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

[fable]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

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]

@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]

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]

Quote:

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.