Talk:Saddam Hussein

Archives

---

Higher numbers refer to more recent archives.
Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3
Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6
Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9
Archive 10 • Archive 11

---

• 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

Picture in infobox

Is there really not any portraits on Wikipedia from Saddam's time as president we could use? The first picture on a page is the first thing the reader will notice so we should take some care to make sure it's representative. Saddam's main claim to fame is as the ruler of Iraq for several decades, not being convicted at a trial. Fornadan (t) 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The image uploaded at Saddam_Hussein_(107).jpg was used as the portrait in this article most of the time between 2003 and 2006. Apparently the file was copied by Answers.com, and it can now be viewed here. I uploaded that image myself a few years ago, arguing that the portrait should be a photo that was both recent and taken during his time as president. But the file was deleted because of the copyright status of the photo. (In my view, the deletion was silly; in all seriousness, the Iraqi government is not going to sue Wikipedia over the rights to photos of Saddam released by the old regime and reproduced in countless publications and websites.) If you want to change the portrait, go ahead and re-upload Saddam_Hussein_(107).jpg on Answers.com. (I don't feel like doing so myself. At the moment my tolerance for self-abuse isn't high enough to argue copyright law with the people who worked to get the image deleted earlier on the grounds that we ought to respect the ownership rights of a regime that was overthrown by an invasion more than three years ago.) 172 | Talk 13:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good detail. Saddam wasn't a courtroom guy. He was the leader of Iraq for some 25 years. We need a proper image of him. This picture depicts him as a careless man with his dirty beard. Deliogul 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bulgarian and Russian Wikipedias have good images of Saddam (taken during the years of his rule) in their infoboxes,but I do not know the statuses of those pictures.Does anybody here understand Bulgarian or Russian?Dimts 13:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Internet is full of comedy pictures of Saddam. The only proper picture is the old image that we used in the article sometimes a go. Many websites are using that image. I don't understand why Wikipedia deleted it. Deliogul 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very strict rules about copyright, and they take it very seriously. They will delete photos that have improper copyright data. They also have a rule that a fair use image CAN NOT be used if a free image is available and the fair use image will be deleted as a result. If you disagree with this policy, take it up with those policymakers. Caper13 19:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I prefer to avoid yet another discussion about the portrait photo in this article, I feel compelled to address two misguided assumptions in the comments above. First, Wikipedia editors are engaged in 'policymaking.' For instance, in a discussion of the use of the Trang Bang photo [1] my comment "This picture is one of hundreds posted on Wikipedia of similar fair use status" reproduced already in countless numbers of publications and websites was noted on the Foundation mailing list [2] and even worked its way into a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. [3] Second, common sense has a place in the "very strict rules." The last thing Wikipedia has to fear is a lawsuit over rights to photos of Saddam released by a regime that was overthrown in an invasion three years ago. 172 | Talk 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont recall seeing that the liklihood of a lawsuit was a factor in determining whether to violate copyright. Perhaps you can point it out. Caper13 21:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, paranoia about copyright infringement suits is the only reason for this constant deletion of images. I have had many an argument with editors about this, and it's always the issue. And the page on fair use, as unreadable as it is, makes it clear that fear of copyright infringement suits is the motivation for this policy. FYI, I don't disagree with the general policy, I just think that in many cases editors are worrying about nothing. The first rule of fair use is "do no harm (to the copyright holder)". That's the guideline that should matter. Wahkeenah 03:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Caper13 keeps deleting the images in the infobox on the grounds that they aren't "free". The latest one I added I found on wikipedia Finland, so I assumed it was free. Caper13 doggedly asserts that it is "unfree". I'd like to know your opinion about this.Max Thayer 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The prevailing wiki policy is that a free image supercedes a fair use image, no matter how ugly the free image is. Just another step in "enhancing" this so-called encyclopedia. Maybe they're afraid Saddam's relatives will sue for copyright violation. Wahkeenah 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the image you try to include has not proper copyright information. It is decribed as "only non-commercial or educational use is permitted". Sorry, but that is incompatible with the English language Wikipedia policy and goals (other subprojects may have slightly different policies) unless we can make a fair use case. So far, none has been made. I don't think the existence of any free image necessarily precludes the fair use of all images of a subject if they illustrate other aspects of it. But neither "I found it on another Wikipedia" nor "the Iraqi gouvernment is not going to sue us" is a good reason for keeping the image. --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That would make 99% of wikipedia images illegal, if we follow this logic. How do you determine that an image is "free" ? Why can't you use images intended for non-commercial use ?Max Thayer 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if your statistics would be correct, 99% of all Wikipedia images would be illegal. You determine if an image is free by finding out who created it and what happened to the copyright. Sufficiently old images have fallen out of copyright. Images produced by the US federal gouvernment are PD. Many images are created by Wikipedians and donated under a free license. Many other images are published under a free license as well. If we cannot determine the copyright status, we can at best use the image under fair use. This is not my idea, and this is not new, but official Wikipedia policy, as handed down by Jimbo. See WP:COPY and Wikipedia talk: Copyrights. --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There. I added a public domain photo. I did all this because I thought using the "bearded Saddam" photo was somehow adding insult to injury; now I find myself using a flattering photo, and I don't even like the guy ! :) Max Thayer 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In happier times, as they say. If he were told then and there that he would eventually be hanged, it might have wiped off the smile. Now, to restate what I told one user on his own page: This wiki-philosophy, this obsession with "free" photos, regardless of quality, is why wikipedia's photo collection looks like somebody's scrapbook rather than looking "encyclopedic", which is ironic since being "encyclopedic" is another wiki-obsession. It undermines the credibility of wikipedia to be stuck with second-rate or third-rate photos. But it does serve as a reminder that "you get what you pay for". Wahkeenah 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting sites

I think should be on external links... www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?mod=art&lapage=../en_articles_2007/0107/final-letter_020107.htm Do we have this full letter on the main page? As usual, not.

Term in office

He was overthrown on April 9th or was it his statue that was overthrown, should be say he was in power until puppet provision authority took over? Technically speaking he was president until that day. -- posted by 66.99.0.102

• He's dead. You don't have to be afraid of him anymore. Wahkeenah 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah what does this mean? It is a detail and we have to give correct data in the article. Deliogul 09:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we do. I'm making fun of the POV in the comment. There are folks here still defending Saddam as if he were still alive and could still send his death squads to "take care of them" for not supporting him. Wahkeenah 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Dude, its ok. US citizens don't have to worry about being considered unamerican for not supporting Bush's policies any more.
• Well, Dude, I voted for the guys who ran against Bush... something the citizens of Iraq never had the option to do with Saddam, other than by deposing him. Wahkeenah 11:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• they still don't get the chance to vote against Bush :p I'm just making fun of the PoV in your response. There are folks here still defending US policy as if they would be considered less of an American if they didn't. But thats a blatently unfair thing to say. FWIW i think you have the best interests of the article at heart and play an important role in keeping anti US polemnic under control, but dude, there is no need to make statements like that. Especially given that people can still be killed for speaking their mind in Iraq.

I didnt see anything wrong with Wahkeenah's response. The purpose of this article is not to try to create a moral equivalency between Saddam's dictatorship and a free society, it is to document reality. The purpose of this article is also not to give a propraganda platform for all of Saddam's statements. It is a place for an adademic and dispassionate summary of the man and his accomplishments (both good and bad). The POV pushing Wahkeenah was responding to, qualfied for a response like that. One does not have to be either a Bush supporter or an American to recognize that Iraq was not a free society under Saddam, (or for that matter even agree with all aspects of the Iraq war that removed him) or that Saddam maintained his power through the use of violence against opponents. Caper13 18:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Who exactly does Wahkeenahs sweeping statement about the motives of other editors apply to? Because of if its no one then its an irreleveant derogatory comment that has nothing to do with dispassionate article creation. I at least had the decency to say that my statement was unfair, and will even apologise for it. Do you stand by the statement that Wahkeenah made? are there editors here who defend Sadaam as if his death squads will get them? and if so, who? if there are not, then what the blazes is he going on about? a feeling he's got?
  • The core argument is the question of whether Saddam was a "dictator" juxtaposed with ill-informed or satirical arguments that folks like George Bush or Tony Blair are "dictators". Anyone who can lose an election is not a dictator. Dictators "serve" until they are killed and/or deposed. Whatever Saddam's last day in power was, is effectively the last day of his Presidency. It could be argued to be April 9, 2003 (approximately when Baghdad was secured); or it could be May 1, 2003 (when Bush, in a much-lampooned case of over-optimism, declared major combat operations over) and about when the U.S.-led provisional government took charge; or it could be September 1, 2003, when the temporary governing council was appointed; or it could be December 13, 2003 (when Saddam was captured); or it could be December 30, 2006 (when he was hanged). Perhaps there is a source someplace that would list the effective end of his reign, as opposed to editors having to "decide" it here. Which takes us back to the original, still-unanswered question in this section. The World Almanac, despite being a U.S.-oriented source, does not answer the question definitively, only by inference (as with the list of dates above). In the absence of a definitive answer, maybe the editors could consult the article on Adolf Hitler or any number of other dictators for guidance on how to handle it. The end of the war in Europe is similar, with a provisional government maintaining order after Hitler disappeared and before the permanent government was elected. Wahkeenah 11:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • spot on, and dare I say it, well said. Dictator is still obviously PoV, and your definition seems shaky, but that argument has been done to death (and of debatable relevence). This answer is useful, constructive and doesn't imply that anyone asking for clarification on the matter is some kind of sympathiser, regardless of the way they ask. I merely ask that you show care when issuing off the cuff dismissive remarks. You will risk offending people who are still fighting human rights abuses in Iraq after Saddam.
      • Roger. If you read my various comments, you'll see that I don't argue for labeling him a dictator in the article, but I also take issue with those who try to argue that he wasn't, which I take to be blindness to the facts and which I lampoon as "loyalty" to a much-feared man who is now (as far as we know) dead and therefore harmless, or mostly harmless. Wahkeenah 13:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • tis all good. But don't be surprised if people lampoon your use of the word dicator as being words from the mouth of the white house. No more valid or true, but every bit as annoying. ooh, are we both people with an annoying habit of wanting to get the last word in?
          • The dictionary definition (Oxford Engligh Dictionary) is that a dictator is "A person exercising absolute authority of any kind or in any sphere; one who authoritatively prescribes a course of action or dictates what is to be done.". Thus stating that someone is a Dictator isn't actually a direct moral judgment, but a statement of the level of personal power they have. Average Earthman 10:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthday confusion

I'm getting kinda messed up here. Sources say that Saddam was born at the end of April in 1937, and some say the 27th of April, while others say it's the 28th. Which is more correct? --Angeldeb82 03:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam's actual date of birth was never recorded. He was a peasant born in a relatively uncivilzed part of the country. When he came to power, this was the official date of birth the government released - 28 April, 1937. But biographers disagree, saying they have obtained documents from his early life apparently stating 1939 as the year he was born. This too has been heavily criticized, especially when it was discovered that, in order to meet national legal standards, the Iraqi province of Salah ad Din had in the 1940s issued falsely designed passports to the young people of the area lacking a DOB. All of them were given 1 July 1939 as there date of birth. Many of his peers state that he was born in 1939 however, but others say he was born as far back as 1935. Some of his biographers say he changed his DOB from 1939 to 1937 when he chose to marry a woman when he was 2 years too young to do so. April 27, 1937 is misleading. It is an error originally printed in the New York Times which seems to have been copied by other media. They also refer to him as 'Mr. Hussein', which is not the correct way to say his name formally. You should say 'Saddam' instead. As a result of all this, it is agreed that databases and the like should give 28 April, 1937 if a date of birth is required as it has not actually been disproven, but to note also that he is believed to have been born at any time between 1935 and 1939. I hope this answered your question.--88.104.106.235 22:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Saddam a descendant of the Prophet?

This text is continually inserted into the article: "Sayyid (From the family of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W.)" without citation nor--as far as I can determine--factual basis. Please abstain from these uncited insertions. Prezen 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that this was some sort of propaganda that Saddam came up with at some point during his rule, creating a fake family tree for political purposes. Reinsertion of this uncited information should be removed as vandalism and appropriate warnings given. Caper13 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I recognize that. I didn't point it out, but it was done covertly under the heading of a picture edit, by an editor who had previously inserted pro-Saddam POV material. Prezen 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith editing like that should absolutely be treated as vandalism. Caper13 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the text. Missed that it was still there. Prezen 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Article offers US perspective mainly / only

US perspective on this wikipedia article is overwhelming.

Avenger786 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is too light

Issues surrounding the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein are clearly some of the most controversial issues of the modern era. It relates directly to Middle Eastern geo-politics and goes to the heart of issues such as Palestine-Israel, current tensions with Iran and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

Iraq is said to be a modern day Vietnam and certainly more contorversial due to the impact on the Holy Lands and the wider Muslim world in the Middle East. The artcile needs 'beefing up' and has been stripped of important content and neutred too much.

There needs to be a fair and balanced reflection of a number of issues these being:

• international coalition or US / UK coalition
• global condemnation of invasion, millions protest, biggest protests in history in opposition to war
• was he a secular leader or head of an Islamic state
• noticeable lack of reference in US involvement in the Iranian revolution and funding / military backing of Iraq or contentiously both sides
• no discussion about the religious reasons for the Iran-Iraq conflict in relation to the belief that Iran was an apostate state (twelvers) and the claimed supremancy of sunni Islam
• Halabja issue needs to be properly addressed as it was one of the key original reasons used to support the trial of Saddam Hussein although later dropped
• Kuwaiti invasion - there is overwhelming evidence relating to the slant drilling issue and much evidence to support the contention that Kuwait was not only administered from Iraq but that this was mandated by the West after WW2
• Western support of Iraq prior to Kuwaiti invasion is blatantly lacking. Commentary like this that is lacking gives the perception of BIAS in the Saddam Hussein article, although it may be unintentional it is a dangerous risk and feeds conspiracy theorists who would attack Western "revisionist" historical accounts.
• sanctions post Gulf War 1 - no comment of the deaths and food for oil program. Information needs to be offered up on the reasons for sanctions, the arms inspectorate who constantly contended that Iraq had complied (albeit begrudgingly) with the UN requirements to destroy its WMDs.
• Little or no references to Hans Blix, involvement and comment, who is a crucial figure in the pre-Gulf War 2 history
• 9/11 commission report - clarified the lack of relationship with Al-Qaeda and needs to be cited
• removal of a leader of a sovereign state - as support for the Gulf War 2 and international condemnation as it is contrary to international law

Please leave your views.

Avenger786 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To start, please use the term "modern" more sparingly. Vietnam was a "modern" conflict. The term "modern" properly refers to the era that follows the medieval period. To assert that the current civil strife in Iraq is "one of the most controversial" issues of the "modern" era is frankly hyperbolic and lacks historical perspective. The civil conflict in Iraq following the 2003 invasion may not be described in the coming years as more devastating than the Iran-Iraq War, one of the deadliest conventional wars since the end of the Second World War.

To write a competent encyclopedic biography, editors must resist the temptation to over-emphasize current events. Blogs, and TV news and talk radio programs framing the political rhetoric of the day have different frames of relevance from biographies in encyclopedias. News articles usually deal with short timeframes; biographies focus on entire lifetimes. In this sense, "beefing up" the content related to the hype of the moment would leave the article unbalanced, giving undue weight to coverage of the last three to five years, and likely increasing the U.S.-centrism of the article. If anything, we need to move in the opposite direction, restoring a longer view historical perspective, and trimming the stuff that has more to do with American electoral politics than the subject of the article. 172 | Talk 14:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

US / UK support noticeably lacking

Since WW1 and the breaking up of the Ottoman Empire by Western Forces, there has been a relatively constant involvement in Iraqi (and regional) political and financial support by Western governments. On occassion this has been with covert operations such as that which brought the Ba'ath party into power.

Although rejected by the CIA "officially", it is clear that the CIA, with Israel and the UK backed the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein in the bloody coming to power in 1963.

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

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

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

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

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

Used as a reference in Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Karim_Qassim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avenger786 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Avenger786 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Another interesting thing about this topic is that this is the third time I reply to it, each time I did previously the talk page was archived. Is this a neat way of eliminating uncomfortable facts? Prezen 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Section 8, "Escape and capture"

Under section 8 "Escape and capture", it has sub-categories that appear to be numbered incorrectly:

"8.1 Escape", " 8.1.1 Capture", " 8.1.2 Incarceration"

All three of these sub-categories are of equal importance related to the main "Escape and capture", yet the latter two are made as sub-points to "8.1 Escape".

I have recently registered, so I am not allowed to edit the posting myself.

Raven Morris 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Fornadan (t) 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Still figuring out how everything works here, like the colons for indenting. I know HTML quite well, so figuring out these wiki formats is pretty easy when I am looking at what other people (like you) put in.

Raven Morris 08:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the anaylsis, can the translation from this Think-tank be used for the Saddam Hussein article or his execution?

Can the translation from this think-tank be used for either the Sasddam article or his execution? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20070129&articleId=4620

Any other opinions?

74.101.98.235

Excellent article. I listened to the execution video with my own ears and Saddam clearly does say "the hell that is Iraq?" Why is this omitted by western media? The article provides good reasons. --Lft6771 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did Saddam's quote on Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes go?

There was a quote in here involving Saddam's position on the U.S. administrations from Reagan to G. W. Bush, where did it go? I felt it was pretty pertinent to his views on the outside world. I can only guess that a Reagan-supporter, embarassed by what he said, took it out. Professor Ninja 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Burial Picture

As you may know, I've uploaded the picture of Saddam's funeral used in the Execution of Saddam Hussein article a month ago. I was given the go ahead by someone to post the picture onto the "Burial" section because the picture never violates the copyright law. I've now posted that picture onto the "Execution" section of this article, as long as it doesn't do any harm or anything. I hope you like this. --Angeldeb82 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Monopoly

The IPC is quoted in the article as having a monopoly on oil prospecting in Iraq in the early seventies. I believe this is wrong, since a) other Western companies (albeit owned by the same owners) operated in Iraq, and b) a Soviet oil company was also operating in Iraq since 1969. I suggest that this - possibly erroneous - factoid be commented until the "monopoly" can be properly cited. Prezen 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Iraq nationalized the IPC in 1972. The major shareholders were BP, CFP, Esso, and Mobil. While IPC's complete monopoly ended under Qasim, the company continued to dominate the country's petroleum industry. 172 | Talk 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the IPC was nationalized is not under question, nor subject to my proposal for change. It's the word monopoly that I question. Prezen 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reread the sentence: "In the early 1970s, Saddam spearheaded Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, which had [empahsis added] long held a monopoly on the country's oil." This sentence implies the IPC had at one time a monpolpy, but not specifically when it ended. It ended in the early 1960s. But the monpoply is is of historical significance, as it explained the continued dominance of the IPC of the country's oil sector throughout the 1960s. 172 | Talk 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the sentence ought to be changed to state correctly that the monopoly was a thing of the past, rather than the present fuzzy and misleading implication. Prezen 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, when I now look at the article it says the following: On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, had a monopoly on the country's oil. I don't understand where your argument is coming from? Prezen 12:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Quit trying to pick fights. We were talking about the intro, not text elsewhere on Wikipedia. The total monopoly formally ended in the early 1960s. The IPC was still dominant until the early 1970s. 172 | Talk 21:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:172 vandalism

what is Mr 172 do can not be called more than vandalism to glorify saddam i want to ask why no one stoped him ? alot of informations was removed for the article and he added alot of without refernce information! --217.17.231.76 11:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, User:172 has reintroduced a lot of propaganda that I removed a couple of weeks ago. I'm beginning to wonder at his motives. Prezen 12:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. I have had users sanctioned and even blocked for similar personal attacks. The material I upload here is sourced and accurate. Read the books cited in the article. 172 | Talk 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Maniputation of sourced, accurate information

Prezen continues to manipulate the following sentence, changing "Kuwait" with "Iraq": On one hand, Kuwait, prior to this point, had been a virulent enemy of Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchy that had had the most friendly relations with the Soviets. The citation of LaFeber refers to Kuwait, not Iraq. LaFeber is a solid source and the claim is accurate. Tampering with cited content is illegitimate. 172 | Talk 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if this quote is correct, it is directly misleading since Kuwait was allied with the west, not the Soviets. Prezen 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anfal.

I've read over this article of Saddam Hussein, and I think it omits the haneous crimes he committed during his position in office. Biased closely to actually appraising Saddam as a hero to Iraq. In order for the reader to understand the current war in Iraq, and to relate to the need of Saddam's usurpment, I think an extensive article over the Anfal is necessary.

So too was Hitler a hero to Germany... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.183.82.231 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

That is just your opinion, but it does not make it fact. The term "anfal campaign" was not used by the Iraqis, but promoted by a certain human rights group in the west. --Lft6771 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That would stand to reason, as "human rights" is an unknown concept in Mesopotamia. Wahkeenah 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)