Talk:Saddam Hussein
Let's not forget Saddam Hussein purposefully propogated the fraud that he had WMDs. Hussein was a good bluffer. TheRationalOne 15:30, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- But not smart enough to know when NOT to bluff. --Gulik 16:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Rise to power section
What is this pointless wall of text doing here? Is there a way to say what matters in, say two paragraphs? Sheesh. ħuman
23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ditto the others RWNC is adding. What is the fucking point? If I want the history, I can go to WP. Can you learn to simply make whatever points might be buried in all that dross? ħuman
01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Saddam really did only recieve 1% of his supplies from the US!
If we have to prominently mention in the first paragraph that the US was supplying him while he gassed the Kurds, particularly in a manner which falsely implies that we sold him the chemical weapons; why is it "random nonsense" to point out this fact?
The US did not even sell Saddam conventional weapons, much less poison gas. That all came from Russia, France, Germany, and China. We only sold him military equipment and supplies.RWNC (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- And your sources to back this up? Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 01:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/bureau/000113.html and www.tallrite.com/weblog/blogimages/refs2003/iraqarmsimport.jpg
RWNC (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- So a post on some blog somewhere is now supposed to convince me? Well how about that! Maybe I should start saying things on a blog somewhere so that people will believe me! The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 01:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the point is that Saddam (arrested and killed under US guard) was at one point supported and supplied by the US. AceX-102 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- That "graph" (the jpg "source") is really lame. And the other one, while giving a "source" for their data, does it in an image so one can't copy and paste it. RWNC, are all your sources this incompetent? Because I am getting sick of their incredibly low-quality presentation. Yesterday you gave me a gif of a table that was barely readable, but from what I could tell, you also lied about what it said. ħuman
01:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's not my fault you can't read graphs, Human. The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war. These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq's conventional weapons imports during the war.
- That "graph" (the jpg "source") is really lame. And the other one, while giving a "source" for their data, does it in an image so one can't copy and paste it. RWNC, are all your sources this incompetent? Because I am getting sick of their incredibly low-quality presentation. Yesterday you gave me a gif of a table that was barely readable, but from what I could tell, you also lied about what it said. ħuman
- I think the point is that Saddam (arrested and killed under US guard) was at one point supported and supplied by the US. AceX-102 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- So a post on some blog somewhere is now supposed to convince me? Well how about that! Maybe I should start saying things on a blog somewhere so that people will believe me! The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 01:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
End of story.RWNC (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The jpg is ridiculous - I can read it, you idiot, but it says nothing. The other one is supported by a link that must be manually typed? What kind of fool are you, you just take junk like this at face value just because it agrees with your prejudices? PS, got cites for your latest factual claim above? ħuman
02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Both of your sources are graphs of information taken from the same website, the Swedish International Peace Research Institute. The URL at the bottom of the first is broken, and my search of the SIPRI website yielded nothing. Try to remember that if a "source" is just a regurgitation of data from yet another source, you have to make sure that other source is reliable.
Acer Blue 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not to minimize your well-put point, but, hmmm, Sweden... isn't that where the guy who wants to nominate RWNC's hero the democide guy for a Nobel for a decade lives? Hmmmm. ħuman
02:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- SIPRI is a reputable institute, they're a valid source. I did some searching on their site and was able to reconstruct the database used for the graph (you can do it by going here), so this stuff checks out. However, WP argues that the US support did not come in the form of direct arms sales, but rather in cash and secret channels that could be used to obtain the weapons from third parties. Their sources are print publications, so no links, but if this is true, then official bilateral arms sales would be a poor metric to gauge US support for Saddam. Röstigraben (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia’s claim is actually true. The US did not arm Saddam; the US gave him intelligence on Iranian troop movements, repeatedly took covert and overt military action towards Iran, worked to avoid UN condemnation of Iraq, and gave him money. Not only were US arms sales to Iraq (helicopters aside) illegal; the US ended up giving more support to Iran via the Iran-Contra affair. The US also gave Saddam false intelligence at times to engineer a stalemate. The US repeatedly urged countries not to allow shipments to Iraq that could be used for chemical weapons programs.
- Not to minimize your well-put point, but, hmmm, Sweden... isn't that where the guy who wants to nominate RWNC's hero the democide guy for a Nobel for a decade lives? Hmmmm. ħuman
- Both of your sources are graphs of information taken from the same website, the Swedish International Peace Research Institute. The URL at the bottom of the first is broken, and my search of the SIPRI website yielded nothing. Try to remember that if a "source" is just a regurgitation of data from yet another source, you have to make sure that other source is reliable.
- The jpg is ridiculous - I can read it, you idiot, but it says nothing. The other one is supported by a link that must be manually typed? What kind of fool are you, you just take junk like this at face value just because it agrees with your prejudices? PS, got cites for your latest factual claim above? ħuman
The article as currently written implies that we gave Saddam WMD, which is totally false and untrue.RWNC (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your SIPRI link is phail. It loads, but doesn't load anything useful. Your claim that it is "reputable" is as dubious as your claim that that UHI weirdo is well-respected. Also, can you please maintain the indent level in your comments? ħuman
02:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your SIPRI link is phail. It loads, but doesn't load anything useful. Your claim that it is "reputable" is as dubious as your claim that that UHI weirdo is well-respected. Also, can you please maintain the indent level in your comments? ħuman
[edit] Trivia
The trivia section has useful information and certainly should not be deleted. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)