer, a Clinton nominee, in the 1st Circuit Court in Manhattan legally establishes proof of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. The civil trial included vast amounts of evidence including testimony about a hjacking school at Salman Pak and testimony from Bill Clinton's Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey. [4]

Even Dick Cheney claimed last September never to have suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11. The edit's double reference to Clinton appears to be a political jab.

I bet that Mr. Bush would have liked to have seen these "vast amounts of evidence" to which Baer was privy. If that were the case, he probably could have based his case for war on more sound footing than nonexistent WMD and the possibility that bin Laden and Hussein concievably could work together. It turns out, they've been working together all along!

I'll quote somebody else's comments on this issue: First, because Iraq didn't show up to defend the case, the only issue Judge Baer decided was whether there was enough evidence to send the case to a jury, not whether the facts actually support a finding of Iraqi involvement. That is an extremely low standard under the law and, more importantly, doesn't involve any evaluation of credibility, any cross-examination, etc. There is no finding at all that Iraq was behind the attacks, just a finding that the plaintiffs met the bare minimum threshhold to allow a case to go forward. [5]

The judge criticized the arguments as based on "classical hearsay" but said that the case was technically sufficient, "albeit barely." [6]

Part of the plaintiffs' case was based on the Czech report of a supposed Prague meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. Czech intelligence has since retracted that report and neither the CIA nor FBI now believe that the meeting ever happened.

Actually, just go look at Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. First entry. Bin Laden considered Hussein an "infidel" and supported anti-Saddam islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, Mohammed Atta considered Hussein "an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East," et cetera et cetera.

There seems to be a continuing irrational fixation on Iraq. It's bewildering that some people choose to grasp at weak or nonexistent links to Iraq when the countries to which al Qaeda is tied are so obvious. Ignored in the Iraq obsession is the overt and active support or strong links to al Qaeda from other nations such as (of course) Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and Sudan, where bin Laden based his operations for years in the 1990s at the invitation of Hassan al Turabi, a Sudanese leader.

The country that started this [pattern of Islamic extremism], Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah -- the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They're the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq. :--General Anthony Zinni

I don't think that the assertions of an Iraqi link are accurate and I wish people would stop digging up discredited arguments from years ago. I'm restoring the previous text.

Mr. Billion 01:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, since Iraq didn't show up to defend itself the best the anon editor could argue is that the allegation went "uncontested", which is hardly a determination of fact or proof. And don't forget about the 1980s links between the USA and proto Al Qaeda. zen master T 03:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archaeology of Left Wing Lies

The following text was inserted by 12.74.187.234 and 209.247.222.98 to replace "(No evidence linking Saddam and the attacks of September 11, 2001, appears to have been found)" :

A Legal decision by Judge Harold Baer, a Clinton nominee, in the 1st Circuit Court in Manhattan legally establishes proof of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. The civil trial included vast amounts of evidence including testimony about a hjacking school at Salman Pak and testimony from Bill Clinton's Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey. [7]

Even Dick Cheney claimed last September never to have suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11. The edit's double reference to Clinton appears to be a political jab.

there is a clear difference between direct involvement and indirect support such as that supplied at Salman Pak and elsewhere. Your inspecific claim about Vice President Cheney recognizes neither. A clear political spin. This is nowhere close to neutral

I bet that Mr. Bush would have liked to have seen these "vast amounts of evidence" to which Baer was privy. If that were the case, he probably could have based his case for war on more sound footing than nonexistent WMD and the possibility that bin Laden and Hussein concievably could work together. It turns out, they've been working together all along!

All he would need to is review the decision. In it Baer notes:

In particular, Dr. Mylroie testified about Iraq’s covert involvement in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and about the proximity of the dates of bin Laden’s attack on the U.S. embassies and Hussein’s ouster of U.N. weapons inspectors.

the Ambassador of the Czech Republic’s letter which repeats Minister Gross’s statement about a meeting between Atta and al Ani in Prague"

the contacts described in CIA Director Tenet’s letter to Sen. Graham,

the evidence that Secretary Powell recited in his remarks before the U.N.

and the defectors’ descriptions about the use of Salman Pak as a camp to train Islamic fundamentalists in terrorist.

Although Bear dismisses Secretary Powell's UN evidence and appearance as "heresay" because Powell did not appear at the trial, the only reasonable conclusion is the claim in the article that there is "no evidence" is a political lie meant to echo the extreme left wing mantra which violates Wikipedia's claimed neutrality.

I'll quote somebody else's comments on this issue: First, because Iraq didn't show up to defend the case, the only issue Judge Baer decided was whether there was enough evidence to send the case to a jury, not whether the facts actually support a finding of Iraqi involvement.

{Why quote a lie like this? - Baer made his own decision and made an award for the plaintfs on the basis of that decision. He did not send the case to a jury. His decision is/was: The plaintifs "'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda."}

That is an extremely low standard under the law and, more importantly, doesn't involve any evaluation of credibility, any cross-examination, etc. There is no finding at all that Iraq was behind the attacks, {"behind" is a loaded term. The debate here is over whether there is *evidence*, remember?} just a finding that the plaintiffs met the bare minimum threshhold to allow a case to go forward. {The case is *over.* Judgements were made. Damages were assessed. Then the apparant lies flowed forth from the left} [8]

The judge criticized the arguments as based on "classical hearsay" {not the arguments but the way some evidence was presented} but said that the case was technically sufficient, "albeit barely." [9] Why are you reading message boards and partisan rags like Salon instead of the real decision?

Part of the plaintiffs' case was based on the Czech report of a supposed Prague meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. Czech intelligence has since retracted that report No they haven't. You appear to be the victim of lies spread by the left on a message board. Or perhaps you are a participant. Either way, such a claim of yours needs a direct sourcing. Message boars aren't sufficient. and neither the CIA nor FBI now believe that the meeting ever happened.

Actually, just go look at Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. An article whose neutrality is in active debate. First entry. Bin Laden considered Hussein an "infidel" and supported anti-Saddam islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, Mohammed Atta considered Hussein "an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the Middle East," et cetera et cetera.

The country that started this [pattern of Islamic extremism], Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah -- the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They're the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq. :--General Anthony Zinni

Their election of one of the terrorists involved in the takeover of the US Embassy is a bizarre way of demonstrating this

:Yes, since Iraq didn't show up to defend itself the best the anon editor could argue is that the allegation went "uncontested", which is hardly a determination of fact or proof.

The original text clearly uses the word "evidence" perhaps your confusion between evidence and proof is an effect of unionized public education
--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.222.101 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 July 2005

I fixed this section in the article. Of course the Baer stuff should be removed entirely; it is totally irrelevant to this page or to the debate over Saddam and al Qaeda. All it establishes is that a judge hearing only one side of a case is generally inclined to agree with that side. Obviously the FBI and CIA investigations are more comprehensive. In any case, all of this stuff, as well as every specific charge of al Qaeda cooperation brought up (including the Salman Pak allegations), are dealt with on the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda page, so perhaps this should just link there with a sentence about the allegations being raised but being completely lacking in evidentiary support. --csloat 2 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

To begin with, please don't try to hide behind anonymity, 209.247.222.101.

The "inspecific claim" refers to something Cheney said on live national television in the Vice Presidential Debate on Thursday, October 7, 2004. "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror." And yes, there is a clear political spin here, but it is not mine. Cheney said that he had not suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11. Either direct or indirect support would constitute a link. "It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fund-raising activities. Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)" -9/11 Commission Report, pg 171

You deny that Czech intelligence retracted the claim about Mohamed Atta al Sayed. Take a look at this. "Prague Discounts an Iraqi Meeting," published October 21, 2002. The opening sentence is "The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials." Or read the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 7 pp228-229: "No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001. According to the Czech government, Ani, the Iraqi officer alleged to have met with Atta, was about 70 miles away from Prague on April 8-9 and did not return until the afternoon of the ninth, while the source was firm that the sighting occurred at 11:00 AM. .... There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk it would pose to the operation. By April 2001, all four pilots had completed most of their training, and the muscle hijackers were about to begin entering the United States. The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting."

As to your claim that Salman Pak was designed to "train Islamic fundamentalists in terrorist [sic]": As csloat suggested, read Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Your reply to the Zinni quote is a fine comeback and I commend you for it, but it is logically empty. First, it has not been proven that the allegations about Ahmadinejad are true. It's possible that they are, but you are assuming the truth of something that is still in doubt. Regardless, your comment misses the point of Zinni's statement: That there has been a movement towards liberalization among the country's youth, and US apathy towards that movement will only serve to galvanize Iran's fundamentalist element.

Your closing comment is apparently an attempt at an insult, and as such it doesn't merit acknowledgement other than to request that you review Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks. --Mr. Billion 2 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

To begin with, please don't try to hide behind anonymity, 209.247.222.101.

Then I should believe "Mr. Billion" provides you no anonyymity? OK, call me Mr Googolplex.

The "inspecific claim" refers to something Cheney said on live national television in the Vice Presidential Debate on Thursday, October 7, 2004. "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

This is a clear reference to direct participation. Perhaps Clinton's DCI George Tenet letter to Congress would be more convincing for you. In it he states:

" Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."

Tenet has never backed away from these assessments, reaffirming them in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee as recently as March 9, 2004.

You deny that Czech intelligence retracted the claim about Mohamed Atta al Sayed. Take a look at this. "Prague Discounts an Iraqi Meeting," published October 21, 2002. The opening sentence is "The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials."

Did Jayson Blair report this? The story which reports info on background only and relies on the anonyminity that is hypocritically eschewed elsewhere cannot be trusted coming from a discredited and leftist paper like the NYT's.

Or read the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 7 pp228-229: "No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001.

Perhaps you have heard the truism "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The 9/11 commission interviewed no one on the Prague meeting and is engaging in the "classical hearsay" that did not meet the standards of even the Baer court.

As to your claim that Salman Pak was designed to "train Islamic fundamentalists in terrorist [sic]": As csloat suggested, read Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Actually this came verbatim from Judge Baer's decision. Evidentally you still have not read the decision so I'll let you read a source you may find more palatable given your political prediliction:

From PBS' Frontline at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

[Interview with Iraqi Army Intelligence Officer Sabah Khodada]

"What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?

Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.

The people being trained were Iraqis in one group, and non-Iraqis, or foreign nationals, in another?

Non-Iraqis were trained separately from us. There were strict orders not to meet with them and not to talk to them. And even when they conduct their training, their training has to occur at times different from the times when we conduct the Iraqis our own training.

So you were training Iraqis, Saddam's fedayeen, members of the militia in Iraq. And someone else, other groups, were training the non-Iraqis?

They were special trainers or teachers from the Iraqi intelligence and al-Mukhabarat. And those same trainers or teachers will train the fedayeen, the Iraqi fedayeen, and also the same group of those teachers will train the non-Iraqis, foreigners who are in the camp. Personally, my profession is not this kind of training. My profession is to train people on infantry, typical infantry training, such as training on machine guns, pistols, hand grenades, rocket launchers on the shoulder and this kind of training. The special training that I'm talking about, such as the kidnapping and so, is conducted by those trainers who are not from the army; they are from ... al-Mukhabarat.And there was a person who is very famous. They call him Al-Shaba. [ph]. This is Arabic word means "The Ghost," who was responsible for all the training, and those trainers or the teachers.

Why was he called the Ghost?

I don't know exactly why he's being called the Ghost. I came there and his name was the Ghost. But I know that he has conducted several terrorist operations in Lebanon and in other countries all over the world. And I know that he told us that he's been requested to be arrested by the Interpol. This is probably why he called himself the Ghost.

And the foreign nationals, the Arabs who are there, but who are not Iraqis -- what were they like? Were they Egyptians, Saudis? Do you know where they came from?

They look like they're mostly from the Gulf, sometimes from areas close to Yemen, from their dark skin and short bodies. And they also are Muslims. ..." ...

"Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak (see Khodada's hand-drawn map of the camp), an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview, conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001, Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001.[Editors Note, June 2004: A year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein.]" (note the above was another unsigned note from mr. googleplex or whatever)
--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.222.116 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 July 2005

Read the disclaimer you quote above -- it says quite clearly that none of what Mr. Kohada has said could be verified and that he worked for the INC - a discredited organization that went on a campaign to prove Saddam was linked to al Qaeda and introduced a lot of unreliable evidence that turned out to be false (google for "curveball" for some of this, or just read about it on wikipedia). It has been speculated that the INC crowd was working for Iranian intelligence, feeding the US disinformation in order to provoke an attack on Iraq; that may or may not be the case, but whatever the case is, everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt (including Allawi's most recent claims). In any case the Salman Pak thing has been investigated and of course we found that camp and searched it, and no evidence of any al Qaeda contact with Saddam at the camp. Most people now agree that it was probably a counterterrorism training facility. This is all covered on the Saddam & al Q page.--csloat 2 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)

One more thing -- if you think the NYT is a "discredited leftist" publication, this argument is not likely to go anywhere. When the NYT makes a mistake, it is widely publicized, e.g. the Jayson Blair thing. In this case, there was no error made. You give no reason to disbelieve this particular report other than a generic NYT indict with no substance. It is crystal clear that there was no Atta meeting in Prague in 4/01. Again this is covered on the other page, as well as on the Mohamed Atta page; we have records of him in Florida at that time, and the whole Prague story is based on a single unreliable witness who came forward after seeing Atta on TV; his story has been thoroughly discredited.--csloat 2 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

One final thing (really) -- get off the Baer thing. It has no significance. If you sue someone and they don't show up to court, the facts go in your favor (they are unrefuted). It doesn't matter if there is any truth to them or not. And everything introduced in the court was based on public records that have all been investigated by intelligence agencies and oversight committees and have all been found wanting. If you want to set up a page on the Baer decision and post this material there, it's fine, but it has no implications for this entry.--csloat 2 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)

When I ask you not to hide behind anonymity, I am referring to the fact that you are not signing your posts. (In case you don't know, you can do so easily by typing "~~~~". This is mentioned on your IP's talk page, so I assumed that there's a good chance you already knew.) When you don't sign, nobody can tell who says what.
Your accusations of bias are less credible when you pepper your sentences with politicized insults such as accusations of "left wing lies" and your unfathomable accusation that the New York Times is a "discredited and leftist paper." One might begin to get the impression that your own attitude is not entirely neutral. --Mr. Billion 2 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)

====================

One more thing -- if you think the NYT is a "discredited leftist" publication,

Of course it is. While your sources are extremist left wing publications like Salon or the NYT's mine are the US Congress, the 1st District Court, the CIA and etc. Your are radical and leftist mine are official and neutral. (Googplex)

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously? Anyway there is a link to a US Congress publication -- a Senate investigation -- below that cites a CIA report to Congress specifically, so there are your "official" sources, if you don't believe in journalism. They agree with me, not you. All you have is Tenet and Baer. Oh, and since you make such a big deal out of the fact that Tenet was appointed by Clinton, I'll mention that the Senate is majority Republican.--csloat 2 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

It is crystal clear that there was no Atta meeting in Prague in 4/01. Again this is covered on the other page, as well as on the Mohamed Atta page; we have records of him in Florida at that time,

Link?

The link is right there in front of you; click "Mohamed Atta" and look under April 2001.--csloat 2 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

and the whole Prague story is based on a single unreliable witness who came forward after seeing Atta on TV; his story has been thoroughly discredited.--csloat 2 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

One final thing (really) -- get off the Baer thing. It has no significance.

Of course it does. A legal decision is a legal decision. That is our system and it is congruent with most systems around the world. The burden of legal proof now falls upon those who wish to prove there is no link. If Scott Peterson had never shown up for his murder trial would that have meant he was in the clear?

That's not the point. You're right, Saddam lost the case, because he didn't show up. But that does not suddenly "make it true" that Saddam worked with al-Qaeda! It's preposterous!--csloat 2 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

If you sue someone and they don't show up to court, the facts go in your favor (they are unrefuted). It doesn't matter if there is any truth to them or not. (csloat)

Yup. That's the way it works. The burden of proof then shifts to those who are found guilty. What is your evidence al Qaeda was never tied to Saddam? (googleplex)

The burden does not shift; you just win that particular case. It doesn't change the logical burden of proof and somehow turn reality upside down! At least, not here on earth, where Mr. Baer's decision has jurisdiction. Do you seriously believe any of this stuff? I feel like I'm trying to refute the Chewbacca defense.--csloat 2 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

And everything introduced in the court was based on public records that have all been investigated by intelligence agencies and oversight committees and have all been found wanting. If you want to set up a page on the Baer decision and post this material there, it's fine, but it has no implications for this entry.--csloat 2 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)

Mr. Googolplex

All right, let me try to explain something else. If you include somebody else's signature and timestamp, then that also obfuscates who is saying what. --Mr. Billion 2 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

I tried to sort it out above; can you help with the nice tags you made that say "from 211.111.121.3" or whatever? I am assuming googolplex is new here and hasn't figured out how to keep the attributions clear.--csloat 2 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

To Anonymous editor who keeps messing up this page

Please stop turning this into a revert war. If you have an argument with the points made above on this page please respond to them; otherwise you are just vandalizing wikipedia. The Saddam/Al Qaeda conspiracy theory has been thoroughly refuted. Please do not quote Tenet as if he represents the conclusions of the CIA; as everyone knows, he kept asking the CIA to confirm the opinoin he expressed in that quote, and his analysts were not able to do it. Ask Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit for years. Or Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in Feith's office in the Pentagon whose purpose was to do an endrun around the CIA to come up with the conclusions they preferred. Also please deal with the issues on Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, which is where these things are discussed in more depth. Finally please sign your work; if you are going to do this many edits on wikipedia you should at least sign in and take responsibility for them.--csloat 2 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

The Director speaks for the organization. It has always been thus. Yet you make this statement about Tenet w/o a shred of sourcing but "everyone knows". Perhaps you'd like to offer something from Salon, The New York Times or the equally credible Weekly World News? Perhaps you can even find someone who agrees with your POV on a message board.

"Ask Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit for years."

Scheuer has said he's been misquoted. --"Mr. Googolplex"

That is complete bullcrap! I have read both of Scheuer's books and listened to many of his public appearances; he's been very consistent on this. Again, if you don't trust the NYT I can't help you. Tenet was not summarizing CIA investigations into this. It's not like other officials were quiet about this. Read the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article -- it addresses every single possible claimed "link" and refutes it, with evidence, and sources. I should not have to repeat them here. Again, read Karen Kwiatkowski's work if you don't believe the NYT; she worked in Feith's office!--csloat 2 July 2005 08:32 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, could you provide a cite for your claim about Scheuer? --Mr. Billion 2 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)

He can't because it's bogus. Believe me, I've heard the man a dozen times on the radio, read nearly everything he's published. You can read the summary of Imperial Hubris on wikipedia and judge for yourself; he certainly pulls no punches when he speaks and writes about this stuff.--csloat 2 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)

Please do not erase parts of other editors' comments. And, out of courtesy, at least make some effort at writing your comments in such a way as they can be easily distinguished from other editors' comments; I'm getting tired of having to fix these things for you. Mr. Billion 2 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)

Furthermore, let me say that your behavior is unacceptable. You have decided to take a spoof of my name as your own moniker; erased another person's content; insulted other editors; put forth numerous unreasonable statements, accusations, and double standards (claiming without evidence that the New York Times is a "discredited leftist paper" while pillorying someone else for not providing evidence); persisted in ignoring courtesy by breaking margins and adding comments indistinguishable from other editors' comments; and otherwise behaved in an obnoxious manner. Arguing a point is fine, but do not be belligerent or rude while doing so. And if it's not already clear, I do not appreciate your parody of my name. Come up with something else and stop being antagonistic. Mr. Billion 2 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this is the biographical article on Saddam Hussein, not the case made for war in the U.S. Further detail on the "Al Qaeda and Saddam" link belong in articles related to the 2003 Iraq War. 172 3 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet's Letter to the US Congress

It is clear this article is wrong, and apparantly deliberately so, in the claim "No evidence for such a link ever materialized when it was investigated by intelligence agencies around the globe including both the CIA and FBI."

"The former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, a Clinton nominee, has said the following on a letter to congress:

Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al- Qa'ida, Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al- Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action."

From: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html

The article also claims "the consensus view about the Salman Pak camp is that its purpose was actually counterterrorism" yet offers no support for this claim but another Wikipedia article that proves this claim wrong, That article says "... *Some* believe it was actually used for counterterrorism training, while *others believe it was used to train foreign terrorists* but not Al-Qaeda members." There is nothing here about a "consensus view" yet this article also offers no support. It appears some contributors are using a tactic of progressively more radical leftward shifts in their fabrications.

Clearly this is not a Neutral POV.

Mr Googolplex

Clearly Mr. Googolplex is picking and choosing which evidence and statements to acknowledge the existence of. Here is the consensus view information, which you could have found yourself by searching that page for the word "consensus": "According to Douglas MacCollam, a journalist for the Columbia Journalism Review, "the consensus view now is that the camp was what Iraq told UN weapons inspectors it was — a counterterrorism training camp for army commandos."[10] (I suppose CJR is another "leftist" magazine.) The rest of the entry quotes CIA agents, FBI agents, Richard Clarke, etc., etc. The DCI is obviously the most politicized position in the intelligence community; historically the DCI has had two major jobs that are at odds with the goals of the rest of the Agency: (1) to confirm the information the president wants to hear, and (2) to fall on his sword at the first sign of trouble. #2 is just part of the job -- that's what a figurehead does in an agency that is so uniquely the tool of the president. #1 evolved when presidents started hiring yes-men to do the job -- or, at least, ideologues who already agreed with the president on world affairs and simply expected the intel to conform to their worldview. Probably started with William Casey; I don't know. But certainly folks like Deutsch, Tenet, Woolsey are basically hacks -- they toe the line (whether because they believe it or not is another issue) and back up whatever the president says. I'm not saying Tenet has no credibility; only that what he was saying there was totally at odds with what the intelligence community -- the analysts, not the hacks -- came up with when they looked at the evidence. The Senate commission that studied this came to the same conclusion, as did the 911 commission. Hell, even Bush has admitted it, so this is really silliness that nobody believes anymore. --csloat 2 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

Also here ya go -- it's the Senate Committee report on the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq; look around p.322 for the CIA's official opinion in a Jan 2003 report to Congress, and stop waving Tenet around like he settles the issue.--csloat 2 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)

He has a tattoo I'm not sure what it's of though.

He has a tattoo I'm not sure what it's of though.

his guards talk about it in GQ magazine.

why does this keep getting removed?

The July 2005 issue of GQ magazine clear says that Saddam doesn't use toilet paper but perfers to use his left hand why does this keep getting removed?

Because how the guy wipes his ass isn't relevant. --Mr. Billion 8 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Isn't that a POV?

I don't know about Saddam, but it's how many people in the Middle East do it. With a hose of warm water to wash everything, mind you. They think our habit of "smearing it around" (as they would say) with toilet paper is as disgusting as wiping with your hand must seem to you. This is also why, when invited for tea, you shouldn't pick up the cup with your left hand but with your right, same for eating. LeoDV 17:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not fit the NPOV rule. There is a lot of negetive words (not that I think saddam Hussein is a good guy). Like As vice president under the frail and elderly General Ahmed Bakr, Saddam tightly controlled conflict between government departments and the armed forces--at a time when many organizations were considered capable of overthrowing the government--by forging a repressive security apparatus. this is clearly not NPOV Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 13:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that only nice things can be said about everyone. 82.35.34.11 17:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, but not everyone has the same oppinion on a person. Some consider Saddam Hussein a hero, and some think he is a freak. The words that is used is not appropriate because it makes everyone thinks he is CONSIDERED bad, which is not true. Yes, most people including me consider that he is evil, but not all people does.

I don't see how that sentence is POV. Bakr *was* frail and elderly, and Saddam did forge a security apparatus that was repressive to further his goals. Calling something an organization "repressive" is not POV when it is, it's a fact. LeoDV 17:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam's consolidation of power and the modernization of Iraq is POV

Even though it's true that Saddam was a truly important reformer, esp. for the middle east, such euphemisms as taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following (in other words having all opponents shot and making the Ba'ath party the only party), a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it (in other words a secret police which put every dissenter in jail/tortured/executed them, etc.), Saddam became personally associated with Ba'athist welfare and economic development programs in the eyes of many Iraqis (personnality worship) are intolerable. LeoDV 17:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

US involvement in Hussein's life

From CIA training to gaining power, the Wikipedia entry should display a more balanced view of US interaction with Hussein's regime.

Currently, this article reflects a view of a simple good vs. evil that is misleading and untrue.

6/26/93 Air Strikes on Iraq

The article says,

The U.S. launched a missile attack aimed at Iraq's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad June 26, 1993, citing evidence of repeated Iraqi violations of the "no fly zones" imposed after the Gulf War and for incursions into Kuwait. Some speculated that it was in retaliation for Iraq's alleged sponsorship of a plot to kill former President George H. W. Bush.

That is incorrect. The air strikes were not due to violations of no fly zones. President Clinton explained in a national address that very evening that the air strikes were in retaliation to Saddam's attempted assassination of former President Bush [11][12]. I made the necessary corrections to the article. --Herb West 22:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam body double image

Why is this image used in the article? Every news organization cast doubt on whether it was truly Saddam in this footage. Of all the thousands of images that could go in the Invasion of Iraq section, why use propaganda disseminated by the Iraqi government and of questionable veracity?

Anyways, it's more appropriate to illustrate the Invasion of Iraq with the iconic image of the toppling of Saddam's statue rather than an image in which Saddam appears triumphant. --Herb West 17:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Saddam as President vs Saddam as dictator and President

Should the title page refer to Saddam solely as the former President of Iraq or as the former dictator and president of Iraq? Discussion? What's the consensus?AFethke 21:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

There is still a great deal of activity on this subject, so until it calms down and a consensus is reached, the tag will remain. Even if 172 declares an end to the dispute and continues to wrongly remove the tag.

I am staunchly in favor of mentionng the fact that Saddam ran a regime that was considered by many to be dictatorial. (As was previously apart of the first paragraph until Golbez removed it). To treat the first paragraph as such holy ground that you cannot mention that Saddam Hussein's egime was dictatorial is like putting your head in the sand. Saddam Hussein is practically synonymous with dictatorial! We need to be realistic here. I would venture to say that a majority of people would say his regime was dictatorial, so let's just put it in. If it's back in I'll glafdly drop the challenge. That's my take on all this. Have fun and discuss, I hope not to have to add any more of my thoughts on this as I am, frankly, getting very sick of it.AFethke 15:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Of course his regime was dictatorial. This goes without mentioning, so as to not insult the intelligence of the reader. It's still pretty unclear what you are disputing concerning the neutrality of the article. 172 | Talk 19:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

First, it doesn't matterif you don't GET IT, you cannot simply remove a challenge like that so STOP. I'll try and make this clear, but Golbez also put this tag on so maybe he cabn enlighten you as well. If the article is going to fail to infomr the reader that Saddam Hussein's regime was at least cnsidered to be dictatorial by some, then the article is, in my opinion, bias in favor of the subject. It's amajor fact and its omission somewhere at the beginning of the article reveals a POV. He was not JUST the President tof Iraq. Leaving it at that makes it sound like he was just a normal president of any other country. he fact was that his title was self-given and he wa anyhting but a rela Presidne,t hewas a dictator and leaving pout the fact that h was "cosidered" dictatorial is ot onl inaccurate, but it hurts the articles NPOV. I'm fine without calling him a dictator, becuase that was not his official title...whateve,r but to remove allr efgerence to him being dictatorial is ridiculous. Get it? I don't realy care if you get it, you NEED to stop removing the challene. Take a look at the policy! The fact is that this article's neutrality IS disputed and you removing the tag, wheny ou know there is a seriosu dispute, is wrong. Knock it off.

I am afraid that it does matter whether we get it, else it can hardly be said that a discussion is occurring, can't it ?

By the way, I find you very adamant about this "policy" about removing the NPOV tag, but I can hardly see what you are referring about, I cannot think of any rule here preventing people from removing a tag if so wished by general consensus. Rama 20:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to give up my challenge in 24 hours if no one else thinks I'm sane. I think that's reasonable. Until then, stop removing the tag. The procedures laid out in dealing with a dispute do not allow for unilaterally removing a tag when there's been no resolution. I'm sorry but if you look at the discussion, there was strong support for referring to him as either a dictator or at elast dictatorial. Read up on your rules. I know your opinion on the subject, but you cannot simply ignore people who disagree with you...at least not in this forum.AFethke 20:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

"I know your opinion on the subject"; oh do you, really ? Rama 20:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ummm let me check......yes. Any other tough ones? Let it go, I've dropped it unless someone else thinks that he should be called "dictatorial." You bore me. Where's Golbez, now he/she could argue!AFethke 20:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

He, and what exactly am I supposed to argue here? --Golbez 20:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh who cares now, pick something, lol. How about, was Henry VIII "monarchial?" I thought I knew beofroe, but now.....I am unsure.AFethke 21:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

higher standard for first paragraph

Generally, the first paragraph is for factual, neutral statements. Hitler was the Fuhrer and Reichkanzler. Stalin was the head of the Communist Party. Saddam was President of Iraq. No need whatsoever to say dictator. --Golbez 21:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be neutral and factual. Omitting the dictatorship word is a mistake in my view. Coqsportif 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you'll have to put it in Adolf Hitler for your "consistency" (What IS that referring to, anyway?). PS - it's not going to happen. --Golbez 22:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Will Coqsportif explain why he wants dictator in there [the first paragraph], instead of just putting it back? It's established one paragraph down that he came to power via a coup and then procession, and that he ran an authoritarian government. Unless an argument can be made in favor of putting dictator in the lead (instead of this vacuous ideal of "consistency" that has yet to be explained), I will continue to remove it. Again, re: Adolf Hitler for how this can be done very well. That header has persisted for quite some time, after being in a high state of flux for a while. There is no reason I can see to put dictator in the first paragraph. --Golbez 22:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

So, should the first paragraph of the article on Francisco Franco use the word "dictator"? --Temtem 01:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's slightly different. It states he was "dictator" from 1939 on. Best as I can tell, he held no official title like Hitler did (Fuhrer und Reichskanzler); he was both head of government (President) and head of state (replacing the monarch), with no unifying title. Saddam was the elected (undemocratically, I think we all agree) president of Iraq. It appears that for about forty years, Franco had no complete title. He was President, AND he was head of state. The article lacks information; the footer table states that he was President beginning in 1938, but that is the only time that the year "1938" appears in the article, apart from the name of a town. Clearly, that article has bigger problems than how he's described in the head.

Looking at dictator, I saw Franco's named mentioned in the "benevolent dictator" section. I decided to click the other dictators listed in the article. Castro's first sentence states the facts, the second says he is considered as a dictator (and I've already said I don't like the length of that intro); Idi Amin says that he was president (a brutal one); Pinochet's contains no title but does not call him a dictator; Sadat simply states that he was president; Tito states that he was president, then says how it was perceived; Torrijos had no title but he is described as the "military ruler". Salazar is the only one that counters completely what I've said, saying "noted for the dictatorial nature of his government". I'll put my money where my mouth is and remove it. --Golbez 21:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think this whole thing is laughable...the intro paragraph is not the holy ground that Goldbez makes it out to be and I have renewed the challenge when it was wrongly removed and Golbez, conveniently, kept quiet about it. I thought it was your challenge??? Whatever its back on and will stay there until there's more comon sense displayed here. I've made all my arguments, I'll let others do the rest, but the challenge will remain in the meantime.AFethke 17:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not convenient at all; I have 1400 pages on my watchlist and I missed it. Note the lag of almost two days between Temtem's inquiry and my response. Assume Good Faith, AFethke. --Golbez 17:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Me thinks thou doth protest too much. lol AFethke 20:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

lol hurr doink. Methinks you are not taking this seriously and, if that is the case, methinks you should leave. --Golbez 20:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

yawn....good argument. I don't wnat to talk to you anymore, you talk alot but say little.AFethke 02:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

A friendly note to the new editors... Please stay focused on writing neutral, factual content. Readers are intelligent to make up their own minds, and editors should be skilled enough to follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. 172 | Talk 22:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

dictator is a pov term

Dictator is a POV term, because if just stated it is making judgment. (It happens to be my POV, by the way.) NPOV would require a simple statement that he was a president who came to power by non-democratic means and exercised unchecked power in a manner widely criticised as dictatorial. Doing it that way leaves it to the reader to reach a conclusion, which is what NPOV is about, rather than telling them what to think, which is POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a judgement, it's a factual descriptor. Either he was, or he wasn't. This NPOV mantra is being taken to absurd lengths. Who disputes that he was a dictator? At the VERY least the word "totaliatarian" should be in the article SOMEWHERE where it isn't hidden behind "widely criticized as" buffer text. PS as far as consistency - who disputes that Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were dictators?

marking article not npov

It's unfortunate that people cannot discuss something before acting. Until this issue is more fully discussed, the neutrality of this article is clearly in dispute. Thus, I will be adding the a NPOV tag and will revert. If there is more discussion and there seems to be a consensus I will gladly remove it.AFethke 14:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

discuss first

Do not continue to remove it unitl we have more time to discuss this. let's not act unilaterally here. ;) Let's give Coqs time to explain and otehrs time to argue. You yourself repeatedly stated that this is your belief, just let otehrs have say before acting. No edit war, please or I will have to put an NPOV tag. Thanks.AFethke 14:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss the move before doing something ? There is obviously a significant consensus against sticking loaded words like "dictator" in the introduction (which, by the way, already states that his arrival to power was not legal). The way it is, someone might get the feeling that you are trying to force your version, put it is a fait accompli and stall further discussions so that it stays. I advise you to see whether you can gather support for your version beforehand. Rama 14:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you did your research you'd see that I agree with the edit but alos realize that some people like Coqsportif disagree. We just started the discussion, I don't think you can honestly say there is "significant consensus" just yet a real consensus yet. We did just start this discussion a couple hours ago at most. If no one else comes forth in favor of keeping both terms than that'll be it. Just relax.AFethke 15:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, doesn't look like there's an "obvious consensus" now does it, Rama???AFethke 18:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

As there has been some support to referring to Saddam Hussein as a dictator, this discussion should go into tomorrow to give more people time to weigh in. If no one else weighs in by midday tomorrow (around noon EST) the tag will be removed.AFethke 00:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted back to a version on 8/16 that Golbez put forth that had both President and "dictatorial" that I think is most NPOV. There seems to be a consensus, albeit a weak one, that President is his title, but he was dictatorial. Keeping dictatorial out is not right though. If this is acceptable I will remove the NPOV tag by the end of the day (EST).AFethke 17:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

"He came to power by non-democratic means and exercised unchecked power in a manner widely criticised as dictatorial" - That seems like a decent compromise. "widely criticised as" still has an air of excess, but it's good enough over all. That's my vote, anyway.

And it is adequately explained in the next paragraph. I'd still like to see why Coqsportif calls this "consistent". --Golbez 17:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

So why'd you remove it? Nice touch with the "air of excess" language there.AFethke 18:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Because I didn't like it. I made that edit only so that the word "dictator" would not be in the intro TWICE. I oppose it ONCE, let along twice.

Tell you what, leave it ias it is and I think it's sufficienly NPOV to remove the tag, but eliminating the dictatorial labnguage is like sticking your head in the sand and is just way to politically correct. I agreed with just calling him President but this is too far.AFethke 18:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite another article that includes dictator in the lead graph? I can find one so far - Castro, and his header is rather poorly written. Kim Jong Il doesn't. Adolf Hitler doesn't. Joseph Stalin doesn't. Benito Mussolini doesn't. It's an inherently POV term that, while valid in the article as a description used by others, does not belong in the header. --Golbez 18:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Castor is a dictator and I find it convenient that his was the ONLY one that was poorly written...how nice for you. And the fact that Hitler and Stalin aren't describned as dictatorial....says alot about Wikipedians I think. Doesn't make it right. Do what you want, but I'm maintaining my challenge, there's got to be some common sense here.AFethke 18:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes. It should be no surprise that I like short, to the point introductions to biographies. I did, after all, write Adolf Hitler's. :) And actually, *I*'m the one maintaining the challenge. I put the notice up because of the repeated attempts to add the POV term "dictator" to the head. And no, it says a lot about an encyclopedia. You seem to have some strong opinions about Saddam, but those don't belong in the article. Common sense dictates that we state the facts, and the facts alone, in the header. Later on we can get into general opinions of his conduct. --Golbez 18:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you win, you got me there, I was just all emotional and biased an stuff, but you told me! AND you (somehow) took away my challenge away too, I guess that means you can take it off anytime, because I don't care anymore. This article is just perfect and I was just a fool to think tht Saddam acted like a dictator....how POV is that? Wow, you convicted me...thank you. Oh and I like how you cite the Hitler article as an example of how right you are...when you wrote it. I like to cite to my work for support too....Have fun with the article, but I will maintain the challenge until I see some common sense.AFethke 18:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Took your challenge away? What on earth are you talking about? You removed the NPOV message claiming that it was cleared up. I put it back saying it wasn't.

Yes I can see now that you added it back on and I accidentally removed it and then added it back. Wel good. We can agree on something, we both think a tag should be there....if for different reasons. I hope to one day be able to agree that it should be removed. One can dream.AFethke 19:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think we both agree on that, yes. I just think it's a little clobbering to tell the reader what they are supposed to think about him in the first paragraph. Establish WHY he has an article; then establish what's special about him. I don't think I'm putting spin in. I'm removing it. Again, I didn't so much endorse the previous version that mentioned dictatorial rule; I just thought it stupid to have "he was the dictator, and he ruled in a dictatorial fashion". As my summary said, "dept of redundancy dept". --Golbez 19:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

You're right....AFethke 19:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Both of you are violating the spirit, if not the exact letter, of 3RR. Please stop at once. I've not so much as peeked at the content of the dispute -- and will protect the article without consideration of the version if you persist in this revert war. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your welcomeAFethke 18:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cute. "Revert if you wish, I won't revert". No, you won't. And no, I can't. We're both at our third revert. But of course, you probably knew that already. --Golbez 18:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Who keeps track of such things, revert it back tomorrow I don't care. Have fun making this article JUST the way you think it should be. I will one day be as smart as you and see the error of my ways.AFethke 18:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Need some nails for that cross? --Golbez 19:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

You're right....AFethke 19:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not looking for someone to roll over here, though I do think it shouldn't be included. I want a genuine discussion (Which, admittedly, was damaged by having a revert war). I've made my point; do you have one to make, or are you honestly saying I'm right? --Golbez 19:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've made my point and we'll probably never agree and the tag will probably stay on the article for some time. Too bad really. Have a good one.AFethke 19:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Golbez, do you think that it's acceptable that the word "dictator" is used in the first paragraph of the article on Francisco Franco? Temtem 08:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Saddam's crimes against humanity

Saddam presided over an exceptionally brutal and violent regime and I don't think that comes out in the article. I expanded the third paragraph to make clear the nature of Saddam's rule. I think it renders moot the "dictator" argument. --Herb West 06:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Further info belongs in more specialized entries, such as Human rights in Saddam's Iraq for crimes against humanity. It is important that editors stay on topic and biographical in the Saddam Hussein article, not going into excessive detail on topics that already have their own articles. Also, notice the statement at the top of the browser: "This page is 60 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." Long articles are not a problem in and of themselves, but dumping too much detail in one article while ignoring related entries renders Wikipedia less organized and usable. 172 | Talk 20:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please enlighten me: How much support is there for an NPOV tag on this article? Is it just one individual? - Tεxτurε 20:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If its just me I'll remove it, but I know Golbez put it on too until the dispute was resolved. There's been discussion about this so Ihave not removed it. But others removing like this is against Wikipedia policy. If no one argues, in the next 24 hours, that the lack of referring to Saddam as dictatorial warrants a challenge then I (and no one else) will remove it. Please STOP.AFethke 20:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• It appears to be just you, and waiting an arbitrary 24 hours for someone else to show up to support your position seems silly. Which Wikipedia policy are you referring to, anyway? android79 20:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. The discussion between the two of you has been over for days. If there is no further support for an NPOV tag then it should remain off. A difference of opinion between only two users is not a basis for an NPOV tag. You need to gather a consensus that the article is in a POV state before incorporating the tag. - Tεxτurε 20:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware of the WP:3RR policy. A single user cannot override the community without some show of support. - Tεxτurε 20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine. But if someone else speaks up then I'm putting it back.AFethke 20:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• The NPOV tag is inappropriate for a dispute about this one word. The intro refers to an authoritarian personality cult, which is pretty much the definition of a dictator. So including the word or not including the word isn't a POV issue, it's a style issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)