Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Dragonlich · 05-02-2003, 01:29 AM

Okay...

1) you assume that if Saddam had given in, he'd lose face, and his population would rebel. To me, this is highly unlikely. They tried that before, and it was made clear to them that the price for rebellion was too high; One need only look at the experience of the recent war to see that. As Saddam controls the media, he can tell his people anything he wants. In fact, he's been telling them that they *won* the '91 gulf war. They may not have believed it, but that's an indication of how his regime works: deny everything that might hurt you. Thus, giving in to UN demands might not have led to a revolt after all, because his people simply wouldn't hear about it. Furthermore, any revolt would simply be stopped dead in it's tracks by Saddam's secret policy. He is a survivor, and it is not unlikely he would have survived this episode too, as long as the US hadn't attacked anyway.

2) Had Saddam given up his WMD evidence, the US would not have been able to attack, period. How could they have, when the main reason for that attack was gone? How would they have maintained that Saddam wasn't cooperating, if it was clear that he in fact *was* cooperating? Even the US would not have been able to dispute that. Regime change would not have been an option.

3) Had Saddam given up power before the war, he would have survived, and would have been a wealthy man, capable of plotting his comeback. As it is, he has opened himself up to danger, given up his wealth, and taken a huge risk. Given that the guy is pretty paranoid, I would suggest he's unlikely to take such a risk unless he absolutely has to.

4) Would Saddam assume that Muslim opposition to the US attack would somehow keep him in power? That would have been a risk worth taking... However, evidence from previous conflicts must have made him realize that the Muslim world in general wasn't going to support him. How desperate do you have to be, if your only chance of success is a sudden popular revolt all over the Muslim world? The odds of this ploy succeeding are extremely small, and even a man like Saddam must have known that.

5) You assume that Saddam was after wealth, not power. Yet it is commonly understood that he models himself after Stalin, and wanted to become the guy that rules the entire middle-east. In short, his history shows that it is power he is after, not wealth per se. I will acknowledge that his actions might have made him a legend (if he had managed to pull off his stated plan of killing enough Yanks to win the war), but again, the risks are too great. Also, given his own record of manipulating popular opinion, he must have know how easily the Muslim population changes their minds. His history of brutal repression would come out eventually, and he would be seen as a monster, not a hero.

er... gotta go now. job interview is more important.

05-02-2003, 01:29 AM	#57 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Okay... 1) you assume that if Saddam had given in, he'd lose face, and his population would rebel. To me, this is highly unlikely. They tried that before, and it was made clear to them that the price for rebellion was too high; One need only look at the experience of the recent war to see that. As Saddam controls the media, he can tell his people anything he wants. In fact, he's been telling them that they won the '91 gulf war. They may not have believed it, but that's an indication of how his regime works: deny everything that might hurt you. Thus, giving in to UN demands might not have led to a revolt after all, because his people simply wouldn't hear about it. Furthermore, any revolt would simply be stopped dead in it's tracks by Saddam's secret policy. He is a survivor, and it is not unlikely he would have survived this episode too, as long as the US hadn't attacked anyway. 2) Had Saddam given up his WMD evidence, the US would not have been able to attack, period. How could they have, when the main reason for that attack was gone? How would they have maintained that Saddam wasn't cooperating, if it was clear that he in fact was cooperating? Even the US would not have been able to dispute that. Regime change would not have been an option. 3) Had Saddam given up power before the war, he would have survived, and would have been a wealthy man, capable of plotting his comeback. As it is, he has opened himself up to danger, given up his wealth, and taken a huge risk. Given that the guy is pretty paranoid, I would suggest he's unlikely to take such a risk unless he absolutely has to. 4) Would Saddam assume that Muslim opposition to the US attack would somehow keep him in power? That would have been a risk worth taking... However, evidence from previous conflicts must have made him realize that the Muslim world in general wasn't going to support him. How desperate do you have to be, if your only chance of success is a sudden popular revolt all over the Muslim world? The odds of this ploy succeeding are extremely small, and even a man like Saddam must have known that. 5) You assume that Saddam was after wealth, not power. Yet it is commonly understood that he models himself after Stalin, and wanted to become the guy that rules the entire middle-east. In short, his history shows that it is power he is after, not wealth per se. I will acknowledge that his actions might have made him a legend (if he had managed to pull off his stated plan of killing enough Yanks to win the war), but again, the risks are too great. Also, given his own record of manipulating popular opinion, he must have know how easily the Muslim population changes their minds. His history of brutal repression would come out eventually, and he would be seen as a monster, not a hero. er... gotta go now. job interview is more important.