Possible Saddam Deal?

[Mason Malmuth]

I see two possible strategies that Saddam might try.

First, if he does have suuccess at slowing the assault down and inflicting casulties, he may think that he can hold out long enough for public opinion to turn against Bush. Thus the US may call it off before the job is concluded and Saddam survives.

The other alternative, and much more likely in my opinion, is that Hussein does not use his chemical weapons, and does not fire at Israel. But as soon as we have Bagdad encircled and are ready to close in, he will announce that he has these weapons and will use them in Bagdad thus killing thousands of civilians in the defense of the city unless we make a deal and allow him assylum some place else. If it comes to this, I think we take this deal in opder to save lives. So this is a possible explanation why Saddam did not leave Iraq and seems intent on fighting.

Best wishes,
Mason

[andyfox]

He would announce that he would kill the citizens of Bagdad? Wouldn't his military turn on him in the event of such an announcement? Doesn't seem likely to me.

But if such a scenario does play out, and the president asked me for my advice, I'd say yes, take the deal, grant him asylum, then hunt him down. Or, better yet, make the deal, then give the country that he goes to 48 hours to turn him over. Tell people we lied: we only made the deal to get rid of him and get control of his WMDs. Now we want him turned over for trial or we're coming in to get him. But hard to think of a country that would grant him asylum after he claimed he didn't have these weapons, then threatened to us them on his capital city.

[brad]

well u have to consider that since its common knowledge he has numerous 'doubles' and a multi billion personal fortune nothing at all really is out of the realm of possibility.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Andy:

You misunderstand. Saddam would announce that he will use these weapons in defense of Bagdad. We would immediatly realize that this would have the effect of killing many civilians.

Best wishes,
Mason

[andyfox]

Got it, sorry. Still, I can't imagine him making any kind of announcement saying what he will do. Who knows though.

[Mark Heide]

Mason,

I don't think the first scenario will scare off the USA, but may slow things down a bit. Bush has, according to ABC News, over 70% of the American population to support this war. Second, Bush said that he is not leaving without a victory. The Bush administration probably already figured on these scenarios, and Bush did hint in his announcement tonight that it might take longer than previously estimated. Lastly, I don't think that it would be a great loss for the USA, if Saddam killed his own people in Badgdad to defend himself, because a percentage of this group supports his current regime, and would probably not support the regime that the US installs. I say this basically because most average people believe that their government is good, and have had 12 years to hate the US.

The second scenario you mention could be a good possibility for Saddam to propose. But, Bush will not go for it. He will make sure that the US Army has their biological equipment, plus everyone has their vaccine shots (except for Iraqi citizens of course). Lastly, I don't think world opinions will change his mind.

I still think it's possible that Saddam, his sons, and dedicated members of his party, could escape. Which they may have already done.

Mark

[MMMMMM]

Mark Heide: "I say this basically because most average people believe that their government is good, and have had 12 years to hate the US."

See post entitled "Reporter In Baghdad: Many Iraqis See This As Their Liberation."

Your theories of relativistic equivalence between all governments, and people's impressions of them, may soon be shattered.

[Mark Heide]

M,

This is not my theory, it is fact. I read your link to the article, and public opinion can change when societies do not like their governments anymore. I challenge you to find a non-western, perferably Arab, point of view. Futhermore, why do other countries see us as the evil empire. I suggest finding other sources of news. Futhermore, the worst policy the US and the UN implemented was the sanctions of the last 12 years. Iraq and a majority of other Arab nations have used this to their political advantage.

Good Luck

Mark

[MMMMMM]

It's amazing to me that you can regard all governments as equivalent in terms of suppression of news, as you've posted before.

Why don't you regard the threat of firing squad for publishing dissenting opinions as being more coercive than whatever takes place in the the USA and the EU?

Why are there a great many strongly anti-government articles and opinion pieces printed in our mainstream media, while there are none printed in China? Just how is this even remotely equivalent? Do we execute political dissidents or regularly send them to prison camps? China and Cuba do.

Your theory--and it is a theory, not fact--is completely full of leftist totalitarian hot air.

[Parmenides]

M,
Give it a rest.Saddam is going to die. About 500k Iraqis will probably perish, too. I'd estimate US casualties in the conquer phase at less than 1000.

Your Fuhrer is going to win, just like Hitler conquered Poland and France. You will be able to celebrate at the victories like the German public did in 1940.

[B-Man]

Your Fuhrer is going to win, just like Hitler conquered Poland and France. You will be able to celebrate at the victories like the German public did in 1940.

Are you capable of saying anything remotely intelligent? Frankly, I'm surprised you know how to use a computer. Comparing Bush to Hitler is the lowest you have sunk yet.

[MMMMMM]

What I'm against, "Parmenides";-), is any sort of totalitarianism and any sort of Hitler-type leader (I know we disagree on Bush, but that's not what this sub-thread is about).

My point is that Mark Heide consistently compares the totalitarian practices of the worst regimes with democratically elected, relatively free Western countries and claims there is no real difference. He essentially is saying that fascism/totalitarianism = democracy. Well...I differ strongly, and I'm just trying to point up some of the reasons why, since I so despise totalitarianism.

I can hear the jack boots of the cadres now, but Mark Heide thinks they sound the same as Converse sneakers.

[brad]

well they both waged a so called prophylactic defensive war.

thats the same.

the fact that you find one just and the other unjust doesnt change that.

[Mark Heide]

M,

You are making false statements, so please stick to the issues. I don't being like labelled with generic terms that distort the issues.

The real issue hear is you refuse to believe that anyone could think that their leader is good. I have pointed out in the past an article from the BBC that 30% of the Soviet population still prefer the regime under Stalin better than today's regime (even the BBC reporter found it hard to believe). Futhermore, it makes logical sense that the majority of the people in Russia, at one time, preferred Stalin. Of course, after he was in power he turned on his people. There's a film by Sergi Eisenstein called Ivan The Terrible. It was released in two parts, with the second part being banned by Stalin and was not view by the public until decades later. This film was about a great leader, like Stalin, who defeated the countries enemies with overwhelming support, so they crowned him king. The reason why the second part of the film was banned, was this king started his own secret police organization to assasinate his enemies and opposition. It should be obvious the camparison to Stalin and Ivan. My point here is that this leader was good for the public initially when he came to power.

The same is true of Saddam. He was put in power by the British and supported by the US. Initially, the majority of the Iraqi public (central Iraq, not the Kurds, because he does not consider these his people). We helped Saddam defeat the Iranians in the '80s, and fight off the Kurds (who are also enemies of the Turkish government). We even supplied him with Anthrax and Mustard Gas (how do you think we know he has WMD). Futhermore, with controlled media Saddam used the 12 years of sanctions to his advantage to control public opinion through Iraqi TV and newspapers. Lastly, don't forget that the media outlets in Iraq do form the majority of public opinion, just like the major media in the USA control its public opinion.

You are never going to understand the other side of issues unless you know how others perceive them. If you had grown up reading just Iraqi news and were never exposed to western media, it would be difficult for you to understand why the US wants to assasinate Saddam.

Here are a couple of internet news site links. One is in Arabic, but the pictures should tell the story:

http://www.aljazeera.net/index.htm

Here's a link to an English version of Islam Today:

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/

Read the results of the Bush poll on the right hand column.

Mark

[Jimbo]

"I have pointed out in the past an article from the BBC that 30% of the Soviet population still prefer the regime under Stalin better than today's regime (even the BBC reporter found it hard to believe).

I find that hard to believe as well Mark. In fact since Stalin died in 1953 and you would have to be at least 18 at the time of his death to have even a minimal understanding of his politics then they would be 68 years old today. That translates to at least 30% of the former USSR's population would be over 68 and 100% of these people felt this way. I think it unlikely that nearly a third of their population meet the age requirements and even less likely that they all agree on this matter. Hell, they probably don't even all agree on what brand of vodka is best, much less that Stalin's regime was the best!! Rather difficult to believe when you look at it in this manner, don't you agree?

Edited Below:

Here is a link that supports my supposition:
http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/world/thedeterminantsrussia.htm

[Mark Heide]

Jimbo,

I couldn't find the original article that I posted, but here's another one that claims 53% of Russians polled believed Stalin played a positive roll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2820061.stm

Mark

[Jimbo]

Thanks for the link Mark but that is quite a bit different than this quote from your first post " 30% of the Soviet population still prefer the regime under Stalin better than today's regime." Saying Stalin played primarily (which you left out of your quote) a positive role and your earlier contention are light years apart. Heck I could poll a group of German's and by phrasing the question properly get them to agree that Hitler played primarily a positive role in Germanys growth, however it would be a surprise to hear this same group agree that Hitler's regime is better than todays.

[Mark Heide]

Jimbo,

Hitler was popular in Germany. He had the majority of the German public supporting him initially. This is the same point I'm making with other world leaders. It does not mean that public opinion does not eventually change. Futhermore, Hitler did have popular support until his regime was defeated.

[MMMMMM]

"You are making false statements, so please stick to the issues. I don't being like labelled with generic terms that distort the issues."

I'm not certain that I misrepresented your position or mis-labelled anything, but if I did, apologies. I'll try to stick to the issues.

"The real issue hear is you refuse to believe that anyone could think that their leader is good."

Not at all. I'm just far from convinced that the majority of every populace thinks that their leader is good. You state it as if it were a fact. I'd like to know just how you can be so sure that this is true of all populaces. Right now, I'll even bet that the majority of Iraqis don't think that their leader is good. Before you dispute this, consider that the repressed Shi'a's are the majority in Iraq. The Baathist party is a minority which wields oppression with great force.

As we discussed in another thread, I also don't believe that state censorship at gunpoint is nearly the same as mild pressure or occasional requests. I also don't believe that snow flurries are nearly the same as a major blizzard. However I am sure that there are those who would argue that both are equivalent because both are snow, and both are caused by the same underlying forces.

[IrishHand]

Actually, Hitler didn't have majority support initially - the Nazi party never won 50% of the popular vote in any of the pre-1933 elections. However, after he was appointed to the Chancellorship, his phenomenal domestic then foreign successes resulted in an admittedly high level of popular support. It cannot, however, be legitimately argued that Hitler wasn't a phenomenally popular leader for the vast majority of his time in power.

[Mark Heide]

M,

My point is at some time, whether their government is like the US, Soviet Union, or Iraq, the leader gains popular support. I'm not saying that it lasts forever. The middle class lived fairly well under Saddam prior to the first Gulf Invasion. Since then, I'm sure that his popularity has been dwindling, but he has successfully used the media to convince his citizens that it is due to the US and UN. The easiest citizens to gain support from are the uneducated working class. Because of this he will not lose support as quickly as some other dictators would have. For the future of the Iraqi regime, we'll see what happens, I'm not making any predictions because the Arab ideology is totally alien to me.

I made the comparison to Stalin (since the west has compared him to Saddam) and posted that story under Jimbo's response to me. If you read the article you will find a statement that 20% of the population still prefers the times when Stalin ruled.

In Germany, with all the neo-nazi groups you will still find support for Hitler, but at one period in time he was overwelmingly supported by the majority of the public.

In the US, George Bush did not get popular support from the majority of the public to get elected, but after 911, his popularity increased. Even with the dismal economy his popularity is still the popular majority.

I'm not going to talk about censorship, since every country does it privately or forcably.

But, what do you think about people having to accept US democracy and occupation by force? Futhermore, does the US violate international law with it's actions against Iraq?

Mark

[MMMMMM]

"I'm not going to talk about censorship, since every country does it privately or forcably."

This response completely avoids the issue, since the issue is not whether censorship exists, but to what degree censorship exists in various countries. You essentially claim it all boils down to the same thing. I say the huge difference in varying degrees of censorship between countries is the key point.

"But, what do you think about people having to accept US democracy and occupation by force?"

If it's a dictator we are overthrowing, I say "Great!" I can't wait until we pitch out the rest of them over the next few decades.


"Futhermore, does the US violate international law with it's actions against Iraq?"

I certainly hope so, since international law at present is fundamentally flawed in that it allows brutal dictators to hide behind an illusory curtain of legitimacy in the name of "national sovereignty." Before too much longer, we will be able to precisely target from the skies any dictator in the world at any time. The days of their oppression and illegitimate rule are drawing to a close. I, and much of the world, will say good riddance to these brutal thugs as they are sequentially consigned to the ashbin of history. International law will eventually be rewritten, and no non-representative governments will be considered legitimate.

[MMMMMM]

"I'm not going to talk about censorship, since every country does it privately or forcably."

This response completely avoids the issue, since the issue is not whether censorship exists, but to what degree censorship exists in various countries. You essentially claim it all boils down to the same thing. I say the huge difference in varying degrees of censorship between countries is the key point.

"But, what do you think about people having to accept US democracy and occupation by force?"

If it's a dictator we are overthrowing, I say "Great!" I can't wait until we pitch out the rest of them over the next few decades.

"Futhermore, does the US violate international law with it's actions against Iraq?"

I certainly hope so, since international law at present is fundamentally flawed in that it allows brutal dictators to hide behind an illusory curtain of legitimacy in the name of "national sovereignty." Before too much longer, we will be able to precisely target from the skies any dictator in the world at any time. The days of their oppression and illegitimate rule are drawing to a close. I, and much of the world, will say good riddance to these brutal thugs as they are sequentially consigned to the ashbin of history. International law will eventually be rewritten, and no non-representative governments will be considered legitimate.

[Jimbo]

Damn MMMMMM,
this last post of yours was so good I had to read it twice! LOL

[Parmenides]

The brutal dictator, and butcher of baghdad is George W. Bush. You would have made a great crusader, M.
The only problem is that Saladin will come. History repeats itself.

Of course if W. IS the anti-Christ, then he'll be causing a nuke war soon. He's the only world leader advocating the use of nuclear bombs in conventional warfare.

[MMMMMM]

I think you are jumping to conclusions. We already know that Saddam is the Butcher of Baghdad, but it remains to be seen whether Bush kills many civilians in the war or not. So far, I don't think he has.

Kim Jong-il is threatening the use of nukes in conmventional warfare--or even if we take out his plant at Pyongbyon. So it can't be said that Bush is the only leader entertaining the possibility of using nukes in conventional war.