What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
266 Comments
- Pssdoff, on 10/28/2007, -6/+663It should be a well known fact that Saddam worked for the CIA in the late 50s, received assistance from the US government in the 80s, and that US companies like Dow Chemical provided Saddam with the pesticides he needed during the Iran Iraq war to create WMDs.
Sadly I'll probably be buried by a swarm of idiots for saying so. - vjeko, on 10/28/2007, -15/+457I care
- littlebylittle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+184It's on 500,000 plus hard-drives anyway. It ain't going away.
- djphatjive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+91http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5954/saddamrumsfeldnj7.jpg
- disabled4diggin, on 10/10/2007, -25/+108omg if they delete it from wikipedia it will be lost to humanity forever!!1
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+82Reading the discussion, one guy seems to be arguing that it's an 'artistic' work that's covered by copyright (50 year), not a simple news photo (5).
That's incredibly tortured logic, as everything can be _argued_ to be artistic, even the results of a game of plinko. Besides, any copyright has since been trumped by its inherent historical/news value to the public. - 2oonhed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+80I think the point is that it is a picture that represents past policies in American history & someone is trying to remove that picture from public view. The big point is : it smacks of Revisionist Historian tactics whereby facts are sneakily removed.....and then later on newer, prettier "facts" are put in place.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+57Strangely reminiscent of 1984
- GaiaAP, on 10/10/2007, -11/+55I second that.
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -2/+46500,001 hard drives now
- snefsky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+45Wikiscanner
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+47http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jeff_G.
That guy wants it deleted - wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -12/+48***** you racist.
- dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33I remember as a kid growing up in the 70's during endless Iran/Iraq squabble, that Iraq was portrayed on the national news as the good guys. How could this happen for so long?
- dnafrequency, on 10/10/2007, -8/+40Finally, a true account of history!
- seks03, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30Looks like this picture would also be in a perfect place on this page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
- d1ricks, on 10/10/2007, -14/+42keep this alive a must klic must save
- chockZ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27For your information, Saddam Hussein did not turn on us at all. In fact, it was us who turned on him.
He asked the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, if he could invade Kuwait to settle a financial dispute between the two countries. April Glaspie said "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts" and also told Saddam that the US did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". Saddam took this as a green light from Washington, who not once told Saddam not to invade Kuwait prior to his invasion.
Learn your history before speaking. - crichton101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29Failed diplomacy? We sold him weapons and turned a blind eye in the 80's when he slaughtered people. So really, the only failure in the act of "diplomacy" is our own. You don't give a murderer a gun and then expect him to never use it in a way that affects you adversely. We also sold weapons to Iran in the 80s, under the leadership of the star republican President Reagan. And guess what, they were considered a terrorist supporting state back then as well. what this picture shows is that our leaders are cutthroat bastards who will make a deal with anyone for just a bit money, without thinking whether or not that act may come back to bite them on the ass later in life.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30You should care, or are you against historical accuracy? I suggest that you put more thought into things.
- AmICoolNow, on 10/10/2007, -6/+32Know instead of no? I've seen it the other way around, but never that way...
- dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -12/+36what's that software u can use to see whos been editing wikipedia ..
- birchre, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24At least we know Saddam's not trying to delete the photo.
- frankyg11, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25I didn't know Bush could spell wikipedia.
- jokerthief, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21That guy made his 1st edit in February this year. He made his 3000th edit a month ago. That's a lot of edits for an amature. I wonder if there is a common purpose behind his edits. Maybe an agenda?
- Gorrondonuts, on 11/07/2007, -6/+26"That kind of picture can end your career."
"Not always..." - theghoul, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24I'm from detroit and we gave saddam the friggen key to the city..oh well
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546287.shtml - Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -33/+51Saddam = CIA. Osama = CIA. Big Money & Big Corporations = Our New Kings. You = Sheeple.
- 2oonhed, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24I love how the Internet makes things very difficult for History Revisionists. I will now cherish that photo forever & re post it everywhere I can for posterity.
- jeliel, on 10/10/2007, -6/+22Why no burn the constitution then? Cause really who cares about history right?
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Jeff Gannon?
- dattaway, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Since this is in the spotlight and noteworthy, is a higher resolution available? Surely, the press was there with cameras during this groudbreaking ceremony.
- annonimality, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Here's a colored person who disagrees with you.
- gazwilwah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15How could he (saddam) bring himself to shake hands with that horribile wicked evil man!
- madcat033, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15No, the point is we need to realize that there is a reaction for everything we do. Our foreign policy sometimes has unintended consequences. And when we meddle in a lot of other countries' affairs, we can create some serious problems for ourselves down the road. For example, Saddam Hussein. Or Osama bin Laden. Once we helped them and supplied them with weapons, and now it has all come back to bite us in the ass. We helped them because they were enemies of our enemies, and now they are OUR enemies. Perhaps we need to consider this when we plan our foreign policy from now.
And that's why Johns Hopkins invited Ron Paul to give a keynote foreign policy speech on 9/11. His message of non-intervenionist foreign policy is spreading. People are realizing that our foreign policy can actually make us a lot LESS safe, and destabilize the world. - Petrushka72, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12It's called the "History" tab. It shows that the user who nominated it for deletion was "Howcheng" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng). The movie of the meeting, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Shakinghands_high.OGG, has also been proposed for delection by "Jeff G." (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jeff_G.).
It seems, incidentally, that both of them are administrators, and therefore unaccountable to anyone. - PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12dugg for plinko.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20Sorry but you wouldn't be even commenting if it was not for a group of white men.
- danarama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Diplomacy? He just sold him weapons, chemical ones too. This is business.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Dugg down for using the word "Sheeple". Sheep would have been acceptable and just as understood, but less gay.
- macgarp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Rumsfeld has cooties.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11klic?
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10"For your information, Saddam Hussein did not turn on us at all. In fact, it was us who turned on him."
I think this is a hugely important fact that a lot of people somehow miss. We gave Saddam chemical weapons, and he was using them to kill people for a long time while the US sat idly by. We didn't care. Then all the sudden, Bush is looking for a reason to invade Iraq and suddenly now we do care. Saddam didn't do anything different, the US just decided to turn on him. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Why are you guys digging me down.
he wants the photo deleted it's in the talk page and this guy works for Wiki?! - zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Saddam was a brutal secularist who was doing our bidding against radical Islam. Women used to walk around freely in Iraq. Dressed in shorts even. He was arguably THE best Arab Friend we had before, as chockZ points out, we turned on him. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, our allies, couldn't be worse friends. Even Israel attacked the NSA listening post on the USS Liberty in the 70's in an attempt to trick us into a regional conflict.
- 2oonhed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11It's called "Revisionist History". It is the attempt to remove or hide certain unwanted facts and replace them with more desirable ones in a concerted effort to control the sheeple. It is insidious and subtle and it is important to stop it as it occurs, or at the very least, point it out.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Down the memory hole
- tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yup. He said he wanted it deleted, and he defended his resons. I personally think he's wrong; it's a non artistic work, the copyright is 5 years, and it's in the public domain now.
- BrapAllgood, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15It is one of the many signs of collusion. Delete one...then another...then another...and suddenly, it never happened. This is the actual threat of censorship: rewriting history.
If you find that to be okay, I call you a traitor. Lord knows you sure spit some vile words up here. - CayoHuesoDude, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I think you're confusing Rumsfeld with Dunya's grandfather Prescot Bush:
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm -
Show 51 - 100 of 268 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
