Talk:Saddam Hussein/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Saddam Hussein. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

->Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

I rolled back the added pictures that J.J. included. This article is already huge as it is, we have sufficient pictures now. -- Zoe

I disagree, my pictures were relevant and high quality, and I am re-adding them. -- user:J.J.

You don't think one picture is enough to show a person? I can't imagine it's something like a complicated building or physical concept that needs more than one photo to have the reader understand it and recognize it. Koyaanis Qatsi P.S. actually, for that matter, I don't think we need the 2nd or 3rd ones that are there already.

I agree with JJ. They were 100% relevant and once there is no problem with their usage, they should be included. They showed the three sides of the 'cult' of Saddam; the 'enthroned' Saddam as the great Arab leader, the 'military' Saddam (a key part of the iconography of his leadership) and the standard 'radical' image of Saddam the gunman. They were 100% useful in symbolising the aspects of the personality cult that played such an important part in his rule. They are far more relevant than the images we currently have. And given the degree of text, we need more not less pictures to make the page user-friendly. I disagree totally with Zoe's decision and think it should be reversed. ÉÍREman 04:17 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Re Koyaanis Qatsi's comment, the answer is absolutely and totally not. You need them if

they inform as to the nature of the person's appeal
they break up a text-heavy page, and this page needs as many images as possible. It looks amateurish without them. A professionally designed encyclopædia would have no problem using these images. Why shouldn't wiki strive to look as professionally laid out and as reader-friendly as possible? We aren't dealing with an 1860s New York Times. We are dealing with a technology that has access to images and the ability to lay them out. We would be crazy not to use them. Wiki's main problem is that it has far too few images, not too many. ÉÍREman 04:17 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

There were four images in an already-exceedingly long article. And he still hasn't discussed their copyright status. -- Zoe

The longer the article, the more it needs images to break it up and give it a professionally laid out look, as opposed to school essay, which an article lacking proper illustration can look like, which acres of text alone. As to copyright, that is the only issue that could justify their removal, but only once the issue has been raised. But it is wrong to unilaterally slash images out of an article and then raise the question of copyright.

As to he still hasn't discussed their copyright status - Zoe you gave him precisely two minutes, from the moment you left a msg on his talk page to the time you removed the images. Come on, be fair. If you did that to me, either you'd get a burst of my infamous temper or I would ignore you completely and refuse to reply on a point of principle. You know how much I admire your editing work. Just be careful not to trample over some guy who has got some very good images for the article and so has clearly been working on his own time to wiki's benefit. At least give him some time to explain the origins. And give other users a chance to say whether they think there are two many images. lol ÉÍREman 05:09 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the defense, ÉÍREman. You have summed up my opinions perfectly so I won't bother repeating. All the photos I posted have either been used with permission, or are copyright free. I quite liked the photo of Saddam on the throne, but I'm willing to accept if a more recent photo of him is considered preferable. On a related note, and this is adressed to everyone, when it comes to copyright issues, sometimes it doesn't hurt to use a little common sense before comdeming someone as a copyright violator. If a propaganda photograph issued by a government that no longer exists is posted, I think it is fair to assume that no one is currently enforcing its terms of use. user:J.J. 06:11 May 8, 2003

If you read what it said, Graft, you would know that I did not say why that woman held up that image. The caption explained how Saddam's use of imagery was central to his ability to project himself as a great Arab leader worthy of support. No-one knows why she held up that image. But the fact that she had such an image is evidence of his mastery of the use of such images. She didn't have a photocopied image of Saddam, a cut out from a newspaper or the sort of poster you get in elections in the west. It was not some amateur image she had made herself. She had an image designed to show Saddam in a certain light, in that image Saddam the personification of Iraq. It is an image freely available in the arab countries and projects a clear message with all the subtlety of Bush and the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers walking over a bridge together (a bridge specially constructed over a swimming pool for that one image - subminimal meaning: we are building bridges and crossing threshholds), of the visual statements made by the pope on his international visits (meaning: bringing catholicism to the people, being in touch with the people around the world), of the British royals with a rock concert in the grounds of Buckingham Palace (meaning: we are in touch with modern culture and with modern Britain), of Putin in St. Petersburg, (meaning: we are an old nation proud of our history and post-communist) etc etc. It all falls down to the power of image in agenda-setting. And Saddam as the images on the page show was a master tactician at using images. As the caption was perfectly accurate I am re-instating it. FearÉIREANN 03:31 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Might want to rephrase it a little - the way you wrote it implies that you meant the -woman's- use of the image etc. etc. Graft 03:34 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fair point. I have changed the wording a little. Have a look and see if it is OK. If it isn't, let me know and I'll try to change it. FearÉIREANN 03:55 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Fine by me. Graft

Arabic -> Talk:Saddam Hussein/naming

I don't mind the Wikiquote project, in fact I think it's a good thing; a lot of Wikipedia articles are overloaded with quotes from the subject of the article. (I'll go fix one in a minute.) However, I think a defining quote on a subject is very germane to Wikipedia, and I don't like seeing a quote taken out when it's the only one. - Hephaestos 01:23 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree -- just because Wikiquote exists, doesnt mean the Wikipedia shouldnt contain quotes. Pizza Puzzle

OK, I won't remove the last quote (or any 'good' quotes) on a Wikipedia page from now on when linking to Wikiquote. I have also raised a note on one of the Wikiquote pages that this is an issue so others are aware of it (with a pointer back to this talk page). Nanobug

once this combination of greed and arrogance has misled him into a sense of undefeatable capability and power, as he takes the road of falsehood and aggression, committing the most heinous acts and proceeding from that sick imagination, to fall down the precipice and then into hell.

would u like to explain what that is saying? Pizza Puzzle

Absolutely not. It's Saddamese and therefore beyond me. All that's really important here is that this is the only Saddam quote Wikipedians have so far been able to come up with. Maybe there's a better one. ;) Hephaestos

In the future, please do not revert to gibberish by stating that it isnt gibberish. I am glad that u agree it was gibberish. Since Im the person that added the quote in the first place, and, since it is gibberish -- id appreciate your agreement that gibberish is not conducive to a good article. Pizza Puzzle

I agree that it's gibberish; I don't agree that it's not germane to the article. What would you suggest for a quote other than "something Saddam said?" - Hephaestos 14:49 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The title "quote" is potentially confusing, because it could give the impression to some that it is a third-party quote which the author is choosing to apply to Saddam, rather than necessarily a quote from Saddam (even if ironically it could be held to apply also to himself). Indeed I at first misinterpreted it this way, and consequently worried that its inclusion was highly POV. I will therefore change the title to "Quote from Saddam" in order to disambiguate. --Trainspotter 11:00, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To JoeM -- do you really think "Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant. He has murdered millions. America right now is uncovering the mass graves where he buried the victims of his Islamic-fascist-socialist rule. He hates America and freedom, has ties to Al Qaida, was probably involved in 9/11, he has been amassing chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry." is NPOV? It isn't proved that he has murdered millions (tens of thousands maybe), the rule wasn't Islamic, the ties to Al Qaida are disputed, and the chemcial, biological and nuclear weapons haven't been found yet. So I will rv to the old intro. To others: have a look at Islamofascism -- till we *) 13:22, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

His rule was Islamist. I proved you wrong earlier. You are not making any sense. He has murdered millions when you count the victims of all his wars of aggression. And if you don't believe his Al Qaida ties, then DISPROVE the Prague Memo. JoeM

His rule was -not- Islamist. For most of it he allowed the sale of alcohol, had Christians in his government, presided over a sunni-shia state with participation from both parties (which an Islamist state would not have), and is universally condemned by real Islamists for being an "atheist", i.e., secular. Furthermore, he's been involved in only three wars, the first of which could only dubiously be called a war of aggression, since Iran could hardly be called an innocent victim. In the last, he was the -victim- rather than the instigator, and the tens of thousands murdered were at the hands of the aggressor, the United States. As to his victims, 200,000 is the high number I've seen for the most egregious campaign of slaughter, the repression of the Shi'ite rebellion of 1991. Although 1.5 million people died in the course of the Iran-Iraq war, a good fraction of these were Iraqis, and the 1M+ iranians who died were mostly a result of Iran's suicidal tactic of "human wave" attacks, and the fault probably lies more with Iranian commanders than it does with Saddam.

As to the Prague report, let me DISPROVE it, right here. The CIA and FBI were always dubious about it, because Atta was in Florida two days prior to the alleged meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer and there were no records indicating a quick flight over to the Czech republic. Furthermore, as you may read here [[1]], the Czechs themselves disavowed the memo. So, no one believes that particular piece of evidence. If you know of anything else, I'd be interested to see it.

Lastly, I realize you're a raving fanatic who probably isn't interested in facts, but I have fun reading about this stuff anyway, so thanks for the opportunity to refresh my memory about some of these facts. Graft 17:25, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- I see Saddam Hussein is popular around here. He is a Baathist, which is a mix of Islamism, fascism, nationalism, socialism, and communism. So in his propaganda he's a little less pure in his Islamism than bin Laden, but this is a matter of degrees, like Stalin's communism being more virulent than Castro's. This isn't saying that a less virulent brand of communism isn't evil. For instance, OJ Simpson is less murderous than Ted Bundy, but he's still evil. He is an Islamofascist nonetheless. How do you explain all the mosques he was building (including the Saddam mosque- to be the biggest in the world and him preaching matyrdom and jihad and protecting Islam all these years? JoeM

It's perfectly possible to build mosques and not be an Islamist (which is not the same as being a Muslim, see Islamism). For example, Arafat talks about martyrdom and jihad but is a staunch secularist as well, and has strong disagreements with Islamists like Hamas, e.g. on issues like the veil. Saddam did not require the veil, and was generally liberal on many issues. In fact, I would have a hard time identifying any actual policies Saddam implemented which could be called Islamist. As to his rhetoric, remember that he presides over a majority-Muslim nation, and so naturally he would use language that appeals to them, just as George Bush appeals to Christianity, and Fidel Castro talks about how he's doing things for the People. Making a distinction between what people say and what they actually believe is very important if you don't want to end up looking like a chump.

As to Saddam being "popular" here, I think you will find few people here who are fans - rather, you will find people who are fans of accuracy and hold themselves to some standard of objective scholarship. Graft 21:27, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I protected this page at the request of Evercat in order to stop the edit war. -- Cordyph 13:46, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, he's not around at the moment, so I've unprotected. Evercat 17:27, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's an figure allegedly sourced from Ramsey Clark on casualties. Would appreciate if someone could verify this; the original quoter didn't get Clark's occupation right, throwing into question the figure as well. Some source ought to be stated for the figure. Clark is an antiestablishment gadfly which suggests the figure is from a propagandist grasping for an authoritative source.

Glaspie

Okay, can we have out this Glaspie business? I have the Iraqi transcript in front of me, and it says:

GLASPIE: I think I understand this, I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. (emphasis mine). I was in the American embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us? My assessment after twenty-five years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly we can only see that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on the national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the foreign minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the UAE and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship-not in the spirit of confrontation-regarding your intentions.

[Paraphrasing - Saddam says basically, We tried everything, we talked to them (Kuwait) many times, but they're committing economic war against us, which is just like military attack. The other arab states should value Iraq's protection (from Iran). Saddam expresses his intent to hold more talks with Kuwait; Glaspie congratulates him.]

Later in Senate testimony about whether she had told him that the U.S. would defend Kuwait if Iraq invaded, she said she had not. She also contested that the Iraqi transcript was inaccurate, and she urged Saddam away from violence. Ramsey Clark claims[2] that State Department cables prove this was a lie (if someone can dig up the NYT article he references, that would be more useful than Clark himself). The State Department refuses to release their own transcripts, which suggests to me they are embarassing, and therefore that the Iraqi transcript is probably accurate.

So, let's assume that the transcript we have is accurate. Glaspie characterizes Saddam's mood in her March 20, 1991 Congressional testimony as: "[Saddam] wanted me to assure President Bush that he would not, absolutely would not take military action against Kuwait without the blessing of the United States." (If someone can dig up a transcript of THIS testimony, it would be very useful - this sort of stuff must be archived somewhere?) Which suggests she knew Saddam was seeking approval, and judging by the transcripts of their conversation he got a "We're staying out of this one - your call". Whether this constitutes a "green light" in light of Saddam's dissembling about his intent is the subject of debate. At any rate, i'm not sure what's "unsubstantiated allegation". Graft 22:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First off, we can't assume the transcript is accurate. It was provided by Iraq (and I believe originially in Arabic), and the State Department has not confirmed (nor denied) its accuracy. There may be several reasons the SD has not commented; even if they are hiding something, it could be anything.

Secondly, even if it is accurate, yes, I've read the entire transcript, including the portion above. Glaspie is asking — very politely and cautiously — if Saddam is going to attack Kuwait. There is absolutely nothing anywhere about her assuring Saddam the US would not respond; on the contrary, she notes she would be "concerned" (again politespeak). If anything it is Saddam who assures her at the end of the conversation that he will not attack before another (promising?) negotiation session to be held with Kuwait, and it is on this upbeat note that Glaspie seems reasonably satisfied.

(The "no opinion" portion, so often quoted alone, is in reference to the slant drilling issue discussed previously. The fact that it does not mean "Go ahead and invade Kuwait, we don't care" is confirmed by the later statements such as "Normally that would not be any of our business. But..." (my emphasis) and "... be concerned".)

To say that the claim that the US gave Saddam a "green light" is unsubstantiated understates the case. In fact, it is flatly contradicted by Iraq's own transcripts. -- VV 23:58, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the accuracy of the transcript, I see no reason to deny it: the only one who has is Glaspie, who can't substantiate her claim and has reason to lie. The State Department could very well give the lie to Iraq by releasing its own copy, and there's absolutely no reason for them not to do so that I can think of. So, my own feeling is that the Iraqi transcript is probably pretty good, translation mishaps aside. But, that's just my own feeling.

I agree that the "green light" case is overstated, and that "no opinion" sentence by itself is pretty weak, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's contradicted. If "no opinion" is pretty weak, "concerned" is also pretty weak, especially when she says she's "concerned" in the "spirit of friendship", not the "spirit of confrontation". I want to see the Congressional testimony because I think it would give some insight into what Glaspie intended, and what she thought she was telling Saddam. Of course it'll be tortured by hindsight and CYA, but I'd find that far more useful than attempting to guess our way through diplomat-speak. Graft 01:18, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)