Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Surname: "Saddam" or "Hussein"?

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Saddam's Capture (& Trial)

Can anyone confirm the text in the article stating that Saddam will be tried in an Iraqi court under Iraqi law? I would think they'd ship him to the Hague... --Dante Alighieri 18:05, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • I have a feeling the US will do everything it can to have Saddam tried in a US military court, and to prevent media access to the trial. The last thing the US wants is for Saddam to be able to discuss his history with the US....like, where he got WMD in the 1980s. Kingturtle 18:17, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've watched the press confrences, and the US hasn't said he will be tried by Iraquis, but that the issue his trial still needs to be settled. The Iraqui council president (or whatever) has been calling for an Iraqui trial. They won't ship him to the Hague, as the Hague can't apply the death penalty, and that's Saddam's fate, wherever he's tried. Gentgeen
    • Doesn't the Hague involve the International Criminal Court, which is opposed by the US? Secretlondon 14:37, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • According to the BBC's legal correspondent, the International Criminal Court(ICC) can't try alleged crimes that happened before it was instituted (Mar 2003) so even if it were politically acceptable, it can't happen, since Saddam's alleged crimes date from prior to that. Note that even Milosevic is not before the ICC, but a body known as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which just happens to sit in The Hague too. Spellbinder 14:50, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Per NPR's ATC Sun eve,

  1. international courts don't have to sit in outside the country of the crimes (cf. W. Afr (Sierra Leone? Cote d'Ivoire?), and
  2. there was a late change to the law/decree/whatever drafted in Iraq re courts/tribunals, requiring international (tech & legal) participation. IMO, look for the discussion to be not where or even who, but whether the international role is sufficient to valid the results. How abt Iraqi judges predominating, plus US & old-Europe ones? --Jerzy 15:48, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)


Clarifying capture timeline

I think the capture timeline needs to be clarified. Thought needs to be put into standardizing the timeline to either local Iraqi time or GMT or US time, but one needs to be chosen and stuck with. As it is, the capture is first mentioned as having been reported on the 14th but a paragraph later Bremer announced it on the 13th (the wording is unclear there), and "8:30 pm" is mentioned without reference to date (it should be explicitly the 13th). At any rate, could someone please finesse the timeline, accounting for the capture on the evening of the 13th (local time) with all reporting on the capture after that point. I'm not sure the exact timing myself, but someone should fix it.

--Moncrief 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Photos of Saddam

There are too many propaganda photos in this article IMHO. Adam 14:27, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Given how carefully physical access to him was controlled, pre-defeat pictures of Saddam Hussein are by definition Iraqi propaganda, and post-defeat ones will by the same token be carefully filtered and selected American propaganda. I think the contrast between the images is instructive: one of each would make a good illustration for the propaganda article. -- The Anome 14:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have no objection to one or two Saddam-as-conquering-hero photos, but four or five seems excessive, now that he is an ex-despot. Adam 14:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I quite agree - the page takes forever to download now. I suggest dropping the second, third and fifth pictures (Saddam with the flag, Saddam in uniform and Saddam in a war scene). Does anyone have any objections to this? -- ChrisO 21:52, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. Saddam deliberately constructed iconic images of himself to project different aspects of his 'appeal' - the military nationalist leader, the hard man with the gun, the god-annointed leader of his people using royal 'divine right of kings' symbolism (the throne). You can't understand Saddam's appeal without understand the power of his iconography. This was previously explained in short captions but they were removed. But any article on Saddam has to show the power of his iconography in promoting his leadership. FearÉIREANN 22:09, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, with regard to page load time, I think some of these could be compressed (the street scene is excessively large for example, and I think the uniform pic could go grayscale). - Hephaestos 22:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Useful, free, online compression tool at [1]. Andy Mabbett 22:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree that the images should stay on the page, but some edits and compression to speed up page load would be acceptable. --Flockmeal 22:24, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
i agree with FearÉIREANN, those captions that explained the meaning of the propaganda images should not have been removed, let alone branded "POV"! PMA 22:36, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

This is not an article about Representation of evil despots as conquering heroes or Ba'athist propaganda techniques. It is a biographical article about Saddam, and the selection of photos gives a very misleading visual account of his life. He was not a conquering hero, he was a thug and a murderer, and it is not acceptable for an encyclopaedia to reflect so uncritically his image of himself. Adam 00:16, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The same thing with Bush!

 ??? Evidence of Bush being a murderer, please. Same for thug and despot. Some of Bush's policies are controversial. Many of his acts are subject to multiple understandings. But he certainly is not the same as Saddam. Lets keep the dicussion above this kind sort of "so are you!" characterization best left behing us in elementary school. OneVoice 13:13, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Bush is responsible for the massacres of 10,000 Iraqi civilians ([2]) comitted by his regime, unfounded and illegal war of aggression, the murder of 150 of his own citizens, torture, consentration camps etc. etc., and he is not democratic elected. He is much worse than the Iraqi president! WHat would you say if Iraq invaded USA in order to liberate the country from the criminal terrorist Bush by killing thousands of USAians?
All the "massacres", the legality of the war, and treatment of the prisoners in the "concentration camps" are certainly open to question and I can understand that the answers that people come up with could lead them to see Bush as a bad president (some might say "evil") but I think it is clear that honest, sane people can disagree as to whether Bush is in the right or in the wrong. I think it is much clearer that Saddam was in the wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the U.S. senate (democratically elected) vote to fund the war? Unless it is charged that the senate is largely made up of terrorists too, I don't think it's fair to say that Bush is a criminal terrorist. As for the 150 murders, the death penalty may be seen as an unfair punishment that is handed out in a discriminatory fashion, but I have a hard time seeing it as the equivalent of murder. Regarding the election, assuming counts are accurate, Bush won according to the electoral system that is in place. Even if you reject the supreme court decision to end the recount, the unofficial recount that went on ended up confirming Bush as the winner. It's true that he didn't have a majority of the popular vote (neither did Gore), or the largest percentage of the popular vote (Gore: 48.38), but I'd rather have a president who got 47.87% of the vote (Bush) than a president who got 100% (Saddam). I feel like this long rant may be out of place, but I didn't want to let the above comment go uncontested. If someone can think of a more appropriate place for me to paste this, please say so on my talk page. --Esrogs 01:09, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we can do without these two:

Image:Saddam7.jpg Image:Saddam Hussein (107).jpg

Neither one of which has copyright information, both of which are redundant.—Eloquence

I agree. I also think that now that Saddam's mythic status as a hero of anti-Americanism has been, shall we say, somewhat deflated, this article need a thorough edit to remove a lot of tendentious and unnecessary text. Adam 12:38, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proposed new Saddam article

Here is a proposed new article on Saddam Hussein. I have removed large amounts of propaganda and irrelevance and included material on the 1990s which this article lacks. Comments are welcome. Proposed new Saddam Hussein article. Adam 14:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You removed propaganda? And the claim that France was the "principal protector of his regime" is just objective fact? --Wik 15:27, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Mais oui. Chirac's corrupt connections with Saddam go back 30 years. Everyone knows this. Adam 16:11, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Every pro-U.S. propagandist knows this, but it has nothing to do with NPOV. It is interesting how you say hardly a word about the U.S. support for Saddam (going back to 1959 [3]). --Wik 16:35, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
That's because it is almost entirely mythological. However Wik I don't expect to be able to persuade you of anything ouside your ideological idees fixes so I will bid you bon nuit. Adam 16:48, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You don't persuade me because you don't have evidence. Meanwhile, everyone can judge for themselves whether the reports of major news agency UPI (see the link above) are "mythological". --Wik 18:11, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

History of this article

I think the articles concerning Saddam Hussein can be used in the future as a Wikipedia object lesson on "what not to do." There is no doubt they need an overhaul. The fact is they've needed an overhaul for quite some time. However the energy and zeal of some users here to radically overhaul them immediately reminds me uneasily of the behavior of some government censors to completely rewrite history after the occurrence of a regime change, and I'm concerned we might go too far in the other direction in our zeal.

These articles as they stand are a reminder of the incredible nearsighted POV inserted into writing by people who are blinded by propaganda (on both sides). I therefore would strenuously object to the outright deletion of any of them; this behavior should be documented in the article histories.

I hope that the article on Ba'athist propaganda techniques is written, and that all of these photographs are used, that the explanatory captions are added, and that they aren't removed again in the pursuit of some agenda. I should also mention that in the case of the two cited above, whose "copyright" (such as it is) almost certainly lies with Saddam's government, mention of copyright in a case like this borders on the inane.

I've read Adam Carr's rewrite proposal and think it's quite good in that it covers the man, as opposed to the "evil genius" or the "diabolical madman." As with all drafts, though, it needs work; there's still a lot that pertains more to an article on the Ba'athist government than to a biography of a person (or, at least, more emphasis on his personal involvement is called for).

I've taken the liberty of adding a photo to that draft which was removed from the present article with nary a peep in June (it was at that point I gave up hope on this article). Much as I like the draft, I hope that objective material that has been (and hopefully, will continue to be) removed can be incorporated into sub-articles. These writings represent the work of dozens of contributors over the period of a year or more, and deserve better than to be simply swept under the rug after the fashion of some authoritarian states. - Hephaestos 16:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proposed new Saddam article 2

OK so far comment on my proposed alternative (Proposed new Saddam Hussein article) to this article has been positive, except for Wik who objects to it politically rather than stylistically.

So let's have a vote:

  • Keep present article
  • Substitute Adam's article (which can of course be further edited if there are things in it people don't like).

Adam 11:18, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Could you include those image which you want to be included in your version for comparison? —Eloquence 11:25, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

I have an open mind about images. I would include one "neutral" portrait photo at the head of the article, one Saddam propaganda photo (such as the one in the general's uniform) to show him at the height of his power, half way down, and the bearded post-capture photo to show his fall, at the end. Adam 11:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A "neutral" photo would look something like this:

Image:Ac.saddam.jpg

Adam 11:39, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Would it be neutral to include a photograph of him after being captured by U.S. forces? I think it would be appropriate if we included one showing him with the ugly beard. Greenmountainboy 13:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here is a public domain (U.S. Army) photoraph which I think should be included: Image:Saddambeard.jpg

Greenmountainboy 13:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

*Rolls eyes* Yes, Greenmountain, we already have that photo. Why do people care more about the photos than they do about the text? Adam 13:36, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Because they're easier to look over, and they're more emotional. Isn't that obvious? ;-) —Eloquence
A picture is worth one thousand words. ;-) Greenmountainboy 19:32, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nevertheless, some comments on the text would be nice. Adam 23:21, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adam's edits

Adam's article is a significant step toward cutting out the irrelevance of this article. However, it requires some modifications before it can replace the current article. In the process of trimming down content dwelling on Ba'athist propaganda techniques, Adam separated Saddam from Arab history a bit too much.

Since too much content was removed, the proposed article reduces Ba'athism to a mere guise for Saddam's Stalinist tactics and programs. When Soviet influence on the ebb, Ba'athism is reduced to Islamist window dressing. In the context of the Cold War, he's portrayed as an Arab "Stalinist" and a "secular ruler." In a post-Cold War context, he's an "Islamist."

In the Cold War era, Westerners failed to distinguish indigenous Third World social revolutionaries from Soviet influence. American cold warriors paid a heavy price for failing to recognize the nationalistic, indigenous roots of the Chinese Communist Party, Arbenz's regime in Guatemala, the Cuban Revolution, Mossadegh's regime in Iran, and the Vietnamese Communists — just to name a handful of examples. Nasser's regime in Egypt is another good example.

Ba'athism is an ideology in its own right, specific to a certain socio-political base of support, and historically specific to a certain era. Saddam tried to promote the pan-Arabism of Nasser, but a number of forces were obtrusive of stability. Iraq was a hostile environment for long-term institutionalization of a stable regime (monarchial, military, "Stalinist", single-party, democratic, or any other form). During the Iraq-Iran War, his narrow base of support, his hostile international environment, and his poorly rooted party/state institutions forced the dictator to turn toward an increasingly personalistic leadership style (and increasingly primitive/brutal tactics of mass control).

While his adoption of Stalinist tactics is well documented, Saddam's brutal tactics, at least by the end, more reminiscent of turf battles among rival tribes and clans than those of totalitarian single-party states. By the time he was ousted, power was highly personalized and arbitrary. It was not derived from a ruling party or the military, but on layer upon layer of patron-client networks. Power was delegated on the basis of loyalty to family, tribe members, and other loyal followers. The proposed replacement stretches the Stalinist, secular, Islamist comparisons too far, and is not engaged enough with Iraqi history. But a just a few more sentences of historical backgrounding would be enough to fix all this. 172 06:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My thanks to 172 for those very astute comments. If he or she would care to make some of the additions to my drafts as suggested, we might then have a candidate to replace the existing article.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Saddam was either a Stalinist or an Islamist, either objectively or in his own mind. I meant to suggest that his regime adopted the state structures and some of the economic policies of Stalinism in the period 1968-91, partly to please their Soviet aid-givers and partly because they seemed to work, and some of the rhetoric of Islamism (though not much of the substance) in the period 1991-2003. I agree that in his own mind Saddam was always an Iraqi nationalist and a pan-Arabist. Adam 00:35, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Great, then let's move to replace the main article with your rewrite right away. I'll then add some backgrounding. My concern earlier was that some readers less familiar with Arab history might need some more help. In other words, my concern was that the article expects too much from readers. Your article certainly doesn't state that "Saddam was either a Stalinist or an Islamist, either objectively or in his own mind." Nor does it say that his socialist policies were only designed to please their Soviet aid-givers. However, some readers might come to these conclusions since they lack the background to understand the rise and decline of pan-Arab nationalism in the post-WWII period, the role of weak institutions/political instability, and how revolutionary his regime certainly was before the Iraq-Iran War. Having experience with students who tend to personalize history, maybe I have a tendency to go too far with spoon-feeding. I'll try to keep my additions short.
Anyway, your article is far, far closer to the optimal state than the current article. A lot of the content in the current article could be removed right way, actually, and salvaged in an article on Ba'athist propaganda or Saddam's personality cult. 172 01:30, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think the rewrite is worse in that it has less facts and is more POV. Instead of replacing the existing article or removing large parts of it, explain specifically what passages you have issues with. --Wik 13:33, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
You should bring up examples, Wik. Hearing your case would be very helpful and interesting. I don't really see POV problems in Adam's version. So maybe your take on things would shed light on matters that I overlooked. My conclusion was that it's only flawed in that its analysis might be too brief and subtle for readers without a grasp of some background in Iraqi history. But I don't see how it's anything else but a strictly matter-of-fact, direct, and concise article. 172 14:00, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
As I said before, it is hardly NPOV to say "France replaced the Soviet Union as the principal protector of his regime" and say nothing about his U.S. connections. This is also problematic: "What changed the equation was the terrorist attacks of September 2001, which led the administration to the belief that a hostile regime in Iraq, possibly possessing weapons of mass destruction and possibly sponsoring international terrorism, was no longer acceptable in the context of the war against terrorism which began on September 11." That was the official justification, but not necessarily the actual motivation of the administration; Saddam's overthrow was already advocated before September 11 by major administration figures (as in "Rebuilding America's Defenses") and September 11 may just have changed the equation in the sense that it was now possible to "sell" this policy. In many people's view this war was not about WMDs or terrorism but about oil and U.S. imperialism. --Wik 14:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
My thanks to Wik for confirming that his principal objection to my proposed article is that it doesn't pay due respect to the left-wing and anti-American orthodoxy that rules so much writing at WP. The "NPOV" centre-of-gravity at WP is about 20 degrees to the left of centre. Anything at zero degrees looks shockingly "right-wing" by comparison and gets tagged as POV. Adam 14:31, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You don't quite understand the point of NPOV. It doesn't mean we should take a "centrist" political position. We should take no position at all, we should just report the facts and, when dealing with controversial issues, report both sides' views. We should report what the U.S. administration said as well as what critics think of it. We shouldn't take position about who is right, as you did when you described what the administration said as being what it believed. --Wik 14:43, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
I don't think that neither this kind of personal confrontation nor imputations like "left-wing and anti-American orthodoxy that rules so much writing at WP" are very helpful. Agreeing with Wik on the understanding of NPOV your comments about "centre" don't make much sense to me. At the moment I have only partially read the new article. It looks to me that your initial start of the new article was not a 1:1 import from the old article, right? This makes it harder for me to see what really has changed. Would it be possible for you to make a "diff" between the two (current, your proposition) articles? -- mkrohn 11:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suggest you read both versions and see. Mine is shorter and more to the point, with viewer digressions into Iraqi sociology. Adam 14:11, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to interject another viewpoint, perhaps a compromise. Wik's objections to the content of the article are well-founded, but much of it would be largely irrelevant to an article about Saddam Hussein. So that the article doesn't delve too deeply into the issue of the justifications for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the controversy surrounding them, but doesn't seem to merely parrot the official line, perhaps the sentence should read, "What changed the equation was the terrorist attacks of September 2001, which led the administration to argue that a hostile regime in Iraq, allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction and sponsoring international terrorism, was no longer acceptable in the context of the war against terrorism which began after September 11." It also corrects a minor temporal error (the "war on terror" didn't begin until after 9/11).--Eric 05:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aftermath of his capture

Is there a page that discusses the consequences of Saddam's capture. There are at least two immediate significant consequences: 1. Saddam will not be able to just vanish and become the Arab leader that defied the West and was never caught, and 2. Saddam was caught without any resistance, preventing the martyr status that he possibly could have achieved. OneVoice 01:38, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That would belong in an article on his personality cult, which does not exist yet. But I would shy away from bring up such points. Few of us have sufficient expertise to address these matters. This is something for, say, a cultural anthropologist with expertise in the Arab world to address. 172 01:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You could certainly add a few sentences on that subject to this article (particularly the exposure of his bluster about martyrdom etc), you could also add it to History of Iraq. Adam 01:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This sentence: "What changed the equation was the terrorist attacks of September 2001, which led the administration to the belief that a hostile regime in Iraq, possibly possessing weapons of mass destruction and possibly sponsoring international terrorism, was no longer acceptable in the context of the war against terrorism which began on September 11." is nothing more and nothing less than the American party line. At the very least it should be made clear that this is what the US administration claims. It should not be stated as if it is known fact, because it is not known fact. There are other things in the article that are also just claims, such as that there were two attempts to kill Saddam before he was captured. Incidentally, what is the source of the story about his mother trying to abort him? It smells like myth. If if doesn't come from a family member, I would doubt it. --Zero 03:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I must admit that I had forgotten all about my proposed alternative to the Saddam article. Thanks to Zero for reminding me. I don't think it's up to me to replace the existing article with my alternative, although from memory everyone (except Wik of course) who has commented on it has said that it is superior. Could we get some new opinions? Adam 05:29, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, the new article is far superior. Replace the current one with it. --Robert Merkel 03:12, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Eventually put up the new version. But it's not ready now. Even if I had never heard of Wiki, I'd be able to tell you that a profession historian put together Adam's article, but that that historian is specialized in any area but the Middle East. The distinction between "Saddam the secular ruler" and "Saddam the Islamist ruler" is way too rigid. With an organization almost based on the Stalin analogy, the indigenous roots cry out for attention. However, restoring a few paragraphs from the old article would likely correct these problems. BTW, I mean no offense. After all, the Middle East is multiple layers away from my areas of expertise as well. 172 14:33, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
BTW, Here's how to resolve the disputes between Adam and some of the other users over the 2003 war: path dependence. If this strikes anyone as coming out of nowhere, run some LexisNexis searches or go to the online JSTOR archives. Even google and yahoo searches would be helpful. 172 15:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"We got him"

"In a press conference in Baghdad, shortly afterwards, the U.S. Civil Administrator Paul Bremer formally announced the capture of Saddam by saying, 'Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!'"

Wow, is that *exactly* what Paul Bremer said? Word for word? Whoop de fucking do!

"The US continued sending arms and money" revertion war

VV:
Let me start off by saying that I have no position on that sentence that you removed and I restored. My concern is behaivor that leads to no other course of action but edit wars. Despite repeated pleas, you continue to revert almost everything by this single user at a whim, without backing up your reasoning on the talk page. This is a recipe for edit wars and flame wars, annoying countless registered and unregistered users who rely on the recent changes function to determine their activities. The next time one of Hector's edits offends you, disprove his claims, if you can, on the talk page. Drop by the talk page with a defense, and I promise to stay out of the debate. 172 19:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you have no opinion, why revert instead of just commenting here? I don't feel the need to defend every revert of Hector's nonsense, and neither do many other users. I often do include edit summary notes about why the new content should go (not always). This is not an ideological proxy battle, either; it is an attempt to protect the value of Wikipedia's content. You pretend to be ultra-concerned with the encyclopedic quality to the point of auto-reverting the slightest changes to your brainchild pages, yet you think Hector's crude, hyper-biased edits are not worthy of removal. This current edit obviously should go: the US's relationship with Iraq is explained elsewhere and not relevant to this section, anymore than Poland's relationship; it is deceptive, in that the US's official position was that Iran carried out the attack (and note it's inserted before the further discussion); it is one-sided, in that it fails to provide the context (the war with Iran), instead implying that the US was simply sending aid for more atrocities. To explain the situation fully would require much more text, which exists already elsewhere. The edit should go. (Should I say you're not going to "order me around" and tell me I can't remove it?) -- VV 19:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)~
You're missing the point. I'm objecting to your tactics. Avoid defending your edits by attacking the individual contributor. Instead, lay out a case for each revision on the talk page. By doing so, you can determine whether or not he can even engage in an edit war. If he doesn't have the facts, he'll have to move on. If he ignores your case and continues to revert your revisions, he's laying the groundwork for a ban. Next time avoid personal attacks like this:
"You pretend to be ultra-concerned with the encyclopedic quality to the point of auto-reverting the slightest changes to your brainchild pages, yet you think Hector's crude, hyper-biased edits are not worthy of removal."
You're falling into a trap here. Making this an issue about Hector turns this into an ideological proxy battle, regardless of your intensions. Moreover, if you explain why the edits are "hyper-biased," and refrain from attacking the user behind them, he will have no other choice but to move on. Since Hector hasn't been banned, Hector's edit history is irrelevant. When you brush him off, policy gives him the right to go on constantly reverting your reversions. If you feel that Hector's a problem user, take it up to the mailing list and persuade admins to act. BTW, I still haven't gotten an apology for your comments at User talk:RickK. 172 00:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Protection notice

VV, Hector, RickK:

This is getting ridiculous. I'm protecting this page, forcing you proxy warriors to discuss content on the talk page, not by competing over who's fastest at reverting one's reversions. You people may not like each other, but try to keep the ideology and personal attacks out of your discussions for once. 172 04:35, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More of your demeaning crap. This is not about ideology or personal attacks, this is about removing inappropriate text from an encyclopedia article. -- VV 07:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • 172, I placed the msg on the article and listed it on the protected page list. Kingturtle 04:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I only did one revert, of Hector's ridiculous POV additions. You might want to note that the last rv was by Wik, who only did it because I was the one who reverted Hector. Note that he didn't bother to revert VV, because VV isn't the one he's stalking. RickK 04:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • The article was protected not because of any individual. The article suffered six consecutive reverts! No individual is being blamed. Please, as 172 has requested, begin discussion here of content issues. Kingturtle 04:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • So why was Wik's name not included in the admonition? RickK 04:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Personally, I don't know. Maybe 172 can chime in and answer that one. Now let's start discussing content issues. Kingturtle 04:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've been alerted to the countless Hector vs. VV/RickK edit wars, not the conflicts between Wik and RickK being alluded to above. I figured that Wik was acting as another sysop here to cool things down, just as Kingturtle. Is he another party to this dispute? If that's the case, I'll remove Wik's version and restore a version of the article predating Hector's first edit to this page. Should I put up an older version? 172 05:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Content issues

All, right, let's discuss content issues:

  • "The US continued sending arms and money to him however. ". Embedded in a paragraph about Saddam's killing of Kurds by poison gas, between "Iraqi troops, on orders from Saddam to stop a Kurdish uprising, attacked the Kurdish town of Halabjah with a mix of poison gas and nerve agents killing 5000 people, mostly women and children" and "Dissenting opinions dispute the numbers and have said the incident was actually a battle in the Iran-Iraq war ". This sentence doesn't belong here. If we want to discuss supposed US support of Hussein, put it in a separate section or a separate article. But also substantiate it. RickK 05:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sounds great! This is much more convincing than calling him an "anti-American vandal." Now we can give Hector some time to respond before we unprotect the page. 172 05:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to me, which means you didn't even read what I wrote that you responded to, where I laid out a similar case. As for Hector being a vandal, I have made my case for that already. Anyway, Hector's past behavior is relevant in evaluating his current edits, even if he isn't to the point of being banned yet; duh. And once again this looks like a policy violation on your part, since you're protecting a page which you earlier reverted. And you have a lot of gall asking me to apologize (for seeking third-party intervention?) after the way you've talked to me. It's obvious the new text should go; if I put something as flagrantly biased in the "History" article, I doubt it would last a heartbeat. -- VV 07:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'll send this to the mailing list and see what they think about your proposals. 172 08:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The disputed paragraph looks out of context to me. It doesn't matter if it's true or not - for all I know it's true. The important issue must be what a lesser knowing reader might comprehend or miscomprehend. May I suggest that what's relevant and adequate in this context is to note that Iraq had the sympathies of "the West" in the Iran-Iraq war, leading to (many) different expressions of support from Western governments including money and intelligence, but that the Kurdish issue, which for long had been a concern at least in Europe and the cause of much terrorism there, damaged the public support for Iraq - particular the gas attacks on Kurdish civilians - to that degree that many governments spoke up against the gas war publicly. In this context it may be relevant to note that also USA condemned the Iraqi gas attacks on Kurdish civilians. The disputed sentence could maybe be more idiomatically worded, but wouldn't it seem relevant here. Without having checked the facts, I would however assume that the governments of UK, FRG and France were approximately equally reluctant as USA's to curb their national and multinational corporations' profits or Iraq's chances of victory. Why is USA to be singled out? --Ruhrjung 21:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is this page still protected? Why is this obviously out-of-place sentence (as many have explained) still present, especially now that "Hector"'s intentions are clear (see wikc and User:Richardchilton)? -- VV 23:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Too many photos

There are too many photos on this page. The purple-tie photo and the photo with Qusay are uneeded. When a photo has a caption "another photo" it is a good indication that photo is unnecessary. user:J.J.

I came to this talk page just to say that, but found that J.J was ahead of me. We can start by getting rid of the Saddam w/ Rumsfeld and Saddam w/ Chirac pics, which were probably POV additions anyway. Let's also work toward relating the placement of the photos to the content of the article. In some portions of the article, photos taken recently are placed alongside content dealing with the '60s and '70s. 172 07:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The "Saddam with X" pictures help dispel that "he was always a monster" misconception that certain parties have been promoting, with some success. We only need one "formal portrait" and at most one "propaganda example". But for an article of this length and general interest, 10 images are not unreasonable; if we had this density of illustration in every article, Encarta and Britannica might as well close up shop, nobody would ever look at anything but WP. Stan 19:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's nice to have photos to back up an article, but I really don't think that profuse illustration can compensate for insufficient or poorly written/organized text.Matt gies 08:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Page Protected

This is ridiculous. Once a quickpoll is started over something, the reverting should stop. I've protected on Tannin's version, which seems like a fair compromise. john 05:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A lot of this could have been avoided if my proposed new Saddam Hussein article had been adopted last December, instead of being blocked because it wasn't anti-American enough. Adam 09:32, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree that your version is probably better, although I think the caveats 172 made at the time (wow, but four months ago you two were able to have polite, informed discussions of historical issues) were valid. I also think that Wik was probably right that that sentence about the French as the primary protectors of Saddam was problematic - especially since it's almost completely out of context. john 09:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sometime between December and March 172 was abducted by North Korean agents and turned into the zombie-troll he is today. Do I gather from the fact that his name is now in red that he has been banned, or perhaps recalled to Pyongyang? On the article, feel free to delete the problematic bits of my article and replace this one with it. Adam 11:07, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uh, this article wasn't just replaced with another version because 172 left, was it? Everyking 16:41, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, I saw a note above from Adam Carr about his version, so I thought I'd let people take a look at it. Feel free to revert -- I promise it won't count toward your 3x/day quota for this article. :-) --Uncle Ed 17:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I still think that all of the photos need to be restored to the article once the whole page protection thing goes away. WhisperToMe 17:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and Wik and 172 pointed out a few things with Adam Carr's version awhile ago. "He rapidly became the strongman of the regime, and was the ‘‘de facto’’ ruler of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He made a state visit to France in 1976, cementing close ties with French political and business circles that stood him in good stead in the 1990s, when France replaced the Soviet Union as the principal protector of his regime." - The U.S. heavily backed his government until the Gulf War. Some stuff related to the "Saddam as an Islamist ruler" have nothing to do with him being Islamist, and he may have been doing some of the stuff that does apply as a ploy to garner support from religious figures in society. Also, "Allah akbar" should be "Allahu akbar". WhisperToMe 17:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That the US "heavily backed" his government until the Gulf War is a commonly perpetuated myth. But the claim that France was the "principal protector" of his regime in the 1990s is also quite dubious. To characterize him as an Islamist ruler would be rather silly, at least compared to the people we've replaced him with. His more religious policies of his later years deserve mention, but in the proper context; I wouldn't say they fundamentally altered the secular nature of the regime. Everyking 18:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I haven't even read Adam's version of the article. I just thought this would be a nice way to recover from the edit war. Maybe there's a better version in the article's Page History... --Uncle Ed 20:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It certainly is a good idea that his version was mentioned. Perhaps we can incorporate some stuff from his version into the current one. WhisperToMe 21:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I maintain my view that France was Saddam's leading ally following the fall of the Soviet Union, but I agree it is controversial and not essential to the article, and can be deleted, provided the assertion that the US "heavily backed" Saddam's regime, which is not true, is not inserted in its place.
I'm not sure in what sense any country can really be seen as a "leading ally" of Saddam Hussein after the first gulf war. But this seems like a fair provision. Of course, American sort of support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War ought to be mentioned, as, for instance, French opposition to the sanctions regime in the 90s. But broad, debatable statements ought to be avoided. john 23:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Somewhere above there is a debate about the use of photos in this article. There are too many second-rate photos which serve no good purpose. My suggestion was one "neutral" photo at the top, one Saddam-as-conquering-hero photo to show his image of himself, and one Saddam-as-captive photo to show his fall. All the others are superfluous. Adam 21:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The two pictures of Saddam meeting with those leaders do show that he was not always portrayed as a monster. The propaganda picture and the picture of himself pictures show how he controlled (or tried to control) his people.

Adam, often times with pictures, more is better. WhisperToMe 23:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, both in general and in this case. "Better fewer, but better" (Lenin). Adam 00:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here's one of the last loose ends that I want to tie up before leaving this site. I'm glad that someone's gotten around to posting Adam's version. However, I just finished I reconciling the new version with some of the content in the old article and some new content. So that everyone's on the same page, this was a response to concerns that Wik and I brought up on the talk page when we'd first read Adam's version. John seems to have noted that conversation earlier today.

I'm posting it up right now. I don't really know what to expect. 172 05:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes you do. Adam 06:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't have the energy for another edit war with 172 right now, but once he has left for Pyongyang this monstrous travesty can be reverted and a serious discussion process on my draft can begin. Adam 06:21, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not expecting people to make a big deal about this. Almost everything of substance brought up in my new version was brought up in the old article, which was relatively stable for about a year until earlier today. It's much like the old article, just better organized (though I wrote it up pretty hastily - I'll have to give it another rereading). The additions made in your version are largely intact as well. 172 06:28, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant to add "plus I removed all the bits that might lead anyone to suppose that Saddam was a brutal megalomanic and mass murderer, or that make Saddam look like anything but a knight in shining armour, just like Kim Jong-il." So let me add it for you. Adam 06:33, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam, no offense intended, but you sound batshit insanee. What specific problems do you have with 172's version? It looks pretty good to me, although the "diff" screen makes it hard to actually compare the differences between the two versions.

There are some sentences that give me pause, like

Saddam learned from his uncle, and took to heart the lesson of never backing down to his enemies, no matter how superior their numbers or capabilities.
Good call picking that one out. I wanted to include something stressing the influence of his uncle, but I didn't get around to a major reworking of the section on his youth. So, I got stuck with that sentence from the old article in my haste. Perhaps we can dig up a direct quote from one of the better biographies on Saddam. 172 08:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But, well, we can take that out. There's no need to accuse people of being North Korean spies, or to accuse him of making Saddam look like a "knight in shining armor." john 07:53, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John, you have been following 172's career long enough to know that he posts these edits as deliberate provocations, in the full knowledge that they are totally unacceptable, to force other people to spend hours haggling with him. He is, in other words, a vandal, albeit a more sophisticated one than most. When dealing with vandals, one should use a more robust tone than one would with a genuine contributor, no matter how misguided they might be. As I said during the polemics at Kim Jong-il, I want 172 to leave Wikipedia, which will never be a viable encyclopaedia until people like him are driven out. If there was any way to get him banned, I would. Since there isn't, the only way to get rid of him is through uncompromising edit wars and strong language. I don't make any apologies for this tactic and will continue to pursue it. Adam 08:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personal remarks

Gentlemen, please! Let's all avoid making personal remarks and stick to the subject matter exclusively. Try not to say things like:

  • batshit insane
  • monstrous travesty
  • He is ... a vandal ... [not] a genuine contributor ... misguided
  • I want [him] to leave Wikipedia ... driven out ... get rid of him [by] edit wars
  • he posts these edits as deliberate provocations
  • Oh yes you do ... I'm sure you meant to add ... So let me add it for you.
  • I don't have the energy for another edit war with [him] right now
  • There's no need to accuse [him]

If we all (including me!) can focus on ways to improve the article, I think that our work together will be more fruitful and more pleasant. :-) --Uncle Ed 13:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed, with the greatest of respect: if you have been following 172's career at various articles, then you should know that my characterisation of him is entirely correct, and my conduct towards him necessary. This is not an issue of courtesy, but of defending this project against people like 172 who are trying to impose an ideological agenda on it. If you have not been following this debate, I suggest research should precede remonstration. Adam 13:38, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am familiar with 172's career here - and yours; whatever's 172's faults, your behavior has become a totally unprofessional ad hominem. WP was doing fine before you appointed yourself its protector, and it will continue to do fine after you move on. My empirical observation is that people who've taken your condescending and confrontational approach to problems don't last long - they either get banned for misbehavior, or quit in anger. Stan 14:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- Another vandal jumping into the fray! I can't see any resolution to the Halabjah thing above. As far as I've been able to track the dispute it goes back to an analyst of the US Army War College Stephen Pelletiere, who insists the physical evidence indicated weapons that Iranians had but Iraqis didn't. It's a point of view one Jude Wanniski likes to push. If it's anywheres near the truth, it means the US is lying now; if it's not, it seems to me it was engaging in a coverup for a known pal (lying) then, and that's as certain as I can be about it. I happened to email Chomsky about it and he sputtered about Wanniski and pointed out there were other cases which aren't in especial dispute -- "the al-Anfal slaughters, which were much worse", I can quote immediately. If you're aiming to paint Saddam as a monster, I suggest forget the Halabjah quagmire and use one of those. Rummage in this HRW report for a start.

(An exchange re Pelletiere partially in the NY Times, Jan/Feb 2003.)

"Known pal": yes. Such a close pal the US forgave Iraq for hitting the Stark and initially blamed Iran; the US went overt in Vietnam on much less. Reparations were supposed to be paid but were mutually forgotten. The Reagan administration protected Saddam from the US' own laws (Prevention of Genocide act, in particular) and sent more biological and chemical-weapon material.[4] See also well-known reports of the Riegle banking c'tee, showing the supply of WMD material continued at least until the (US-approved) invasion of Kuwait.

Of course Saddam was not so close a pal as to stop the "Reagan" admin running guns and missiles to Iran at the same time...the Iran-contra thing, ya know? a rough chronology starting in '83.

Koppel, on Nightline, 1992 Jun 9: "It is becoming increasingly clear "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."[5] Yet - no big surprise - Iraqgate is still an empty page, and we still have WPians pretending the US is some whitehat WRT Saddam.

The pictures

WhisperToMe,

Not that I'm diminishing your efforts, but I decided to remove the added pics. Although this is just a stylistic preference, I'm among the users who don't want to be inundated by too many Saddam propaganda pics at once, especially if the they're only loosely related to the sections in which they'e placed.172 01:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There aren't too many for an article of this size. Again, what is too many for a stub article is not too many for a large article like this. WhisperToMe 01:38, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC).

Perhaps we can hold a straw poll asking whether or not they prefer additional pics. Given the comments on the talk page now, more users seem to be agreeing with Adam, who favors even fewer pics than I do. Let's wait for other users to chime in. If other people start clamoring to have this article plastered with pics, I'll accept being in the minority and move on. 172 01:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I regard it not neutral if there is a picture with Chirac but none with Rumsfeld. Get-back-world-respect 23:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Saddam -> Saddam Hussein

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

Rumsfeld pic

I'm removing the picture of Rumsfeld. **I'm** not saying that it was necessarily a partisan addition, but with all due respect it'll likely be regarded as a partisan addition, thus rendering the text less credible among many readers. For the sake of full disclosure, Perhaps I'll be accused of being inconsistent, given that I favor including a picture of Chirac. But IMHO the Chirac photo serves a more readily apparent nonpartisan function. In this picture Saddam himself is the one in the photo who is a guest traveling abroad. Though I'm not a Middle East specialist by any means, it's noteworthy now that in the period before the Iraq Iran War, the domestic political situation in Iraq, in addition to the international environment, lent itself to a such a visit by Saddam, then Vice President, to a major Western power. IMHO, it'll allow many readers to grasp the stark change in his international image over time, and even the context of Iraq's domestic state of affairs. In contrast, I doubt that the Saddam w/ Rummy pic is nearly as fitting for bio piece, as it is saying noting implicitly about his image; in effect it's only making a point about U.S.-Iraqi relations during the war with Iran. And there's enough in the text to make that point w/out relying on a visual supplement. 172 00:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Since Hussein was already president when he met Rumsfeld I do not see why the picture is less important than the one when he was only Vice-President and met Chirac, especially given the context of the Iran-Contra Affair, where the Reagan administration broke its own embargo and traded weapons to Iran. I do not see why a visual supplement is more appropriate for documenting the Chirac than the Rumsfeld meeting. Get-back-world-respect 00:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with most of this, given that I am **not** saying that "the [Rumsfeld] picture is less important than the one when he was only Vice-President and met Chirac." I'm fully aware that his meeting with Rumsfeld was certainly a hell of a lot more "important" (assuming that this means ways one can go about surmising/weighing historical significance). But the merits of a visual supplement simply don't directly correspond with historical significance. To make a really obtuse understatement for the sake of summing up my point, although FDR warrants more attention than these squatters in California, the Great Depression article, the article snubs FDR and goes with the squatters. Sometimes pics are included to say something about the period, as opposed to what's specifically going on in the pic. In short, I was saying that the Chirac pic said a lot about the period as well.172 00:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Chris,

You haven't added your reasoning here yet, with which I'm interested. Please tell me where I'm off when I'm concluding that the costs of adding what may be widely regarded as a partisan addition (and thus the blow to the article's semblance of credibility) outweighs the gains of including this pic as a visual supplement? 172 01:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether this matters, but in that photo it is not Saddam but Rumsfeld who is the guest traveling abroad. The picture was taken in Baghdad according to the caption and the linked website. - Hephaestos|§ 04:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Good observation. In this particular case I think that it makes more sense to stress the guest rather than the host. General readers will see Saddam in Paris meeting with Chirac and likely think, "Wow, I didn't know Saddam could leave the country without worrying about a coup or an extradition to a war crimes tribunal." They'll see Rumsfeld and Saddam and likely think, "Wow, is that really Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam?" IMHO, the pic goes better in the Rumsfeld article. I wouldn't oppose adding the Saddam/Rummy meeting to the Rumsfeld article. 172 08:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
The picture is already in the Rumsfeld article and I disagree that the picture with Chirac is more important than the one with Rumsfeld. In the latter case Hussein was already President and the visit of Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East is particularly interesting given the Reagan government secretly traded weapons to Iran AND Iraq. Including a picture with Hussein and Chirac but none of the other numerous meetings between Hussein and important foreign politicians is not neutral and in my opinion dangerous given the anti-French prejudices among many US citizens. Get-back-world-respect 00:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
First, your edit summary stated that three users support reinserting the picture. Yet so far, you are the only one explaining your reasoning on the talk page (Hephaestos did not take a stance). So with all due respect, it is still just a disagreement between the two of us. We should reasonably resolve this disagreement, as opposed to making this into a polling game. Second, I don't understand why you keep stating that you disagree with the argument that 'the picture with Chirac is more important than the one with Rumsfeld.' I am **not** making that argument. Instead, I have been stating that the pic w/ Chirac supplements a bio piece in ways that the pic w/ Rumsfeld does not. Finally, IMHO, basing written content and visual supplements on the dynamics of contending French and U.S. nationalisms during the 2003 Iraq war is opening up a Pandora's Box. Any minute now, the U.S. nationalist users, such as Veriverily, could pop in and start ranting and raving about the asymmetry in written coverage between Franco-Iraq relations and U.S.-Iraq relations. After all, the latter gets far more written attention here, as it does generally does in almost all accounts. Instead, let's consider the merits of a visual supplement based on where it is placed in the article and what it adds to or detracts from a biographical, encyclopedic entry about Saddam. In other words, let's consider every picture as a separate issue, especially if the pictures are placed in different sections of the article. 172 01:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Technically, 172, I want the picture in there too. But no, Heph did not take a stance. WhisperToMe 01:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

172, if someone shows up "ranting and raving about the asymmetry in written coverage between Franco-Iraq relations and U.S.-Iraq relations" he may improve on the written coverage. I am not afraid of VeriVerily, we may not agree in many cases about politics but I have no major problems with him. I do not "rant and rave" but I do not accept that there is a picture with Chirac and none with the numerous other important politicians Hussein met. Two other users included the picture as well, so it is a disagreement between three others and you. You have removed the image four times now and are going to break the three edit rule if you do it again. Get-back-world-respect 01:59, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see you trying to employ these strongarm tactics to make a partisan addition. Or perhaps we're on the verge of starting a fight just because of a communication problem. Why don't you tell me where you think I'm coming from so that I'm better able to respond to your concerns? Do you think that my stance is motivated by the anti-French prejudices and U.S. nationalist chauvinism typical in the wake of the Iraq war? 172 02:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
It is irrelevant to the article where you are coming from. Further above you had stated the Rumsfeld picture was no partisan addition. As I explained twice I do not regard it neutral if there is a picture with Chirac and none with other important politicians. Maybe we have to agree to differ here, but others share my opinion that the picture is worth including. Get-back-world-respect 02:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, have your pic then. But it would've been nice not to get the hasty and emotional arguments typical of some partisan users whose names can go unmentioned. 172 02:28, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I posted this on 172's talk page - 172, the pictures that you are trying to remove ARE very important. The Rumsfeld pic shows that Saddam did not always have unfriendly relationships with the United States! And the cult of personality pic demonstrates his cult of personality. WhisperToMe 03:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

"And certain pics are critical to an article about the history of Iraq, others to a biographical entry" - That explanation is poor. Saddam Hussein was completely intertwined with the history of Iraq while he ruled! WhisperToMe 03:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Please respond to the comments that I have left you on User talk:WhisperToMe. You're only responding to my edit summary, and of course this isn't going to say much. 172 13:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Partisan overtones aside, I agree with what 172 has been advocating. In the lead up to the 2003 Iraq war, that Rumsfeld pic was used almost entirely by opponents of the war to attack the Secretary and the larger Bush administration. As such, I think the photo has assumed an overly partisan context, which is hard to look past.

From a purely stylistic rationale however, I dislike it because it seems so crude. I mean, from what I can tell it is a frame grab of a very crude MPG file, made from an even cruder piece of 1980 news footage. I suppose the two are connected in some respects, as crude footage of this sort has a sort of automatic context of having been "dug up" so to speak. Though in real life it's not (this meeting was not some secret conspiracy) the way the photo looks now brings with it a sort of "shocking" context (look! we caught Rummy in the act!). If the photo was nice, clear, and high quality, like the Chirac one, I would probably be a lot more partial to its inclusion.

I still don't understand why the cult of personality pic is gone, though user:J.J.

I think JJ is saying it better than I am. This picture was all but forgotten until 2003, and I think we can find a better Iraq-Iran War related pic. Rumsfled isn't even mentioned in the text in this section. And the U.S. role isn't even mentioned in the article until the section discussing tensions with Kuwait and the invasion. Considering how rarely he has traveled abroad, it's the one out of the two that would conceivably belong in the article for reasons not inspired by the Franco-U.S. rift over the ongoing war. 172 21:10, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

There is a clearer quality version. Do you like the "other version" better? WhisperToMe 01:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I guess. If we're going to have the pic, it might as well be the better one. I'm not sure how to find it, though. 172 11:59, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Improvised family

Could someone explain me what this is supposed to mean? Before it said "poor", could it be that someone meant "impoverished"? Get-back-world-respect 19:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

That would be my guess anyway. - Hephaestos|§ 20:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

"Saddam" as used in article

-> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming