What's to be done with Sadam Hussain? (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 11:45 am

It looks like Dubyah is revving up the war machine to attack Sadam Hussain in time to get Congressional Republican votes this November. At this point, what do you think the world should do (if anything) about Hussain? Yes, we know he's a manufacturer of biological and chemical weapons, much like China, Russia, Britain, the US--beg pardon! I mean, of course, that he's a dictator and thug, who stands by himself! He's the only one who would consider invading another country, that's right! So of course, it stands to reason that he should be invaded--correct?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 11:58 am

ahhh...this has all just been rumours until now over in good ol blighty...
is this serious? How long are presidents allowed to keep on going?
doesn't everyone realise what a blood-hungry redneck the man is?
whats actually happened so far?

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:00 pm

Personally, I feel the job wasn't finished the first time around. But, you can't cry about that now. I shudder to think it's about getting votes. Worse, could it be a sort of 'personal crusade' for dubyah since the last conflict with saddam was during his father's presidency.

I don't think the U.S. should act in such a manner without a sound backing of the U.N. If he doesn't do anything antagonistic, then I don't believe an invasion of Iraq is warranted. Do I think he is a threat? Most certainly, but proper protocol here has always been to not fire unless fired upon. Times have changed and we certainly don't want to see another cowardly attack similar to WTC anywhere, so it is difficult to draw the line on this one.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:31 pm

Like our friend Ned says, unless Saddam Hussein does something serious to provoke a multi-national response, going after him will only look like pandering to the war hawks. Plus, it won't help our already flagging image in the Arab world.

It can be argued that the United States doesn't give a damn about the Arabs who don't have oil based on our current (lack of) policy in Israel and our sudden non-involvement in the middle east. Going after Iraq will only reinforce this view.

Saddam Hussein is a smart cookie; he knows exactly how far he can push the US and its allies and he always backs down from the shooting confrontations. This buys him lots of stock from the anti-US faction of the Arab world and denies us the excuse to assassinate him.

It is my opinion, that going after Saddam Hussein without a clear reason (ie-he unveils a nuclear bomb and threatens to use it against the Israelis or he dumps several tons of nerve gas on Saudi Arabia) will result in stepped-up attacks on the United States and its western allies. This will create the type of Arab vs. the West war that the fundamentalist Islamic movements want, and involve the United States in the first great blunder in history: a land war in Asia.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:41 pm

This is sort of a sidebar to this whole issue, but what I've been wondering about a lot lately, is--Egypt.
Egypt used to be one of the most western countries over there. The Egyptians I met were always really laid back. Now they've become so fundamentalist that even my Lebanese friends get hassled there. How did this country go from being the most westernized to so fundamentalized in the span of around 10 years??? What went wrong?

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 12:59 pm

What went wrong? Take a look at where their government pours their funds. Take an even closer look at their media. The same thing that's going wrong is what went wrong in Germany, IMO. You start with poverty, throw in a faction that promises better things if you jump on their bandwagon, create a universal enemy, and add years of propaganda, and there you go.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 1:07 pm

Re: Sadam and the US, I very much agree with HLD.

@Voodoo: I am by no means knowledgable about Egypt's recent history, but I think the last 20 years reflect a similar development as has been seen in some other Arab states like Algeria and Iran: A very West oriented regime makes fast changes, supported by Western countries, and traditionalists and fundamentalists reacts against this by enhancing and reinforcing their ideas. Sadat was murdered in 1981 I think, and since then, the opposition to the regime has only increased.
Algeria and Iran used to be very West-oriented during the 70's, and look at the developement there during the 80's and 90's.

I hope CM will turn up in this thread, I'm sure he can explain things much better than I can.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 1:09 pm

Grr, double post. Well I use this space to add:

Egypt made peace with Israel in (I think?) 1979, you can imagine the reaction among the fundamentalists.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 1:15 pm

All the Egyptians I knew hated Anwar Sadat. But not so much because of the Israel thing, as because they felt like he sold them out economically to the west. Plus the fact that the Aswan Dam salinified their farmland.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 1:43 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
All the Egyptians I knew hated Anwar Sadat. But not so much because of the Israel thing, as because they felt like he sold them out economically to the west. Plus the fact that the Aswan Dam salinified their farmland.

I haven't met many Egyptians, but those I have met mostly disliked Sadat for the same reason as you mention, and I think that's a perfectly understandable view. I have however not known any fundamentalists from Egypt, so I can only speculate in how much hate grew in them when it seemed like many ordinary people strongly disliked Sadat's policy.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 4:19 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
This is sort of a sidebar to this whole issue, but what I've been wondering about a lot lately, is--Egypt.
Egypt used to be one of the most western countries over there. The Egyptians I met were always really laid back. Now they've become so fundamentalist that even my Lebanese friends get hassled there. How did this country go from being the most westernized to so fundamentalized in the span of around 10 years??? What went wrong?

Thats happened to alot of Muslim nations. Pakistan was almost exactly the same as Egypt and were doing quite well and had a good future to look to, but now they are getting filled with these fundamentalists.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 4:50 pm

Hmm, tough question, thougher thread.
As for the Arab world, it had always been in a state of unrest comparitively. Well, it has been for the last 50 yrs at least.
Why has it been so? Isreal. Ironically enough, Isrealis used terrorism to gain independance from Britain, and given Britans weakend state from taking the brunt of 2 consecutive world wars (Which is a whole new topic) The brit's couldnt hold out. Isreal was just created, much to the anger of the residents already there.
I'm not trying to be mean, or provacative here, but Isreal runs on the worlds sympathy, justifying everything with "There will never be another holocost".
Sadam I believe is up to no good. Nuclear wpns, Chemical wpns, bio wpns etc. Why? Because that is the only way to hurt his chief opponent, the US. There is not a single nation in the world capable of standing toe to toe with the US in a conventional war. It just can't be done. There are several ways to fight a war. There is the traditional battle of several powers that are near equal in strength, there is the battle of a strong side vs a weaker, but still capable side. This would be Guerilla Warfare, and finnaly, Terrorism the the war of the weak against the strong.
Iraq will no doubt find itself dead in the sights of Operation "Enduring Freedom" (but only for Americans and their buddies)
The US is capable of pushing it, and no one is willing to get in their way and stop them. The can ride on global sympathy and their own military might.
"There will never be another sept 11"

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 5:47 pm

@Obsidian: Well I have expressed my views about the Israel-Palestine issue many times in the past here and will not use this thread to do so again, but in short: IMO the UN 1947 creation of Israel was done in a horrible fashion, and I think a Palestinian state should have been created simultaneusly.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable. At least half a million children have starved to death since the UN sanctions, clearly sanctions is not the way since they are sort of based on the idea that the regime would care about the population in a way that it doesn't. This story has repeated itself so many times so it should be obvious to all that sanctions don't work to change a state, they only serve as a political statement.

I heard that the US is considering to give financial support to guerilla groups who fight against the regime in Iraq - can anyone confirm this or is it just media rumours?

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 5:54 pm

I watched something on 60 minutes about that Iraqi anti-Saddam group. They haven't found much support in Washington, so their leader has been going to the oil companies and telling them that if they help lobby for support, then they will give the oil companies a better deal after they take over. Interesting strategy, but seems like a shady group.

Even in Israel, fundamentalism versus tolerance is the main problem. It's the conservative and orthodox jews there who are running things now, and the secular jews are definitely not in power.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 6:54 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Even in Israel, fundamentalism versus tolerance is the main problem. It's the conservative and orthodox jews there who are running things now, and the secular jews are definitely not in power.

The secular Jews have never been in power in Israel; it's just been a case of orthodox and conservative.

Israel was started as a theocracy; it's in their constitution. Do you know that if you want to get married in Israel, you have to do that before an Orthodox rabbi? Other, less extremely conservative sects are not recognized under law. You're not married unless an Orthodox rabbi does it.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 7:12 pm

@CE You may be quite right. I certainly agree it was done in a horrible manner. More or less "Hey middle east, heres Isreal! They have complete control of your holy land" At least back in the days proir to the creation of Isreal, access to Jer. more or less went unrestricted.

As to the Isreal-Palestinian issue, the Hard liners in the Isreali gov't are using the current political situation as flak to push the Palestinians out, once and for all. Sharon is an old soldier, and a decorated one at that. Normally war heroes arent known for their compassion/tolerance. Not that I have anything against the military. I'm applying right now to be a Medic

So long as the world turns a blind eye towards it, and doesn't physically step in (peacekeepers) I doubt Isreal will stop.

@Voodo. I do believe there is a substantial bounty on Saddams head right now. Also, any group powerful enough to take down the current regime, cant be all that legitamite.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:30 pm

What is most disturbing about the creation of the Israeli state is that the displaced Palestineans were supposed to get their own state as well. However, because Arabs don't vote in large numbers like the Jews do, they have never held the kind of sway in the United States and the west that they might enjoy otherwise. If Arabs voted in blocs and had a larger economic and political presence in the west, they would be able to push their own agenda and there would be a country called Palestine in the middle east.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:36 pm

I agree, Dave. What is a shame is that if the Palestinians adopted a non-violent strategy, using civil disobedience ala Gandhi and MLK, then I think they would gain oodles of support for their cause in the US. I've always wondered why they never tried this.

I remember reading the philosopher Martin Buber's diary. On the day that Israel elected to become a Jewish state (rather than a democracy), he made one entry, "I wept."

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 10:13 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
I agree, Dave. What is a shame is that if the Palestinians adopted a non-violent strategy, using civil disobedience ala Gandhi and MLK, then I think they would gain oodles of support for their cause in the US. I've always wondered why they never tried this.

Because on both sides there's still one fundamental issue stopping that - too many people don't want peace. Many Palestinians don't just want some support, they want to kill Israelis. The same goes for the otherside. No one's going to turn pacifist while they have such a big (stupid) hatred for the other side.

On a totally different track, no one brought up why the job was left 'unfinished' with Hussein before. Simply, no one wanted to find out what the consequences would be. There is no big power base in Iraq besides Hussein - who would take over after him? The best case scenario is rival factions working out a compromise and combining powers *heh, yeah right*. The two ugly scenarios envolve civil war and a nasty enemy neighbour, a la Iran, getting envolved in Iraq's affairs.

The Gulf War was just as off the wall strategy wise as Vietnam or Bosnia. A text-book war would have included an invasion into Baghdad. The people running the war just didn't want to deal with the possibilities.

CM · Post by CM » Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:06 am

Forget a valid reason, just assassinate the bastard.
Nobody wants him, heck i have said this before the arabs would pay you if you did it.
The people are suffering, the a-hole is still in power and the americans didn't do it right in the first place.
Finish the job and you will see anti-US feelings go down really fast.
Unless Israel kills another couple of people and it will back up again.

Egypt is by no means "westernized".
The ruling secular elite are.
The people are not.
Mubarak has banned all opposition parties, and heck the main opposition party is an Islamic one called the Brotherhood of Muslims - if i remember correctly.
The leader won a place in the senate and he was not allowed to enter and they threw the poor guy in jail.

There is a joke about the so called democracy in Egypt.

Mubarak is at an interview and an american reporter asks him "You just won the election with 99.7% of the vote. It seems only 10 people didn't vote for you".

Mubarak turns to his aid very angry and says "who were these 10 people get their names and next time do the rigging right."

It isn't that funny as it is translated from arabic.
But it is a comment every common man in egypt knows.
It is no democracy, it is a simple dictatorship with corruption so high that Mubaraks son gets the govt to bail out his failing industry.

I know all of this because i lived in Cairo for 2 years.

Voodoo, the Aswan dam, a. flood historical sites, which the locals wanted to stay to provide revnue from tourists.
But UNESCO did a fine job of moving most of it out and relocating it.
Also Nasser first played the USSR and US against each other to see who would pay for the building of the dam.
It feel to Sadat when he came to power and he opted for the US.

A bounty means nothing as the US is seen as unreliable and doesn't know the meaning of loyalty at all.
Once Saddam is dead who will say the US will pay the poor man or woman?

Frankly this is how i think most muslims would put it to the US about saddam.
Kill the bastard and bugger off and let us deal with the rest.
The arab people have never liked the US messing in the region and any thing resembling the US setting up a favorable govt is going to be attacked and called another example of US expansion.
And i believe they have every right to think that way.
I do to an extent - that the US has used force and subversion to set up pro-US govts through out the third world.

Flame away.