# Public enemy number 1: Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2002, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816 "2002-12-15T01:04:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![samarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4da419/32.png) [@samarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samarm)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2002, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/21 "2002-12-15T23:36:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jiHymas \* > **Note also that I don’t buy, and will never buy, this “nation who’s people have already endured suffering under an un-elected dictator” stuff. There are an awful lot of people in Iraq who support the regime whole-heartedly (and a lot who passively accept the situation)… if there weren’t, Saddam wouldn’t last two minutes.** The citizens of Iraq surely have to appear to support the regime, under threat of persecution. I have seen a clip on TV of some Kurdish children singing a song in praise of Saddam. I believe they were putting on a public display of support out of fear for their lives (and the lives of their friends and families). I don’t disagree that there are some people who actively support the regime, as this is inevitable in such a diverse society as Iraq. However, I do question the loyatly of the people to their leader, given that Saddam won the last election with 100% of the vote (he was the only candidate). I believe their loyalties could be easily won over by a new and democratic government. ---
**Author:** ![jiHymas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@jiHymas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jiHymas)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/22 "2002-12-16T04:21:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by samarm \* > **The citizens of Iraq surely have to appear to support the regime, under threat of persecution.** Persecution by whom? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by samarm_ > **I have seen a clip on TV of some Kurdish children singing a song in praise of Saddam. I believe they were putting on a public display of support out of fear for their lives (and the lives of their friends and families).** It isn’t necessary to threaten kids - they’re _kids_. They’ll believe whatever it is they’re taught in school, whether it’s praise for Saddam or the American Pledge of Allegiance. Most of their parents were educated in the same manner. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by samarm_ > \*\*I don’t disagree that there are some people who actively support the regime, as this is inevitable in such a diverse society as Iraq. However, I do question the loyatly of the people to their leader, given that Saddam won the last election with 100% of the vote (he was the only candidate). I believe their loyalties could be easily won over by a new and democratic government. \*\* There’s really only one way of putting that to the test. Fortunately, Iraq isn’t powerful enough - yet - to require a long term coexistence strategy while waiting for it to implode, as did the Soviet Union. There is no need to tolerate the harmful nature of its foreign policy, nor to risk misunderstandings and mistakes of the nuclear variety. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/23 "2002-12-16T04:36:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Iraq is a talked-about issue because of the Democrat’s nefarious agenda? > > Can I have some of what you’re smoking? There was no nefarious strategy. It was just a general unwillingness to take a stand on the debate, because they know that defense issues favor Republicans. So they made a strategic decision to try and draw the voter’s attention to the economy. Eventually, it became clear that the Iraq issue was not going to lie down, so they were forced to start talking about it. And that’s when it really hit the media. This isn’t some cooked up conspiracy on my part. This was one the main topics of debate in the punditry last year. You couldn’t pick up a newspaper without reading an Op-Ed over whether the Democrats should start talking Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/24 "2002-12-16T05:35:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Iraq is a talked-about issue because of the Democrat’s nefarious agenda? > > Can I have some of what you’re smoking? There was no nefarious strategy. It was just a general unwillingness to take a stand on the debate, because they know that defense issues favor Republicans. So they made a strategic decision to try and draw the voter’s attention to the economy. Eventually, it became clear that the Iraq issue was not going to lie down, so they were forced to start talking about it. And that’s when it really hit the media. This isn’t some cooked up conspiracy on my part. This was one the main topics of debate in the punditry last year. You couldn’t pick up a newspaper without reading an Op-Ed over whether the Democrats should start talking Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/25 "2002-12-16T05:59:59Z")
**Sam** , I must be missing your point. What I thought you were saying was that the reason there was so much hubbub about Iraq in the press this past fall was because the Dems engaged on the issue. And that there was little to no hubbub before this. Right? But, as a cite, you mention wide coverage and punditry in the press about Iraq previous to the Dems engaging on the issue. So it seems the press, pundits, and certainly the Bush administration we’re talking a lot about Iraq previous to the Dems engagement. And you then seem to conclude that the reason the issue came to the forefront is because the Dems engaged, after the press and pundits repeatedly wondered if they would react to an issue that wouldn’t die down. Therefore the wide coverage (already in progress) is the Dems responsibility/fault. The reasoning here seems quite circular. Perhaps you could clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/26 "2002-12-16T06:32:34Z")
Let me try again: Bush was talking up Iraq for a long time before the issue really took off in the media. The reason it never took off until later on is because the Democrats were not engaging in the debate. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/27 "2002-12-16T07:49:17Z")
Anybody who can cause enough damage that could have plunged any other country into permanent economic turmoil by using dupes toting boxcutters is beynd dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/28 "2002-12-16T09:14:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Let me try again: Bush was talking up Iraq for a long time before the issue really took off in the media. The reason it never took off until later on is because the Democrats were not engaging in the debate. \*\* Can you provide evidence of the existence of a _persistent_ pattern of the Bush administration calling for an invasion of Iraq prior to the AxisOfEvil speech? ---
**Author:** ![45\_70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/5f9b8f/32.png) [@45\_70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/45_70)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2002, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816/29 "2002-12-16T12:49:16Z")
Neither, it is the fat lazy public of the United States that are too self absorbed to worry about politics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-enemy-number-1-bin-laden-or-saddam-hussein/142816.md?page=1)