Talk:Tariq Aziz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Tariq Aziz.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Why is so much of his life missing?

Tariq Aziz was one of the most important and influential men in Iraq between 1980 and 2003, I have edited a small piece of this article about his political life, but I am suprise so much of this article dwells on his life from 2003-2007, there should be more on his life. Who cares whether he acted as a 'christian', this is an encyclopedia, not a theological seminar on the nature of Christ. He was born into a Christian family and in the Muslim world that means, unless he converted to Aslam, he remains a Chaldrean Catholic Christian. Seth J. Frantzman 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also added a biographical template to this page, it now looks like a real entry, I suggest if someone can research who were his predessecors and successors in his positions that would be great.Seth J. Frantzman 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have references to Aziz's life before 1980? Doug Youvan (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
From a reference cited in the article: "Mr Aziz, who is himself a Christian, gave himself up to US forces after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 but no charges have been brought against him." What is the background and law on this situation? Doug Youvan (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
An earlier version of this articles states that his whereabouts are unknown. Has that been clarified? Doug Youvan (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Position held - DPM or VP?

The text and infobox are currently out of sync as to whether Aziz was Deputy Prime Minister or Vice President. Since Saddam held both posts for all but three years (1991-1994) there may not be a clear answer, but if so which is correct? Timrollpickering (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DPM, says most news reports including this recent one from Reuters --60.240.112.112 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Changed it to read Deputy Prime Minister. It appears, Taha Yassin Ramadan was the Vice President ... unless there were two Vice Presidents. -- Esemono (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush quote on Aziz (2003) is historic

Undid revision 207736308 by Nukeh-- Chaldean 01:59, 24 April 2008
Add back RfC on undoing this - It's a Bush quote on Aziz, and very historic. With no names, your POVs are suspect. - Nukeh 03:00, 24 April 2008
Ave Ceasar objected to the inclusion of the quote, and removed it, because it in his words it was, "unencyclopedic" -- Esemono (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't a direct quote from Bush on Aziz encyclopedic? -- Nukeh 12:17, 24 April 2008
  • What is your reason for undoing a historic quote by the AP in USA today? Doug Youvan (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you put it in the opening paragraph? Are you aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style? Chaldean (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please move it as you wish. Doug Youvan (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Moved -- Esemono (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the move, that looks much better. If we can trust AP, the Bush quote is real. At this point in history (2008), it appears Bush was wrong and Aziz was right on no WMDs in Iraq. It might take 50 years to see if Bush had any reason (pun) to say this. One would have to assume that Bush knew something that is not currently known to the public. I will not comment on the probability, because that would be biased. I noticed in live coverage of the UN at the time that Aziz was treated with the utmost respect. Powell quit after those UN meetings. If Bush is in fact wrong about Aziz in this quote, the quote is a statement of an historic error in US policy. If one looks at Greenspan's new book, he too went to war over oil. If one looks at the Land Letter, Bush got moral justification from so-called Christian leaders in the US, while the Pope opposed war at every step. The price of oil is now over 4x what it was when Bush took office. No new iniatives in energy have been started by Bush (e.g., a crash nuclear reactor program coupled to water thermolysis into Hydrogen, as the French are doing). No energy conservation efforts have been pushed by Bush. My field is alternative energy, and I believe we need nuclear plant construction now, solar in the future, an abandonment of coal (pollution), and ocean Wave Power development in certain locations such as South Africa and Zealandia. I doubt that any of us want more war in the middle east. Personally, my son is at risk. He is three years old. I would gladly send him off to war to fight Adolf Hitler, but no way is he going to war over oil if my colleagues and I can provide an alternative to oil in alternative energy.Doug Youvan (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trial (2008)

Esemono, could you please explain why the statement that Aziz has not been charged with any crimes has been reinstated, when he is currently on trial? Also, why should the categories "Defense Witness", "Current status", and "Trial" should come under the heading "Surrender"? q.v. contents Dirkbb (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit removed a ref that was used later in the article thus breaking the ref link so I reverted your edit. I don't know why "Defense Witness", "Current status", and "Trial" were placed under surrender. Maybe because it happened after he surrendered? You'd have to ask the person who did it but I don't think they should be and have since changed them, I don't think you should change them back.-- Esemono (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)