Patrick Henry, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle and....Saddam Hussein????

Great Debates
1

Saddam makes his “speech from the dock”…

In times of national peril, when the hour is dark, prognosis grim. and defeat seems a likely if not foregone outcome, it falls to the hard core and inveterate recalcitrants to rally their troops against impending defeat/occupation.

In retrospect, (when they are rewarded by history’s benign glance, courtesy of a military or political victory) they are enshrined as heroic beacons of resistance when all seemed likely to be lost.

Consider Saddam’s speech from the dock (cf.Robert Emmet), or at least as much of it as the judge permitted to be recorded and broadcast before imposing a gag on the media.

Taken on its own terms, in the limited universe of discourse for which it was intended, Saddam’s call to his troops stands up pretty well, I think, even in translation.

Granted, it’s not quite “give me liberty or give me death” and I guess “we will fight them on the beaches…” is a bit more ringing, but surely the sentiments he urges upon his people are unexceptionable: “stop killing each other, repel the invader, make me proud…”

Say what you will, given the limited arsenal at his disposal, the guy is putting up a pretty good fight for, at least, his dignity, and, frankly, his place in history.

In his place, would you do the same, or would you confess to being the monster you are painted as, as snivle for some kind of mercy?

What, after all, does he have to lose?

At the very least, don’t we have to give him some props for balls, and concede that his demeanor and oratory make it somewhat less perplexing that he was able to keep control of a (boy, don’t we know it now) fractious and turbulent population?

To be more extreme in this evaluation, as a public speaker, doesn’t he make G-dub look like a stammering schoolboy?

All in all, I think he’s doing a lot better in a really tight place than might be expected.

I’m impressed–how 'bout y’all?

2

I reject your premise. I wouldn’t be in his position. Frankly, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what defense he uses. Sic semper tyrannis.

3

Generally speaking, you don’t get to be a dictator for several decades unless you’re intelligent, self-controlled, well-spoken, patient, and have some dramatic flair. Saddam Hussein has always been all of those things. Like all of history’s most famous despots, he understands people extremely well, and understands how to communicate and manipulate effectively. He also grasps situations and evaluates his options quite intelligently.

Of course, this analysis may come as a surprise to many people. To rationalize its actions, the U. S. government has always painted a different picture of Saddam, as a ranting lunatic completely severed from reality, who might send his enormous stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons straight towards the United States at a moment’s notice without any reason. News media outlets that aim to be propagandists for the U. S. government played along with this misrepresentation. But it wasn’t true, of course. Logically, if he had truly been insane, he would have lost control of the country (and probably gotten killed) many years earlier.

4

What about Kim Jong Il?

5

Empahsis added.

Can we have some cites that the US government painted this picture? I can agree that the US government overstated the danger of Iraq, but I don’t recall claims that he was crazy-- evil, but not crazy.

Saddam had all kinds of reasons for wanting to hurt the US, even if he didn’t have the means to do so. We organized the effor tot kcik him out of Kuwait. We crippled him, and had him pinned into a corner in his own country. We insisted that he open up his entire country to indefinite inspections. How could he not want to hurt the US?

6

There’s another reason – besides “the victors write the history books” – that we don’t hear about the eloquent speeches of SS officers and Khmer Rouge thugs: Motives matter. An impassioned and flowery defense of murder and torture is repugnant, even if it uses language well.

If you’re going on artistry, the translation uses big words, but otherwise leaves a lot to be desired. It’s got no rhythm and no soul. It’s needlessly complicated. It’s random and meandering. It sounds like the ravings of a loon (with a good vocabulary).

If you’re going on motivation – and again, I don’t think that can be avoided – I think his speech is horrible. Fighting American troops – and presumably reinstalling Saddam – is just about the worst thing Iraqis can do. The Americans are building schools and power plants and holding free elections. Saddam did quite the opposite.

He’ll hold a place in history, but only as a bastard who held sway over a large and important nation. And yes, he’s solidifying the language in that historical footnote right now. The editors are pausing over “madman,” … now they’re inserting the word “loony.”

And please note the portion of the article you linked that points out that Saddam’s 40 minute speech did not address the allegations of torture and murder that have been levelled against him. Maybe you consider that a good fight, but I consider it a distraction.

In his place, I wouldn’t have killed and tortured thousands of people.

You’re right. He doesn’t have that much to lose. His speeches will probably only hurt others now. But then again, it’s not like he’s ever cared about other people.

:rolleyes:

7

Keep in mind that good Arabic oratory may not sound anything like good Enlgish oratory.

But I do agree with the reast of your post. As I said, who cares? The guy was a despicable thug.

8

I don’t care if Saddam gave the finest, most elegant, most uplifting speech in the history of the world, he’s still a dirtbag.

9

as demonstrated by American politics, the normal thresholds for power and success are substantially relaxed when your daddy blazes the trail…

10

unencumbered by a knowledge of arabic, and indeed not much recollection of it’s sister language as sung during the odd (very odd) occasion of a visit to Shul, I did hear some of the original behind a simultaneous translation, and fwiw (not much…) it had the rhythm whose absence you lament in the translation.

11

Nonsense, John. The mere fact of the claims that some third world dictator was panting at the bit to attack the militarily most powerful nation in the world implies craziness.

Yes. You do, of course, apply that to others in the world beside Hussein, do you not?

I have to say, if I were in Hussein’s shoes, I would hope I would be as instrangient as he is. He is defending himself quite appropriately, given the circumstances.

12

No it doesn’t, but that wasn’t the claim that **ITR **made anyway. The claim was not about an “implication”, but about what our government actually did. If you want to address that, go ahead, because that was what my question was about. Look, Bush screwed up so badly in this whole Iraq war thing that I simply don’t understand the need to make shit up about him.

13

Not always, eh Donald?

14

You’re right. I withdraw the word “nonsense”. Sorry.

15

Hmm? Hussein never held a free a election, but I’m fairly certain he built schools and power plants, or at least they got built on his watch.

Do you have any cite for what the Coalition forces are currently doing along those lines? As I understand it, most Iraqis still lack clean drinking water and 24-hour electric power.

16

Thanks.

Are you still sticking by your claim that

I’m not exaclty sure how we’d debate that, so if you want to offer that up as an opinion, I guess there’s not much I can say other than that I don’t share that opinion. Without the phony “link to al Qaeda” claim, the administration would have been hard pressed to make the case that Saddam was a threat to the US, although it was certainly accurate to say that he was a threat to the M.E. region (if he had the means to carry out that threat). He had, afterall, attacked two countries already and lobbed misslies at Isreal during the 1st Gulf War. The biggest fear (painted by the administration) was not so much that Saddam would attack us directly, but that he would enable al Qaeda to do so.

The guy had motives aplenty, he just didn’t have means or opportunity.

Now, please don’t take anything that I posted above as evidence that I bought into the administrations claims. I never did. But I don’t see how those claims amount to an implication that Saddam was crazy. However, if you evidence to present in support of your opinion, I’m open to hearing it.

17

You’re right. The late 1820s were the darkest period in your country’s history.

18

To be fair, that was a picture from back in the days when Saddam was being “good” (by which we mean using chemical weapons regularly) and 2003 was a time when he was very, very bad (meaning not doing much of anything except being a run-of-the-mill despot).

19

There’s some merit to that argument – but, on the other hand, there are examples of total nutcases (Kim Jong Il, Idi Amin) managing to pull it off.

20

True. Al though the insanity would be applied most appropriately to those who made the (false) claim.