I don’t see the Nazi rhetoric you are referring to. Do you have some examples?
I do agree with you about the “1984” type symantic abuse, but I see that all across the political spectrum. It’s in the nature of politics, and not a monopoly of this adminisrtation. Perhaps you notice it and it grates on you more when it’s used for policies you disagree with…?
Redfury:
I’d like to thank you for quoting me out of context, omitting my statements about the morality of the war. Keep up the good work.
Nor I. The apparent unimportance of all the various demands made on Iraq, relative to the single issue of Saddam stepping down immediately is troubling though. If the press is to be believed, Hussein offered to open up to US troops, inspections, and elections. Pretty humiliating stuff, and sufficient to address most of the concerns that the admin. gave as reasons for going to war. Of the remaining few, neither the “liberation of the Iraqi people” or the “revenge for trying to kill my father" are terribly credible. Given the innobility of this whole wretched effort, I’d have to side with the later. Of course, I think you’re much closer to the truth with your “complicated mess of geopolitical motives”, but that case was never really emphasized before the war.
Make a great campaign slogan -
Bush: not as bad as Hitler.
Des: Please look up the words “vast” and “difference” in the dictionary. Then see my comment to Redfury about quoting out of context. Cheers!
I wasn’t being entirely serious, John Mace. 
jshore already made the appropriate observation about low standards of comparison.
Des: OK. Since you weren’t entirely serious, you only have to look up “vast” in the dictionary.
xt, it would be interesting to hear your version of how “retiring” was ever a possibility Saddam even had. When was that offer made? How credible was it (note that brutal dictators don’t often get to enjoy long “retirements” - that’s why I used the word “suicide”; he’d soon have been Ceausescued)? How much coaxing was he put under to accept it? If you have evidence of something really happening along those lines, let’s have it.
As for his “losing” GW1, that’s true as far as it went - from our viewpoint. But he still controlled the bulk of the country, he still was pretty much unfettered in what he did there, he still had most of the control he wanted - in his eyes, he hadn’t lost that much, and the “victors” weren’t trying all that hard to press their win any further than they had. Why would he expect that to change?
As for the rest, we’re pretty much in agreement.
From ElvisL1ves
I recall that he was made an offer of exile, and that there were several countries that offered him assilum. I would imagine it would have been similar to what happened to the Shah of Iran or Marcos from the Phililines. As to the exact details, I suppose I could look it up on google, but I thought it was generally accepted that the offer had been made and rejected. I was more inclined to lean towards what you were getting at that the guy was wired in such a way that he WOULDN’T take such an offer and give up the power.
How much coaxing? Again, I seem to remember that several of the gulf states in particular were urging him to step down and take exile. I believe that some of the European states were doing the same thing. Again, this is from memory, and I conceed I could be totally wrong on all this.
Personally I think if he HAD stepped down I seriously doubt he would have gotten wacked…after all, the Shah was not exactly popular either, and he ended up dieing of natural causes in exile. Marcos too. Hell, even some of the Czars heirs got away from Russia (I recall some Archduke that was heir to the thrown) to live out their lives in exile. Money will buy you a lot of safety…as well as lots of nice toys too. And remember, SH was a billionare in his own right, with accounts all over the world. That kind of money would have bought him a fairly protected life…and a fairly good life to boot.
I’ll see what I can do today in the ‘proof’ department if thats what you are looking for. Hopefully I’ll be able to nip in to google at some point at work today. Again, my impression is that this was fairly common knowledge, and I should be able to find some cites fairly easily I would think.
From ElvisL1ves
Oh, I’m sure he felt the pain after GWI, but you are right, he did keep control of his country and that had to instill some confidence back into the man. I agree with you here actually if you are saying that he miscalculated, thinking that the US was basically rattling its sabre again. I doubt here DID really expect things to change, and probably figured that offers of exile could safely be turned down. However, he was just as stupid as Bush was on this.
Ok, Bush certainly at the vary least, was looking at the data about WMD through rose colored glasses…filtered through his own perceptions and what he WANTED it to be. However, SH was looking at the US military massed on his borders, and couldn’t see that THIS time the jig was up and it was bolt or die (well, or go into hiding, moving every 4 hours and fearing for your life constantly I suppose). I know you were in the Iraq is like Vietnam thread, but from a political standpoint I see a parallel to the first world war, when the leaders were too stupid to see the options that would hav avoided war…and instead the war happened almost by default. As I’ve said, IMO, there was blame to go around on this one, and in my book at least, SH gets to share the blame with Bush in equal measures.
-XT
Elvis:
The “no fly zones” represented well over 1/2 of the territory of Iraq. Surely you’ve seen a map of that, haven’t you? The Kurdish areas, in the north, operated as a virtual free country for years before the latest invasion. I think you’re mistaken to say that Saddam operated freely throughout most of his country. He was severely restricted.
Actually, setting up that type of system, I believe, was a key ingredient in the inevitability of war. It’s just not realistic to maintain that over such a long period of time, and Saddam could easily live for 20 more years.
Territory is not people, John. The majority of the people did not live in the no-fly zones, nor did the ones who did live there have true freedom from Saddam. Just ask the southern Shiites after their crushed rebellion. Why does that require explanation?
xt, we’re almost there, except for the part about exile and retirement having ever been a realistic option for Saddam. Powell did moot the idea with a number of potential host countries IIRC, but all turned down the proposal. And yes, I do suspect Saddam thought Bush was just saber-rattling, since you ask.
Well, this goes way back to high school for me … I had an English teacher who was very into “semantic abuse”. There was a book written by written about it, coincidently (or maybe not) circa 1940 by this guy named Alfred Korzibski (spelling?) who identified various ways in which semantics gets abused. A couple of the things I remember (with relevant recent examples) are:
(1) Two-valued orientation: “You are either with us or with the terrorists.”
(2) Confusing levels of abstraction, particularly with very abstract concepts such as “evil”. I.e., you take a term we have to reflect a very abstract concept and misapply it in a way that makes people believe it has a more concrete existence than it does.
I know there are lots of other things like this. I just can’t recall them at the moment. One other vivid example that comes to mind, but I am not sure how Korzibski would characterize it, was soon after the war when WMDs were still not being found and Bush was making statements to the effect that “Well, one thing for certain now is that Saddam will not be able to use WMDs against us or pass them on to terrorists.” The errors in logic in that statement on so many different levels just boggle my mind.
At any rate, sure, as Al Gore said in a speech a few months ago, it is certainly not new for people to use over-the-top rhetoric in pushing their political policies and agendas but this Administration has really taken that to new heights. As Gore pointed out, it is this basic fact and the way it impacts the democratic system which is perhaps even more disturbing than Bush’s policies themselves.
Xtisme is right on many counts. I also remember Russian Primakov personally visiting Saddam and asking him to step down few days before the US invasion. I agree that removal or abdication of Saddam was the main goal of US, and his refusal the main cause of invasion. Except that I wouldn’t put so much emphasis on Saddam himself. I think Saddam was getting old and seriously sick. He didn’t look too good on the latest videos. I think Iraq was increasingly run in his name by his sons and other people. He might have come to once in a while, walk around and bark some orders, and then disappear again for days with his doctors. I think it was considered imperative to take control over Iraq before Saddam actually dies.
In relation to OP, Iraqis were trying to cooperate all they could. The cited example was only one of many ways they were trying to please the West. There were many more straightforward approaches. Nothing worked for them, because the real issue was the removal of Saddam and his party from power.
Incidentally, I don’t buy this US & GB vs. France, Germany & Russia “confrontation over Iraq”. I think it was simply a “bad cop, good cop” show, intended to confuse Iraqis and befuddle the public in US and Europe.
Where is the Fourth Estate, the media ? This is a time made for them; they should be snapping at the heels of these people harrying them every step of the way. Instead, they seem more sedated that passive, seemingly cowering in the corner afraid to offend . . . I guess, just don’t get it.
Am I reading this incorrectly because, at the moment, it looks to me like the checks and balances ain’t checking and balancing, folks ?
How come Bush isn’t being torn to pieces . . . it can’t be as simple as ‘corporate media’ expecting payback along the line, can it?
The countries that had initially expressed some willingness to take Saddam in exile all withdrew, IIRC. That, and the fact that so few of us even recall that, suggests a certain lack of sincerity in Bush’s commitment to it. In fact, it may have been Powell’s own freelancing that got the “offers”, and Bush’s arrogance, or perhaps insistence on fighting the war anyway, that got them rescinded.
The media watchdog has been neutered and is now a lapdog, LC. 24/7 news coverage and the proliferation of cable TV makes news reporting a very competitive business – and Administration-unfriendly moves results in revoked White House access, which makes it easier for your competitors to pull ahed of you. And with more and more large media conglomerates swallowing up news outlets, there’s more incentive to toe the conservative line and keep those tax breaks and relaxed FCC regulations flowing.
So much for the “liberal media” myth, eh?
ElvisL1ves, I have to admit that, though I didn’t do an exhaustive search today, I didn’t find much about countries actually offering to take him in. I found several cites of countries (and individuals) urging SH to leave, but the few I found on countries saying they would take him in were totally contridictory. Saudi for instance seems to have waffled back and forth several times, as well as Syria. Apperently there was a big conference of Arab and Islamic leaders where they were supposed to discuss this issue, but it degenerated into a huge name calling thing (wtf does a curse on your mustache mean btw??). I guess that, though people wanted to avoid the war, no one was willing to take him into THEIR country. Reminds me of the nuclear waste disposal…everyone wants it disposed of, just not in THIER back yard.
Anyway, at this point, with a lack of evidence, I’m forced to conceed the point to you (i.e. that SH leaving was a viable option for him), unless anyone else has had better luck than me with the cites. So, since (appearently) it wasn’t the case, I suppose the broader question of the OP would be that, yes, the US backed SH into a corner and provided him with no way out…he HAD to fight. If further evidence is provided I will certainly re-evaluate things, but atm I have to say I’m starting to be convinced I was wrong about this aspect all along.
-XT
Whatever gave you that impression ?
Reports intensify about a possible Saddam exile (1/15/03)
The US never considered Saddam’s exile to be a serious alternative to invasion.
Squink’s cite is one I read today. You can see how contridictory things were. Stuff like this:
From HustonChronicle.com
You see it over and over. Saudi is a perfect example. I found a bunch of cites where Saudi supposedly offered asylum, only to turn around and then deny that they had offered it. Egypt and Syria also. Unless there was some back table discussions going on behind the scenes I’m unaware of, what kind of message was this sending to SH??
It seems to me that SH leaving was NOT a viable option (as I thought it was), unless I’m missing something. All the articles I read today read just like the one Squink posted…contridictory information, no one taking a firm stand and offering firm asylum, etc. And if his leaving was NOT a viable option, throughly explored…then the OPs assertion that Bush WANTED the war no matter what looks to be more and more correct to me at least. I think I have a pretty open mind about stuff and I’m definitely becoming convinced of this point.
I still don’t think that the conflict resembles Vietnam though. I think its a fuckup unique to itself.
-XT
So far, perhaps. Only way it stays a “unique fuckup” is if it never happens again.
Now, in that regard, I have a suggestion…
Of course if you believe that, it kind of shines a different light on Bush’s ultimatum speech:
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Perhaps Mr. Bush had a last minute change of heart on exile for Saddam, but there just wasn’t time to do anything about it ?