Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 5

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

Recent additions to section on the 2003 Iraq War

A lot of detail has been added to the section on the 2003 Iraq War, which I removed. [1] I think that it's excessive, more suitable for the article on the 2003 Iraq War, as opposed to a biographical entry on Saddam Hussein. (If anything, the sections dealing with the years before the Iran-Iraq War are the ones that should be expanded-- certainly not the sections on the last couple of years, which are naturally receiving significant attention. The user who made these additions, of course, disagrees, so some feedback on the contending versions of the article is necessary. (BTW, the article already reaches nearly 50K, and is one of Wikipedia's longest.) 172 02:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is what I added / modified the "2003 Iraq war" passage to:

As the 90's progressed, Saddam continued to loom large in American consciousness as a major threat to Western allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, to Western oil supplies from the Gulf states, and to Middle East stability generally. The uncertain state of weapons inspections retained fears of Saddam's concealed WMD capabilities, and many continued to believe Saddam was determined to conceal his weapons programs from the international community. Bush's successor, U.S. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), maintained sanctions and made occasional air strikes in the "Iraqi no-fly zones" or other restrictions, in the hope that Saddam would be overthrown by his many political enemies. In 1998 President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act which clearly established US policy towards Iraq as being one to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq" and "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power."
This paragraph is veering off topic in particular, having more to do with United States politics than the career Saddam Hussein and Iraqi politics. 172 04:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The domestic political equation changed in the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which bolstered the influence of the strongly anti-Saddam so-called neoconservative faction in the presidential administration and throughout Washington.
The addition of "strongly anti-Saddam" is extemporaneous. No one on the U.S. political scene will be caught dead characterizing himself as anything but "strongly anti-Saddam." This doesn't really distinguish the neoconservatives. 172 04:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In his January 2002 state-of-the-union message to Congress, George W. Bush (the son of George H.W. Bush) spoke of an "axis of evil" comprising Iran, North Korea, and Iraq. Moreover, Bush announced that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraqi government. Bush claimed, "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade." "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror," said Bush.10

On September 12, 2002 Bush adressed the United Nations arguing his case against Saddam, calling Saddam's regime "exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront." In response the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441, demanding Iraq resume weapons inspections or face "serious consequences." Iraq obliged, and the inspections resumed. Though the inspections, headed by Dr. Hans Blix were generally regarded as more co-operative than in the past, concerns remained that Saddam's government was still not being fully compliant. The Bush administration pressed for a second, more strongly worded resolution that could presumable authorize military action against Iraq, but veto-holders France and Russia objected. It soon became clear that the United States was determined to depose Saddam's government with or without UN sanction.
As the war was looming on February 24, 2003, Saddam Hussein talked with CBS News anchor Dan Rather for more than three hours—his first interview with a U.S. reporter in over a decade. 10 CBS aired the taped interview later that week.
On March 18, 2003 Bush announced that Saddam and his two sons had 24 hours to leave Iraq or military action would commence. Saddam refused, and on March 20 the invasion formally began. The Iraqi government and military collapsed within three weeks of the beginning of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United States made at least two attempts to kill Saddam with targeted air strikes, but both narrowly failed to hit their target. By the beginning of April Coalition forces occupied much of Iraq. The resistance of the much-weakened Iraqi Army either crumbled or shifted to guerrilla tactics, and it appeared that Saddam had lost control of Iraq. He was last seen in a video which purported to show him in the Baghdad suburbs surrounded by supporters. When Baghdad fell to the Coalition on April 9, Saddam was nowhere to be found.

At present much of the context of the Iraq war is missing from the page. My edits only make the page slightly longer by one paragraph and a couple small sentences. It's relevant to discuss the start of war which brought Saddam down, that's as much part of his biography as anything else, considering the role he played in the events. I don't see anything else on this page that describes the UN security council resolutions, or much of Bush's reasoning for the invasion. As well, I made a few small NPOV edits to other words in the section which I believe help the page (for example the pointless bit about how no evidence between 9-11 and Saddam has been found, even though there is no allegation of that by Bush or anyone else quoted in the article.) Personally I think 172 is on a bit of a power-trip with this page. Every edit has to meet his personal approval or it gets instantly reverted. 172: you've already stated your pride that you've written most of the article. Give some other people a turn to add to it or modify what you've written. That's the wikipedia way. No one owns an article. It's long, I realize, but there are a lot of other rambling bits that can be cut back or made more sufficient. Besides, as one of the biggest newsmakers in recent years, Saddam's article deserves to be one of Wikipedia's longest. user:J.J.

Yes, it does need to be one of Wikipedia's longest. But it does not need to be an article on the 2003 Iraq War. BTW, the personalities of the authors of this article are irrelevant to this disagreement. Let's just wait for the input of additional users. 172 03:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From CBC: The U.S. alleges Saddam's regime killed more than 300,000 Iraqis. So far, the only place I have seen such casualties discussed is someplace in the middle of Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq, but it is politically important today. Shouldn't some sort of mention of them, and explanation of available figures, be added to this or some related article?

Regime

The word "regime" appears fifteen times in the article, more than in any comparable entry I could find. I suspect it is not a coincidence that the US administration has repeatedly used it to refer to Iraq under Saddam. The word has a strong negative connotation, at least in US politics.

Few would dispute that Saddam Hussein's rule was brutal and oppressive, but it seems to me that the article pounds the reader with "regime". Wouldn't words like government, administration, or even dictatorship provide the same amount of information in a more neutral manner? Wmahan. 23:46, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Nah, it's a value-neutral term. There was discussion about this a while ago on Talk:History of the Soviet Union (now found at Talk:History of the Soviet Union/archive 2) Please take a look at that discussion; it sheds light on the issue that you're raising. 172 23:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The BBC have been talking about the Iraqi "regime" post-handover, for what it's worth. Martin

OK, it sounds like there is a good argument that it can be a neutral term. Thanks for the link, 172. I still think the word has taken on a negative character in US public discourse, apart from the definitions as a mode of government or government in power given by dictionary.com and m-w.com. I think that's at least worth being aware of. Wmahan. 19:50, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

UN Sanctions: off-topic?

I'm genuinely curious: if it's OK for 10 paragraphs to be devoted to the Gulf War, why is it "off-topic" to expand the 1 paragraph about the UN sanctions? Particularly considering the sanctions led to the deaths of at least 8x as many Iraqis and devastated the Iraq economy; problems that were very relevant to Saddam Hussein's regime. I just wanted to make this point in case 172 tries to delete my additions again and because I may well add more to the UN sanctions section in the future. -- style 08:06, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

The sanctions are already dealt with in sufficient detail in this article. Further details can be found in the separate entries about the history of Iraq and the UN sanctions on Iraq. (And making estimates of the number of deaths caused by sanctions for our purposes here is opening up a Pandora's Box, as the estimates are going to be tinged with a political motive irrespective of the source.) 172 18:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The article currently says : Only smuggling across the Syrian border, and humanitarian aid kept Iraq from humanitarian crisis. To say that there was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq during the time of the sanctions is extreme POV, if not outright falsification. I mean, two UN officials resigned, calling the sanctions "genocidal", and even people like Madeleine Albright did not deny the extent of the humanitarian crisis when she said that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions had been "worth it". - pir 18:42, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was a strong opponent of the sanctions from the beginning. But I still think that this is a matter that requires stronger contextualization than this article can offer, and that if we go into sufficient detail, it'll be off topic. Perhaps the solution is providing a more visible link to an article about the sanctions. 172 19:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, that's fair enough. What is the relevant sanctions article? I'll change the sentence I quoted above to Only smuggling across the Syrian border, and humanitarian aid ameliorated the humanitarian crisis. One point that has been made about the sanctions is that they re-inforced Saddam's hold on the country - surely that's not off topic though? - pir 19:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely; the sanctions have been claimed to have strengthened Saddam's regime. The sanctions are a very valid topic for this article, and if you are going to talk about the sanctions, the humanitarian costs cannot be ignored without being completely POV. -- style 21:01, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
Argue your case, don't just state your opinion. Why do you consider that the sanctions were "dealt with in sufficient detail in this article" with 1 paragraph whereas the 10 paragraphs about the Gulf War are fine? And of course estimates are going to be inexact and possibly biased; which is why I have included cited upper and lower bounds from both sides of the debate (and both sides are respected organizations or researchers) following NPOV rigorously. And exactly the same criticisms can be made of the Gulf War casualty count (even more so); yet it's still in there. Do you seriously consider this article so perfect that two extra, perfectly factual sentences will ruin it?
And your continual reversion to outright factual errors (i.e. the implication that the UN placed a trade embargo after the Iraq war) is anti-Wiki. And as Pir noted, the idea that the "crisis was averted" in Iraq is also inaccurate and also incredibly POV.
Does this need a vote? Because I would prefer not to forced into a silly edit war over two measly sentences.
Also, there is no article about the UN sanctions on Iraq. Thanks for making me go on a wild goose chase.
There is only one paragraph devoted to the sanctions in the History of Iraq article. -- style 21:01, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
There were no outright factual errors in the version to which I reverted (nowhere did it state that the sanctions were imposed on Iraq after the war), but when I took another glance at your changes, I did find your opening sentence regarding UN sanctions clearer than the original one, so I subsequently restored it.
I'm glad that you alluded to the sparseness of content in the History of Iraq article (hence the need to keep this already 50K article from becoming too long and to direct users to that contrastingly underdeveloped article). That article needs significant work, and I've been meaning to expand it for a while. If you're interested in expanding the section on sanctions in that article, I'll try to see what I can do to help out. 172 21:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that the account of the sanctions here should be brief (but not cursory), and the full text should be in History of Iraq (or perhaps a separate article, by itself). I'll see what I can do in future. -- style 02:58, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Change Rumsfeld video link to an equivalent open version

Hello, Presently there is text "Saddam Hussein meeting with Donald Rumsfeld, at the time Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, during a visit to Baghdad, Iraq in 1983. Video frame capture, see the complete video". The link is to a proprietary file in Microsoft Windows Media Video (MS-WMPV) format which us unplayable. Shortly I will change this link to an equivalent copy of the video in selection of modern formats which are not only compatible with Microsoft Windows Media Player. The page will still link to the MS-WMPV legacy copy of the video for compatibility. Please respond on this thread if you disagree with the video being available in a modern open format instead of only MS-WMPV. Cheers, now3d

Heck, the only thing I disagree with is keeping the legacy copy. Open formats are going to be better than closed. --Golbez 17:25, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, agreed. I have put the mirror online now with Ogg Theora as the main copy. I have not linked to the legacy copy, just the NSA archive page it originated from. Any problems with the reliablility of the url please contact me at jg "at" jguk dot - org Now3d 13:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Huh. When I gave my endorsement to this, I thought you meant movie files stored on Wikipedia. Hm. I suppose this is okay, though. And no one else cared enough to comment. :P --Golbez 01:10, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Stalin and Mao

I have removed the reference to collectivisation of agriculture as a failure under Stalin and Mao, for the following reasons:

  • The subject is at least debatable, and this article is not the place to discuss in detail the effects of collectivisation in countries far removed from Iraq.
  • The article did not adequately distinguish Saddam Hussein's policy from that of Mao or Stalin. Indeed, it mentioned that Iraq instituted payment proportional to work performed, which was also a cornerstone of the people's communes under Mao.
  • The mention of Chinese and Soviet practices seemed gratuitous. It contributed nothing of value to the discussion of Saddam Hussein.

Shorne 18:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you think the failure of the Great Leap Backward is disputable, we've got a problem. Trey Stone 08:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The physical resemblence, you must admit, between Joe and Saddam is quite uncanny though...
Anyway, me point: I was reading something about Saddam actually being quite the admirer of Stalin (despite his staunch anti-communist doctrines). I don't just mean the mustache either. Saddam is reported to have been quite up on his Stalin (books, pamphlets, etc.). Whether that's relevant or not, or if it means Saddam was trying to run a mini-Stalinist regime...I'm not sure. But it is interesting purely from a fact junkie point of view. -- Yossarian 07:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop vandalising the article. You will only force people to revert your damages. Shorne 20:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to say, this is a brilliant article! Congratulations to all the contributors Hauser 1 October

More Vandalism

The page might need protection considering the sudden rash of vandalism. -- Yossarian 07:38, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I found the comment "Saddam had no choice but to rule as a dictator" (I assume torture and mutiliation was also necessary for "Arab unity", albeit one that included only 20% of the population) to be a disgusting form of vandalism, so I'd have to agree. KAPOW, 00:32, Dec 7, 2004 (PST)

Atrocities

What atrocities were commited by Iran? The article claimed that during the Iraq-Iran war, atrocities were commited by BOTH sides. But it doesn't state what atrocities were carried out by the Iranians. Thus, I removed this point. Also, the claim that Iran used chemical weapons in Halabja is just stupid. That city was HELD by Iran at that time, why in the world would they gas their OWN troops? I left a modified claim in the article, even in the absence of credible sources.

  • Do you think that Stephen C Pelletiere, senior CIA political analyst on Iraq during Iran-Iraq war was a stupid? My source: an article by Stephen C Pelletiere in NY Times 31 January 2003 [2]. Please, cite your sources on Stephen C Pelletiere's stupidity. If you have no ones, the article should reflect facts mentioned in Stephen C Pelletiere's article. Cmapm 12:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions to third paragraph

I have reinserted earlier edits of the third paragraph. I understand that this language is highly condemnatory. I am willing to try to find a compromise on this language if a suitable substitute can be found. However, it is a very important historical reality that Saddam Hussein built a state in Iraq that was very unlike the other Arab dictatorships. That some may consider this to be a political expedient is not relevant to the historical fact. Much mention is made of Baath politics and an Arab nationalist agenda in this article. In many ways these motivations, whatever they may have had to recommend them, withered as Saddam's regime progressed. Whether blame can be placed on outside forces and internal pressures or not, Saddam ruled through a very peculiarly centralized dictatorship. He did indeed build a very substantial cult of personality that reached deep into Iraq life. He also conducted murderous purges of his ministers and associates which sets him apart from other Arab dictators because of their frequency and brutality. Anyone who knows anything about Saddam knows of the footage early in his reign in which Hussein, in a forum highly reminiscent of the Stalinist show trials, stands before his political opponents and cooly smokes a cigar while they are led away to be executed. This guy was not a run of the mill thug; his regime had a distinctive character that I believe qualifies it to be called a police state. If people don't like the language, thats fine, we can argue about semantics; I agree they are a bit provocative. However, these first few paragraphs should not be so different than what would appear in a short obituary. Any fair-minded obituary of Saddam has to include the fact that he built an apparatus of state control and an accumulation of power into the hands of one man which has few rivals in the last 40 years. --Wtmgeo 11:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to begin to meet people half way. There has got to be some mention of the nature of Hussein's regime early in this article. The character of this regime was not simply a result of sectarian and tribal problems, but rather had a great deal to do with Hussein's personal makeup and philosophy. it was not comparable in many ways to the other Arab nationalist dictatorships. It was secular and repressive like them, but the capriciousness, brutality and paranoia of Hussein and his sons (some of it perhaps, in a sense, justified), as well as the reach it had in Iraqi society, set it apart. There was a sort of decadence of violence about this regime which really does remind one of the Soviet Union of Stalin and Beria. --Wtmgeo 12:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Listen, this third paragraph mentions human suffering caused by the Gulf War, which I accept and take to be indisputable. Along the same lines, I really dont see how anyone can possibly see the statements that I have written as refutable. They are central to the history of Saddam Hussein and I know of no serious historian who disputes them. To leave them out is propaganda and distortion. Wikipedia is supposed to be a site where people can access reasonably reliable historical accounts. Omissions of this sort constitute a level of bias that does not represent good scholarship. I am willing to compromise on wording but I wont stand for a whitewash. --Wtmgeo 22:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have continued to try to engage someone in a discussion about this topic but all that has happened is that my language is expunged. I have modified some wording at the end of the third paragraph which mentioned the "harsh scorn" of the US. This certainly implies overreaction on the part of the US and, true or not, that is a particular point of view. But I don't feel particularly strongly about that; I mostly did this to illustrate a point. It is not enough to just repeat the acronym "POV" like a parrot; explain yourselves. If people have better ideas about how to say that Saddam constructed an extensive police state then lets hear them. On the other hand if they think this fact is in dispute then I would like to hear of a single historian, American, European, Arab, whatever, who denies it. Certainly if I were asserting something that was the subject of even mild historical dispute then it would be necessary to explain this dispute to the reader. However, the first sentence of the third paragraph does not contain matters of dispute. Furthermore it is central to the legacy of Saddam Hussein. I am ready to hear suggestions about changes to the language. --Wtmgeo 05:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll begin with fair disclosure: I know Wtmgeo personally, and I looked at this article after he asked me for advice on this dispute. But my contribution here is my own, and I never hesitate to argue with him when we disagre. Enough disclaimers, on to real comments.
First of all, I'm frustrated to see four reverts of Wtmgeo's contributions in the article history with no justification given on this talk page. I find that particularly odd after WhisperToMe suggested resolving the question here himself (as I pointed out, the second of those suggestions came days after Wtmgeo had already posted his justification here). Wtmgeo made an effort to moderate his language after the initial accusation of POV; those who reverted his contributions have made no such attempt to meet him halfway.
As for the content itself, I honestly don't see what is POV about Wtmgeo's latest additions. The factual basis of what he said is beyond dispute; those who like Hussein do so either because of or in spite of these facts. (If anyone has credible evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.) And all of these facts are what I would consider "essential" information about Hussein: one cannot understand him or his regime without studying them. In my opinion, not mentioning them prominently at the head of the article is strongly POV (Wtmgeo's word "whitewashing" really would be the best description).
In short, the essence of NPOV is to decide on the content and organization of an article based on the absolute significance of each point, not based on whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the subject of the article. Wtmgeo's additions are highly significant, and the current version strikes me as being as neutral as possible given the subject matter. If you've got a better suggestion, by all means make it! But simply reverting those comments away is far more POV than leaving them in.--Steuard 17:06, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree that I don't find Wtmgeo's additions to be POV. These are fair characterizations of Saddam's regime. However, I do think they could be tempered by adding some other attributes of his regime beyond the mere brutality and autocracy of it. Graft 20:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To temper these contributions just go back to the way the article was before Wtmgeo's edits. Every aspect of the regime was described clearly enough in considerable detail before these edits. In the intro, though, there is no reason to turn the Saddam bio into an economy of/politics of/society of/history of Iraq write-up. If you want that, go here http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html 172 23:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Look, there is clearly a dispute here, not random vandalism. You have repeatedly reverted Wtmgeo's contributions without making any attempt to negotiate or compromise on the topic. At least as I see it, your comment does not address the fundamental point that I made above: these facts are absolutely essential features of Hussein's use of power. I absolutely believe that something along these lines should be mentioned in the article's introduction. Wtmgeo clearly believes the same thing. And Graft seems to concur at least to some degree. Even if you disagree, I think it's clear that your POV is a part of that. So let's negotiate rather than having a revert war.
Oh, and for the record, I resent the implication that I (or Wtmgeo) am parroting Bush administration talking points. I campaigned against the guy, and I was horrified by just about every stage of his interaction with Iraq. But the mere fact that Bush used these facts to justify his war does not make them any less important or any less true.--Steuard 01:04, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have tried again to find a compromise. I am open to further suggestions. --Wtmgeo 02:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not an issue of POV. Rather, the editors of this article have had remarkable success over the past year keeping this article-- already one of Wikipeida's longest-- within reasonable limits, concise, well-organized, and, in short usable and readable. This is despite the difficulty posed by the fact that just about everyone, especially those with a limited knowledge of the history, feels the urge to edit it. (Among other editors, I've had to remove over the past year stuff that does not contribute much where it is placed, irrelevancies (such as a paragraph someone added on the use of Saddam's image in a South Park cartoon), and POV rants. This is just a matter of keeping it short. The information being removed is already clearly expressed; so there's no need to modify an intro that has remained essentially unchanged and proved acceptable to just about every user (barring User:Lir) for about a year. 172 15:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
172, you have been saying for days that this is a matter of POV. Now you seem to be saying that you have managed to dominate the content of this article for some time and you would like to keep it that way. I really don't know what your motivations are 172. Frankly I read some of your earliest contributions to this article and they sound highly hagiographic and not particularly sophisticated. Having said that, as I said in a recent email, your work on other articles like Bretton Woods is quite good. It is very easy on Wikipedia to use the idea of POV (or now this vague idea of ownership) to push a particular ideological line through omissions and other devices. I assume you know something about history so I will just be very up front about this article. If you carted it around to any history or political science department in the world they would say that it is a whitewash and an apologia to Saddam Hussein; the earlier versions, mostly written by you (172), being farcically so.
As someone who is in a history department (the Middle East is not far outside my areas of expertise, though), I disagree. Coming from the tradition of value-neutral methods of social research advanced by Max Weber, I see it as pointless to try to separate the "positive" aspects of his regime from the "negative." They were flip sides of the same coin. Whether he was redistributing land to peasant farmers or purging the officer corps, his actions were adapted to consolidating his position. The editorial approach to this article should focus on these underlying concrete realities of his rule as opposed to the normative considerations of his legacy on which you seem to be focusing. 172 20:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article is dominated by aspects of Hussein's rule that could be interpreted as positive and the rest is left as an afterthought. Saddam Hussein will not be remembered in history for his water projects or even the secular nature of his rule; these are relevant but they would not be the main focus of any work by any serious historian, certainly not in such a short article. Along with his "unflinching" support for the Palestinians, there needs to be mention given early in this article of the central factor that Saddam will be remembered for. He was a very brutal dictator who placed his image in virtually every public place in Iraq; he intruded, often very violently and capriciously, into the lives of his people in a way that few modern rulers have. He and his sociopathic sons lived in a bizarre opulence even as they often personally directed the organs of what can only be called a police state; just the sheer kookiness of the regime, let alone the brutality, is more notable than his agrarian reforms. However, I am not trying to turn this article into something balanced, I dont have the time or the patience to do so while you hover over it ready to enforce your interpretation. But right now it is so unbalanced that it falls far outside the mainstream of what any serious history of Saddam Hussein would look like. I have gone to great efforts to compromise on what has now been reduced to a single sentence. You do not own this place.--Wtmgeo 17:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course he was a brutal dictator with a pervasive personality cult. No one is denying this; and I certainly am not. Right now I don’t have time for a debate on his legacy, though. 172 20:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll respond to a few points as well. First of all, 172, I would emphasize again that Wtmgeo has repeatedly tried to find a compromise on this point by changing his wording; in fact, it is my opinion that the most recent version of his comments does not go far enough. Your contributions to this dispute, on the other hand, have been simply to delete his additions entirely. You say that the version of the introduction that you support has "proved acceptable to just about every user" for a year; that may be true, but I don't see that it's relevant: Wtmgeo and I are here today, and we don't find it acceptable.
You now claim that your removals of Wtmgeo's contributions are "just a matter of keeping it short" (where "it" was "the article"). I would point out that the introductions of long articles are almost always mostly "redundant", and in fact that the introduction that you support is composed almost entirely of information that is "already clearly expressed" later in the article. In particular, the second paragraph of the introduction looks like precisely the "economy of/politics of/society of/history of Iraq write-up" that you claim to want to avoid. I think that Hussein establishing a cult of personality and turning Iraq into a police state is far more relevant to an article about him than the second paragraph's discussion of the state of Iraq's economy in the 1970s. (If you're really concerned about the article being so long, why not for example fix the redundant and in fact contradictory statements about the total size of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil reserves under "Tensions with Kuwait" and "The Persion Gulf War"?)
In the end, the brutality of Hussein's rulership of Iraq is one of the most unique and significant aspects of his life. (Not many leaders in history have videotaped murderous purges of their potential rivals!) It will be one of the primary things Hussein is remembered for, and like Wtmgeo I am surprised (and disappointed) by the article's cursory treatment of it. To refrain from mentioning it in the introduction really, really feels like an attempt to minimize it or cover it up. --Steuard 19:30, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
Re: I think that Hussein establishing a cult of personality and turning Iraq into a police state is far more relevant to an article about him than the second paragraph's discussion of the state of Iraq's economy in the 1970s. While his pervasive personality cult has certainly received more attention in the mainstream U.S. media in recent years, the discussion of his role in the economic and agrarian restructuring of Iraq in the 1970s is just as important-- if not more important-- in understanding how his regime shaped Iraq's social structure and political organization and created the conditions to sustain itself in power until the invasion in 2003. While the two of you seem to be more focused on defining his legacy (and despite what you seem to be suggesting, I completely agree with your conclusions, incidentally), the appropriate editorial approach to writing this article is historical-- paying attention to his consolidation of power. Of course Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. What is not readily apparent is how his actions in a particular context were adapted to the interests of maintaining power in a week state in an unstable region as he was aware of them. Note the absence of social base for his rule outside the predominately Sunni regions of the country as well. These are questions that cannot be understood without a discussion of matters like his economic and rural policies. 172 20:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that there is much disagreement over your desire to highlight Hussein's agrarian reforms. I don't intend to argue with you about why Hussein acted as he did other than to say that your suggestion of some mechanistic explanation belies much evidence in history of the impact of particular personalities, especially more narcissistic ones, on the development of policy. I am not at all convinced that you could look at Iraq's demographics and its strategic circumstances and predict the emergence of Saddam.
Re: I am not at all convinced that you could look at Iraq's demographics and its strategic circumstances and predict the emergence of Saddam. Neither am I. I don't know who is making such a deterministic argument, but it certainly is not me. What you can read from what I am saying, though, is the need to look at Saddam's actions in the context of 'Iraq's demographics and its strategic circumstances.' There is a huge difference here. 172 18:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
However, this is not an effort to try to rewrite large portions of this article. This third paragraph, despite what you have said about the articles' NPOV, has contained highly emotive phrases like "harsh scorn".
I haven't been reading into the use of the phrase "harsh scorn" the things that you have. But I am nevertheless not objecting to your changes. By virtue of the fact that I have not objected to your changing it to "deep suspicion" should go to show you that I regard your change as an improvement. 172 18:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It also mentions Hussein's support in the Arab world and his support for the Palestinian cause, as well as suggestions of Hussein's impact on Iraq's stability and growth. Why couldn't these matters be relegated to later parts of the article.
(1) How he is viewed among radical segments of the Arab street is important to balance the near-universal perception of his rule in the West-- indeed my own view, one that I share with you. (2) I have already stated in a previous posting why understanding the economic restructuring of the 1970s. 172 18:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think that your comments here may shed some light on where we differ on this point. It sounds to me like you are hoping to use this article "to balance the near-universal perception of (Hussein's) rule in the West".
No, I mentioned the fact that he is regarded as a popular hero among many radical segments of the 'Arab street', especially the Palestinians, because he indeed is. This is just something to bring up along with the fact that he has been viewed with deep fear and suspicion in the U.S. since the invasion of Kuwait. 172 23:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From that perspective, it would be important to focus on the more positive aspects of his reign, and there would be no need to talk about the abuses that Westerners already know well. Wtmgeo and I, on the other hand, would like to see the article be balanced in a more self-contained sense: it should give a complete picture of Hussein's rule, including both the abusive elements well known in the West and the positive elements and mitigating factors that Westerners may be unaware of. Our focus at least for now is on the introduction, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. I don't think that adding the one sentence that Wtmgeo has written would undercut your "re-educate the West" aspiration too much. In fact, I think that without such a sentence early on recognizing Hussein's brutal side, many Westerners may assume that the article as a whole is not credible. In short, I strongly believe that Wikipedia's aim should be to serve as an impartial reference, not as a "balancing" agent. --Steuard 22:43, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
You are turning my statements into a strawman. Of course he was a brutal dictator. Of course I agree with your view of his dictatorship personally. And the article makes this clear. I keep on having to say this over and over again. (Perhaps because I've been having to interact with two people who seem to be saying the same things but at different times.) However, it is inappropriate to make editorial decisions based on normative value judgments. 172 23:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to turn your statements into a strawman, though I can see how I may have given that impression. (I should have added a clear "If I've misunderstood your intent, please correct me!" in there somewhere; sorry about that.) I didn't make the connection that you were referring to the "deep suspicion" comment as what needed to be balanced, so I appreciate your clarification.
Like Wtmgeo, I think I am pretty happy with the current state of the introduction; I feel like even just those two added clauses make it a much more complete and fair overview of his life. And I apologize if I've repeated some of Wtmgeo's points (and made you repeat yourself in response); in some places, I think I hoped that saying a similar thing in a different way could help you to understand my (or our) position better. (Namely, that some indication of the "brutal dictator" aspects of Saddam's history should be mentioned in the introduction; I felt like you were very resistant to that idea for quite some time.) It feels like we're much closer to being on the same wavelength at this point, however that happened, and now that we seem to have hammered out a compromise I don't think any of us will see a need for further repetition. : ) --Steuard 17:56, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
We are offering you considerable leeway in terms of wording and we have not seen a response. I have tried to moderate the wording significantly myself. I think either a modest compromise has to be made, perhaps involving removing almost everything besides Hussein's birthday from the front of the article, or I am going to be compelled to carry out a much more comprehensive revision of the article and entrench for a much longer fight over its contents. --Wtmgeo 22:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, I see that you have made some effort. It is too connected to the previous regime however. Saddam really came into his own as president. If something can be added to the third paragraph that is at least accurate, then I will be satisfied and will move on. --Wtmgeo 23:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can make a case about a dictator needed to hold together an unstable country, but the extent of Saddam's brutality needs to be emphasized -- there have been corrupt dictators that haven't used the extreme violence and repression characteristic of his regime. If we're going to attribute some of this to historical civil conflict then fine, but it can't slide into POV rationalization. Trey Stone 00:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also of course the "cult of personality" (or a general statement about the repression, which I see is in the intro, a pretty mild statement) is not just something that should just be covered in "Human rights in Saddam's Iraq" or whatever. No one's going to minimize talk of Pinochet's state terror and torture in his article, because they were infamous characteristics of his regime, in fact what the majority of people remember it by. The same goes for Saddam -- there're certainly people who benefitted from Iraqi economic progress (just as what happened when Stalin revolutionized the Soviet economy), but we can't marginalize the people who were subjected to Ba'athist terror. Trey Stone 01:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What they are saying is that focusing the article around Saddam's brutality makes it one-sided. Of course he is known for a brutal reign, but the underlying motives make it a more complete article. Let's find an NPOV and clear way to word things. WhisperToMe 01:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What I am saying is that when it is an important characteristic of their rule then you don't minimize info about their methods of political repression for "balance". Trey Stone 03:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I very much agree that focusing the article around Saddam's brutality would be one-sided. But the version of the introduction that you and 172 have been reverting to doesn't mention his brutality at all. Neither I nor Wtmgeo have advocated wholesale rewriting of the introduction to focus on those points; we have simply insisted that they should be mentioned there.--Steuard 01:49, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
I have no intention of focusing the article around Saddam's brutality or, despite the fact that I have some reservations about its tenor and content, modifying the article in a any extensive way. I have removed the extensive edits of Trey Stone because I have been trying very hard to get a very limited compromise on language in the third paragraph. I think if 172 can try again to meet Steuard and I half way by bringing some of the sort of language he inserted into the second paragraph, without qualifications, to the third, then I will be satisfied. Right now the third paragraph seems quite appropriate to me but I think it is fair to allow for further compromise. I am willing to give this some number of more days but at some point I am just going to drop the subject and prepare to come back after some weeks with an extensively modified article for which I will be prepared to fight. --Wtmgeo 02:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The only part I care about is the almost-rationalization of Saddam's dictatorship, the other parts were caught in the revert... You can say that his rule provided stability to a historically turbulent country, but sentences like "constant vigilance was required to keep them subordinated" and "he was forced to rule as a dictator" gloss over the extremist tactics he took against his opponents. Like I said earlier, you can be a dictator without establishing a full-scale police-terror apparatus. Trey Stone 03:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You are absolutely right that the language sounds very much like an apology for Saddam.
FYI, this paragraph was mostly written by User:Adam Carr, not me. 172 18:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I agree that a Baath party dominated by a Sunni leadership would have found it very difficult to hold onto power without repression, the language is too suggestive of rationalization. However my effort is much more confined. I am not interested in either damning or explaining away Saddams tactics. I just want ackowledgement up front that they were a reality. Lets lay out the salient fact that Hussein's Iraq was a highly centralized (essentially one man) dictatorship in the introduction; the debate over the constaints that Hussein operated under can come later. I want to see if a reasonable deal with 172 is possible on this limited question. I promise to leave other drawbacks in the article to others if an agreement on this issue can be found. Right now the intro is acceptable to me but the ball is no longer in my court. --Wtmgeo 06:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The ideal-type used in comparative politics to shed light on Saddam's regime is personalism or sultanism (some comparativists like Linz and Stephan use the term "sultanism" in a reference to work by Max Weber-- not because of any religious or cultural significance). At any rate, these are methadological tools for researchers, not terms that belong in the introductions of encyclopedia articles. To get ideas for characterizing the nature of his regime as you see fit, I suggest you take a look at U.S. Army Research Division Iraq: A Country Study online at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html. 172 19:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is becoming infuriating. I ask you not to again subject us to condescending obscurantist mumbo-jumbo.
I'm sorry. If you are not prepared to be asked to apply the most precise usage of the terminology of political science, perhaps you'll want to find something else to do other than edit this article. 172 22:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Evidently, either you haven't been reading what we have been saying at all or you are trying to evade the central point. You have only addressed some of the peripheral arguments we have made. In particular, the only reason why I raised the issue of the Palestinians is to ask why it belongs in the first paragraph and our single sentence does not; I am fine with leaving it in. Your answer is that this sentence is intended to balance the commonly held view of Saddam as a dictator.
It is not intended to balance view of Saddam as a dictator (or actually the fact that Saddam was of course a dictator). It is intended to balance the view universally held in the West with that held by many segments of the Arab world. We must acknowledge that this is of interest in the intro, even though this is certainly not the view that the two of us held. Note this BBC article: "[Saddam] is a popular hero among disaffected Arabs everywhere, not least the Palestinians." [3] 172 22:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And then you refuse to even allow a sentence supporting this view to be inserted into the introduction!!
I support keeping the statements that he was view with deep suspicion in the U.S. following the invasion of Kuwait, and the fact that he forged a repressive security apparatus and a pervasive personality cult. This is not the case. 172 22:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please spare us all your opining about historical technique; we wont allow you to impose on everyone something that runs counter to basic common sense no matter how attached you happen to feel to a particular methodology.
What you call "opining about historical technique" is paying attention to essential encyclopedic standards. This article must be shaped by a careful consideration of the history and his consolidation of power, not normative considerations, not our emotional reactions. 172 22:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am only going to try this one more time; I am looking for a single sentence. I have made all of the logical appeals that I am going to. I will only observe that you have ruled this particular fiefdom for some time and must derive some satisfaction from that.
Note that I have added this sentence myself. 172 22:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We are perfectly happy to leave you in your roost if you accept this single sentence. If not, I promise you, just as you have worn down countless efforts to modify this article over the last two years, we will wear you down; and it wont be a single sentence modification we will be pushing for. You tried once to accommodate us with new language; another attempt may help you avoid a great deal of effort in the coming months.--Wtmgeo 20:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are talking about. All constructive changes are welcome on any article. Every single article on Wikipedia is a work in progress, even the featured articles. Note that I reacted favorably to a number of changes, such as the change of "harsh scorn" to "deep suspicion." And I think that the second paragraph is now more informative with the reference to his police apparatus. 172 22:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. I accept this language. It is not as much as I had hoped for but it is enough for me to cease with further reverts. Cheers. --Wtmgeo 23:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have thought a little bit about my remarks above and I feel remorse over the personal nature of some of them. I apologize to 172 for remarks that can only be fairly viewed as shrill and insulting. I am somewhat older for a grad student and have previously used the internet as a resource only in a way which has not required me to adapt to the anonymity of the internet. I know that anyone who dedicates themselves as much to a resource like Wikipedia in the way that 172 has, whatever disagreements I might have with his approach on a particular topic, is someone who deserves more respect than my remarks offered. --Wtmgeo 04:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is understandable. Thanks for your comments. 172 17:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latest News?

So, where is Saddam now? Are more hearings scheduled? --Feitclub 01:23, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Abuse?

I'd like to point out that the article, in its current form, contains very limited discussion of the use of torture/disappearing/murder by Saddam and, e.g., makes no mention of the Mukhabarat. I'm not suggesting that a separate discussion is needed, but the fact that very little mention is made of these things is perhaps something that should be corrected. Graft 19:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is much the same sentiment that led me to support Wtmgeo's efforts to add some mention of Saddam's brutality to the article's introduction: I have felt that those atrocities were underrepresented both in the introduction and the article as a whole. However, I don't feel myself to be enough of an expert to argue strongly about the overall balance, and I'm certainly not enough of an expert to write such a discussion myself. Is there another article that does list the major known examples of these things? I feel that they should be listed somewhere on Wikipedia, either in a secion of this article or in an article of their own (with a prominent link from this one).--Steuard 20:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
On top of that, any additional relevant information integrated into the remaining text concerning other matters will be great. Just two points concerning the above, the most appropriate organization is chronological, not topical. Second, please pay careful attention as to when it is more appropriate to add information to this article or related articles such as Human rights in Saddam's Iraq, State terrorism#Acts labelled as state terrorism, sorted by state#Iraq, History of Iraq##Rule Under Saddam. 172 20:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Your caveats are well-noted, but I do think that, even considering the second remark, this article is incomplete if it fails to mention these facts in context. That they are discussed on their own in separate (highly POV, I might add) articles does not mean they should be excluded from this one, especially as appropriate in-text references to those articles are lacking. Graft 22:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These facts are mentioned in context. BTW, note that I just added a paragraph on internal security organizations. 172 13:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just because Saddam's brutality served a distinct ideological purpose and was aimed at quelling general instability doesn't mean the human rights picture shouldn't also be mentioned in Saddam's own article. There are plenty of other dictators where we get the human rights scenario presented in detail. Trey Stone 05:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This picture is already made clear in context within an article organized chronologically from a number of different angles. For a discussion solely devoted to human rights in Iraq, see the other articles that I have mentioned. 172 17:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

U.S. relations pre-1990

Dropped this from the "Tensions with Kuwait" section:

The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion worth of arms in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit.

The French and the Soviets armed Iraq. The US gave him money and intelligence. It's an important distinction. Ellsworth 00:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Walter Lafeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War (New York, 2002), p. 358 refers to $40 billion worth of arms and this is a rock solid source. Nevertheless, I'll change it to 'aid' as a compromise because I honestly don't have time for an extended debate on this right now. 172 01:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Um, ok, but you also re-inserted the sentence about billions of food and arms to keep forming a strong alliance with the Soviets. I dropped "and arms". Ellsworth 17:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)