Talk:Saddam Hussein

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | /Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6| Archive 7

• Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming contains the collected discussion on the naming of Saddam Hussein. Please do not attempt to change the use of Saddam's name in this article without reading and understanding the archived discussion. Thank you. The archive includes the following issues:
• "Saddam" vs "Hussein" vs "Saddam Hussein" as the short form of the name in the article.
• Whether there should be some form of disclaimer regards which is "correct" on the article
• Transliterations: Husayn vs Hussain

Misinterpretation/Misrepresentation

In the article there appears this statement:

Chomksy wrote: There were no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam’s gassing of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988; on the contrary, the U.S. and UK extended their strong support for the mass murderer, then also "our kind of guy."

In an attempt to verify the quote in order to use it elsewhere I found the original writing Rogue States and while correctly attributed to its author (though the name is misspelled, the actual spelling is "Chomsky") it is dually misrepresented to both seem attributed to political statements by both the U.S. and UK in 1988 and to make it seem as if the quote was referring to Saddam. The original text indicates the contrary:

Perhaps the most relevant case is Indonesia, which shifted from enemy to friend when General Suharto took power in 1965, presiding over an enormous slaughter that elicited great satisfaction in the West. Since then Suharto has been "our kind of guy," as the Clinton administration described him, while carrying out murderous aggression and endless atrocities against his own people; killing 10,000 Indonesians just in the 1980s, according to the personal testimony of "our guy," who wrote that "the corpses were left lying around as a form of shock therapy."

In fact the statement is attributed to the Clinton administration thus precluding it having been said at any point close to 1988 and clearly the alleged statement is referring to General Suharto and not Saddam. General Suharto is in interesting man with a colorful and violent history, but he has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. Therefore, this passage should be removed from this bio unless someone can show alternate work from Chomsky that points the "our kind of guy" reference at Saddam and not Suharto. --Matt 12:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the Chomsky quotation just on the grounds that his opinion does not belong in this article. He is not a Middle East specialist. Chomsky's opinion does not belong here any more than (say) Ann Coulter's opinion. 172 | Talk 15:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Too Many Emotional Statements?

I am concerned that there are far too many emotionally charged statements eitehr about Saddam or his regime, but this to appear to be an objective piece of literature.

Furthermore, the depiction of legitimate sovereign, with his hair and beard shabby is utterly irresponsible.

If the people who put the charged words and the picture don't modify them (or delete the picture of captured Saddam) by the end of the week, I will do so.18:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)~MPA

Fair warning. Do so at your own risk. A lot of people have strong opinions about every aspect of this article. Obviously, you do as well (referring to Saddam as the legitimate sovereign and so on), I would be careful revealing your own POV so quickly. It will hurt your chances at making any accepted changes to the piece. Also, threats ("If the people who put the charged words and the picture don't modify them (or delete the picture of captured Saddam) by the end of the week, I will do so" are not received well either. I for one, strongly support the picture as it was the famous picture of Saddam right after his capture and that makes it more than notable. Taking it out to show "respect" for Saddam is POV by omission. I may be wrong, but hey, it wouldn't be the first time. Fair warning, good luck and have fun! I don't care to fight you, so I don't plan on responding to anything. It's Labor Day here and I have some relaxing to do.Gator1 19:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Saddam is being ill treated or not being given the respect he deserves should read "Mayada: Daughter of Iraq" by Jean Sasson. It may put some light on the man's character for you.

The image seems reasonable due to its high prominence at the time. The opening section however is very emotional and is not supported either within itself or by the article as a whole. IMHO it would benefit from the removal of the political rhetoric.

More talk about US arms sales to Iraq?

An issue of interest in the history of Iraq and Saddam's reign is the irony in the support that the US provided him and his regime. Some of this is already pointed out in the article, where it is mentioned that the US provided support during the Iran-Iraq war, and discussion of our statements to them before the conflict with Kuwait. But, there are many sources that describe the extent that the US sold weapons to Iraq. Citing some of these reputable sources would show some interesting things about how difficult it can be for a superpower, or any nation, to choose international policy. Would this be welcomed, or at least a reference or link to the wiki article "Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990"? Forga 07:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For a biographical entry, I think this article already goes into enough detail on U.S. support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. If you are interested in adding detail on this mater, there are plenty of related entries on Iraqi history and U.S.-Iraqi relations linked to this article. 172 | Talk 01:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's major revert

I reverted several edits--all edits performed on Oct 1, because of some major vandalism. The following text had been introduced in the opener:

• and former President Bill Clinton's good friend and "significant other".

I apologise to editors who made changes after that. Please feel free to restore good faith edits made in the interim. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I just restored 172's edit deleting the totalitarian dictators cat but forgot to edit summary. It is a controversial one and my restoration isn't an endorsement of 172's position, SqueakBox 01:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be controversial. In comparative politics Iraq under Saddam is generally classified as an extreme form of patrimonialism-- as a "sultanistic" or "personalistic" regime-- not as a totalitarian regime. 172 | Talk 01:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

My meagre understanding of Saddam is that it is you how describe it, 172. But by controversial I actually meant that this particular category has been the subject of controversy and edit warring in many articles, and I am sure it will continue to be so because the category is by its nature controversial, SqueakBox 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the big revert. I just saw that this major vandalism had gone unnoticed and didn't feel like checking every other single edit. I thought it best to let people know what I'd done and why, and let them restore their stuff. If I were a better editor I would have just deleted the offending text. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Incarcaration"

how the hell does this 'underpants' episode deserve its own h2-section? If it must be mentioned, just make it a subsection of 'pursuit and capture'. 81.63.63.37 13:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

wiki news link

Can we have a link to the wikinews articles about his trial in the trial section? 82.38.60.227 06:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Abou Rabeh

has the Abou Rabeh story been discussed before? de:Saddam Hussein has it, but there are a number of conservative blogs 'debunking' it; still, while the original story was carried by UPI, the debunking appears to take place exclusively on blogs, so I'm not sure about which version has the greater credibility here. 83.79.189.191 15:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am quite unsure about the merit of that story myself, and took good care to link to a critical discussion for npov. I have tried to find an unambiguous official debunking of the story. I could only find statements in conservative blogs of users who claimed to have searched Marine personnel databases, claiming that Rabeh either never served, or wasn't near Tikrit at the time of the capture. I found no such statement from an official source. Apparently, "Pentagon officials dismissed as 'ridiculous' and untrue a report that the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was staged" [1] (if you listen closely, that's a non-denial denial; obviously the actual capture wasn't staged, as they really did catch him; what may or may not have been staged is the pulling-out of a spider-hole). While you should think it would have been easy for the Pentagon to figure out whether Rabeh was part of the raid, they apparently didn't deny that. The video linked to from diaryland is a classical soundbite and open to interpretation. The commander appears to be phased in in mid-sentence, explaining to his men that "he was living like a pig; literally hiding in a hole. ok? Again, nobody mentions anything". The CNN speaker goes on to say that he was adessing the troops who had just taken part in the raid. Why he would need to tell the men who just pulled Saddam out of a hole that he was living in a hole is anybody's guess. So from the evidence I've scraped together here, I really cannot decide which version to believe, as both sides seem to have both motive and opportunity for presenting a false story. 83.79.189.191 16:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

thank you for you instruction, User:172. I just wasted an hour researching the thing because wikipedia doesn't cover it. This is a story reported by UPI. I didn't claim any of it was true, I reported the story as published, plus the official reaction. Where, pray, was I guilty of conspiracy-monging, there? It is also beyond me how this is "Anti-U.S" conspiracy. Anti-Pentagon, maybe, but if anybody claimed that Senate, Congress, and McDonalds, Hollywood, Elvis, PETA or the Illuminati were behind this, it must have slipped my attention. Could you maybe take the trouble to reply here, on talk, rather than telling me I have no idea what I am doing in your edit summary? thank you. 17:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Good ol' Saddam

Wow! This article is very sympathetic to Saddam! It's good to know Saddam still has fans! Babajobu 12:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove this because it was "contrary to my point of view" I removed it because... Well look at it, it has nothing to do with nothing. It neither offers support for its conclusion nor seeks any remedy to the purported problem. --160.36.83.159 21:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It points out that the article is very sympathetic to Saddam. That's worth noting. Babajobu 22:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Portrait

I noticed that SqueakBox had made the photo of Saddam at his first hearing the portrait photo at the top of the page, stating that it is standard to include more recent photos as the portrait. I disagree, however; standard seems to be including photos of leaders when they were in power, not afterwards. It is from the pictures taken during their rule that the more recent photos are chosen. In that sense we have a recent photo of Fidel Castro, who is still in power, at the top. For Augusto Pinochet, who is also alive, an older photo is found at the top of the article, as he has been out of power for more than 15 years. 172 | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, SqueakBox 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Where's the Outrage?

Saddam Hussein getting a Trial!!, the Butcher of Iraq who gave nobody a trial when he ruled the country, but instead instant execution? There was more outrage over the American Servicmen & women who mistreated Iraqi POW's. 23 October 2005