Saddam's Interview

Tzar

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Country
llCanada
I watched Saddam's interview on CBS. After all the demonization that has been going on about him, I was almost disappointed to see that he does not look so threatening in his classy Western business suit :)

Seriously, his views were hardly surprising at all. Still, he's smarter than his simplistic and propagandist antics would have us believe. I was surprised to see that this guy understands and reads English very well, although he refused to say anything in English. The fact that he was listening carefully to the English interpreter and even corrected the guy in mid-sentence regarding Bush senior was funny.

In the end, Saddam is a bloody brutal dictator, but he is no dumb fool. He has managed to survive all his life.

I really wonder how he intends to get out of the impossible situation he's in. I guess he probably knows that his last hour might be coming fast. I really don't expect him to get captured or to surrender. Violent people like him, who have lived violent lives, usually perish violently too. Suicide with a bullet through the head in his presidential palace, like Hitler did, would probably fit the psychic caracter of the guy.
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
I don't think suicide is an option for Saddam Hussein. Such a move would shatter the possibility for martyrization within the Islamic community. He could take his life, but not by his own hands. Like Bin Laden, their likely plan is to have someone shoot them. Saddam was pinned down before. He took part in an attempted coup. Iraqi forces surrounded him. He had one handgn and a full magazine. Saddam fired every round, before surrendering. He opted to preserve his life though he faced an uncertain future. So I can imagine Saddam surviving such the invasion.

I can also imagine him escaping prison and death. Saddam might choose to make a deal with the Coalition a ceasefire for exile. I would caution the Bush administration on making deals with Saddam and members of the current regime. I'm sure the Iraqi people will want to put Saddam on trial, and might not approve a life-saving agreement for the dictator and his henchmen. Bush should avoid making such a decision on his own.

Personally, I would prefer Saddam dead rather than alive. The various parties will all have different perspectives as to who to do with him. Prosecution is the most likely argument, but jurisdiction would emerge as an issue.

As for Saddam, the man....

Dan Rather interviewed Saddam in 1990, just before the Gulf War began. He said that he found the dictator charming and intelligent. Yet, the sense of something frightening lay just below the smile, and hospitality.

Saddam is not a dignitary. He avoids traveling abroad, and has very limited access to outside opinions. The television is his true foriegn advisor. Saddam knows little about foriegn affairs beyond what is reported in the news. This, in part, is why he seems stumble all the time in the area of diplomacy. If Saddam truly understood the world around him, I believe he would be a more effective and frigthening leader.

Saddam has adopted to the television. One of Saddam's biggest problems in 1990-1991, was that he didn't know how to behave in front of the camera. Instead of assuming the role of diplomat, he acted like the dictator he is. His military uniform, along with Saddam firing a gun into the air made illustrated his ruthlessness. His visit with the young British boy was a disaster, and went a long way to building an International Coalition against the Iraqi invasion.

Today, Saddam doesn't wear that uniform too often, and is more careful around the cameras. In fact, he usually just avoids them. If I recall, there was one point when he had not been seen in so long, people began to think he was dead.

The question that must be answered from a military perspective, is whether or not Saddam continues to see himself as a field commander. One of my concerns is Saddam realizing his limitations as a soldier. The Iraqi Army performed worse when the dictator was making tactical decisions. When Saddam stayed out, the Iraqi military, particularly the RGFC, did better. I pray the yo-yo still views himself as a general. The damage created by severing his lines of communications with his forces in the field could be devastating. Whatever orders he does give will be misguided, and based primarily on assumption.

Saddam is an assassin. He knows how to avoid death. He changes locations frequently. Saddam sometimes ride in a cab to get around. He sleeps with one eye open, and will kill anyone he thinks might test his power. Though ignorant in many departments, Saddam is a determined fighter, and that makes him very dangerous.
 

Tzar

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Country
llCanada
Originally posted by Deltapooh
I don't think suicide is an option for Saddam Hussein. Such a move would shatter the possibility for martyrization within the Islamic community. He could take his life, but not by his own hands.
Very good point Deltapooh. I forgot about the shame it is for a Muslim to kill itself.

Mind you though, Saddam Hussein has never been a true Muslim. He despised Islam for all his life. The ideology of his party, the Baath Party, has always been an ideology of nationalism and pan-arabism without any Islamic reference. Today, he behaves like the good and dedicated Muslim because he knows the power of Islam in the Arab world. But it's false.

But I understand that for his reputation and glory it is important for him to preserve Islamic tradition.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Quite interesting to see Saddam challenge Bush to a live TV debate, Bush should have took him up on the offer. And halfway through the debate he could have pulled out a handgun and taken care of Saddam himself. Saddam's bodyguards would then shoot George dead. George Bush would be remembered as a hero willing to die to save the lives of thousands. But instead he will be flying at 30,000ft in the sky hiding when the killing starts.

Or alternatively they could have just fought to the death, my money would have to go on Saddam. He's well practiced. :p
 

tigersqn

WWII Forum Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
800
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
Country
llCanada
Originally posted by Marko
But instead he will be flying at 30,000ft in the sky hiding when the killing starts.
:p
Hi Marko

I've noticed that in many of your posts, you denigrate the military (especially the US) for using technology to fight the battles and save their soldiers lives. You've even implied that military forces are cowardly for not confronting the enemy face to face.

The whole purpose to having a military is to protect the country and defeat an enemy by any and all means available.

I personally take the view that whatever advantage could be used to attain that goal should be used.
The weapons and technology used on the battlefield today greatly increases the striking power of a military force. It's not a question of bravery but one of force multipliers.

If that means standing off from 20 000 feet and dropping JDAMs on the enemy to degrade their combat effectiveness then doesn't that save lives in the end ?
 

Tzar

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Country
llCanada
Saddam made clear during Rather's interview that the debate would be done through satellite, with him in Bagdad and President Bush in Washington, so no gun assassination attemps there :)

Saddam perfectly knew that this debate wouldn't make any sense and would be refused by Bush - what's the point of debating with a dictator? You know the guy will blatantly lie without being held up for those lies and BS after. You just can't corner a dictator through a debate.

Debate make sense in a democracy with free speech and a critical press. Debate can make sense between 2 democratic leaders because both leaders are evaluated according to similar moral standards and they can suffer the wrath of their electors after if they appeared as too full of BS during the debate. But a dictator is not accountable like this, he will lie all way long, so a debate is completely pointless. Let's all agree on one thing: the only language Saddam Hussein understands is the language of violence.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Originally posted by tigersqn


Hi Marko

I've noticed that in many of your posts, you denigrate the military (especially the US) for using technology to fight the battles and save their soldiers lives. You've even implied that military forces are cowardly for not confronting the enemy face to face.

The whole purpose to having a military is to protect the country and defeat an enemy by any and all means available.

I personally take the view that whatever advantage could be used to attain that goal should be used.
The weapons and technology used on the battlefield today greatly increases the striking power of a military force. It's not a question of bravery but one of force multipliers.

If that means standing off from 20 000 feet and dropping JDAMs on the enemy to degrade their combat effectiveness then doesn't that save lives in the end ?
Hhhhmmm...my quote about Bush was referring to him being aboard Airforce 1. Also you seem to have mis-read my posts, I have simply pointed out that technology isn't always that accuarate and the only reason geround troops are not used first and foremost is due to the American public's lack of stomach when dealing with US casualties, and understandably so. I have not either implied that military forces are cowardly, ???. All I can summise from your sophism is that you are actually an American living in Canada. You see the point is that if a nation is so morally right in doing what it wants then as a result the possibility of casualties should be both realistic and ineviatable. And by your post I believe you should take the next flight to Iraq and kill some Iraqi's (preferably within a range that they can shoot back).
 

Headshot

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
157
Reaction score
1
Location
Detroit, USA
hmm im no moderator (due to many reasons) but was that a personal attack? eh marko give some americans a break on occasion. I mean we coulve just taken all those troops prepping for D-DAY and conquered England, hehehe... theres a thought.
 

Deltapooh

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
Bush would shred Saddam in a public debate, even if it's via satellite. Saddam doesn't speak publically unless he is in control of the environment. Even then, you can see he is very uneasy and almost frightened.

Bush is not very skilled either, but experience would come into play. Both would likely make off-the-wall comments that could start a shooting war.

Saddam perfectly knew that this debate wouldn't make any sense and would be refused by Bush - what's the point of debating with a dictator? You know the guy will blatantly lie without being held up for those lies and BS after. You just can't corner a dictator through a debate.

Debate make sense in a democracy with free speech and a critical press. Debate can make sense between 2 democratic leaders because both leaders are evaluated according to similar moral standards and they can suffer the wrath of their electors after if they appeared as too full of BS during the debate. But a dictator is not accountable like this, he will lie all way long, so a debate is completely pointless. Let's all agree on one thing: the only language Saddam Hussein understands is the language of violence.


Very good points Tzar. In addition, Saddam knows little about American history, democratic politics, or international affairs. Bush is more informed about Iraq, and the issues I just discussed. However, he is no expert.

Overall, both men would end up embarrassing themselves. Saddam would likel be too aggressive to hide his fear. Bush will simply get pissed off and say whatever comes to mind.
 

tigersqn

WWII Forum Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2002
Messages
800
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
Country
llCanada
Originally posted by Marko

I have simply pointed out that technology isn't always that accuarate and the only reason geround troops are not used first and foremost is due to the American public's lack of stomach when dealing with US casualties, and understandably so. I have not either implied that military forces are cowardly, ???. All I can summise from your sophism is that you are actually an American living in Canada. You see the point is that if a nation is so morally right in doing what it wants then as a result the possibility of casualties should be both realistic and ineviatable. And by your post I believe you should take the next flight to Iraq and kill some Iraqi's (preferably within a range that they can shoot back).
Actually, the only reason that ground troops are not used first and foremost is that the US, and indeed most western nations believe in the doctrine of spending money rather than the lives of their soldiers.

Nope. Born and raised in the Great White North.

Luckily for me Canada won't be sending any combat troops to Iraq. Afghanistan, however, could be on my horizon.

As for your last comment, it doesn't warrant a reply.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Originally posted by tigersqn


Actually, the only reason that ground troops are not used first and foremost is that the US, and indeed most western nations believe in the doctrine of spending money rather than the lives of their soldiers.

Nope. Born and raised in the Great White North.

Luckily for me Canada won't be sending any combat troops to Iraq. Afghanistan, however, could be on my horizon.

As for your last comment, it doesn't warrant a reply.
I wasn't actually being serious, but you guess you realise that. I agree with you totally of course, if I was a general I would rather spend money than risk lives, especially if I had an infinite bank account to play with.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
Originally posted by Headshot
hmm im no moderator (due to many reasons) but was that a personal attack? eh marko give some americans a break on occasion. I mean we coulve just taken all those troops prepping for D-DAY and conquered England, hehehe... theres a thought.
If the finest army of World War II couldn't take the UK, then what makes you think an army on a par with the Italians good have ?
 
Top