I would think that if Saddam wanted us to know his side, that he would use one of those bulk email programs & email us his side of the story? I would sure like to read what he has to say more than the usual spam coming in.
Is it possible for him to do so or would the usa keep Iraq email out? Anyone want to guess why he hasn’t?
Because it would be a pathetic ploy, and would make him a laughingstock.
Do you honestly think the ruler of a country would even consider such a thing?
Besides, everyone would say, “It’s not really him!”
It would be pretty funny, though.
Saddam emailed one American.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/STRIKES_saddam011023_email.html
Maybe he could also telemarket. Spammers and telemarketers people just love those guys.
Why not? George H.W. Bush gave a televised speech to the Iraqi people before the Gulf War, and IIRC it was broadcast there. Saddam sent a speech of his own to the US that was televised in its entirety on some cable channels (C-Span, I think), while excerpts made all the major news outlets. How is sending mass e-mail different? It would be an attempt to communicate directly with the American people, rather than their leaders.
Wasnt Saddam the guy that said that he had all that money and was willing to give half of it away if we e-mailed him back? Seems I got a dozen of those. probably wanted me to hide one of his WMD.
Why would anyone take an email seriously? Seeing a national leader on TV is a little more convincing that a random unsolicited email, which would get trapped by any decent spam filter anyway.
I ask myself that every time I get forwarded the one about the guy who woke up in the hotel bathroom with no kidneys.
As the legion of complaints about spam email indicate, many people do not have decent spam filters. This may not be as convincing as a televised speech, but it would cost practically nothing. Iraq could give official text versions to major news organizations, in addition to the email.
This guy would stoop to anything to avoid or delay an attack. Remember the video of him with the foreign “guests” (civilian prisoners, including children) before the Gulf War? I could easily see him doing something like this, explaining how he is the poor put-upon victim, and George W. is a big meanie.
Do you have a cite for the statement that Bush’s speech was broadcast in Iraq? My own recollection is that it was not.
Why not just take out a billion “Saddam is your friend” popup ads?
No, I am going by recollection. I will see if I can dig a cite up. It wouldn’t change my main point, though, that leaders of countries would try to communicate directly with the people of another country.
I hadn’t heard about that. It just goes to show that you never know. Sometimes the absurdly simply solution actually works.
I recall reading that, during the “Iranian hostage crisis” when militant Iranian students were holding the staff of the U.S. embassy hostage, U.S. officials were very frustrated because they had to conduct all negotiations through various Iranian governmental officials. Some U.S. radio station, for a lark, tried direct dialing the old Tehran Embassy phone number. The militants answered and gave a lengthy interview to the radio station!
In more ways than I can count. Bush and Hussein can get on major TV outlets. Ordinary Joes can’t. E-mail can be faked. People get any number of ridiculous and asinine unsolicited e-mails, and the medium lacks credibility. Any dork can send an e-mail to anyone he has an addy for. I can’t imagine someone in a prestigious position setting himself to be another piece of spam.
Then there are the logistics of assembling the e-mail addies of everyone in the U.S., revealing the e-mail addy of a head of state to the world, and trying to communicate in a language in which one is not fluent. There’s also the consideration that whatever is said is not going to be believed by the overwhelming majority. The whole notion adds up to a colossal waste of time.
They can already do that through well-established channels. TV and radio interviews of heads of state are broadcast live.
I thought the whole point was to stop a war not start one. :dubious:
Yes, I am familiar with the phenomenon. Saddam is going to be interviewd by Dan Rather on 60 Minutes II tomorrow.
What do you know? He is trying to take his case directly to the American people!
I predict he will make himself out to be the victim.
Your other points:
email can be faked.
Yes, so they would have to send official transcripts to news organizations so people wouldn know it wasn’t fake.
The medium lacks credibility.
That doesn’t stop zillions of legitimate and semi-legitimate enterprises from using it for advertising purposes.
Someone in a prestigious position wouldn’t use it.
Bloodthirsty dictator for life is a prestigious position? If he can’t prevent this war he could end up in a much less prestigious position, on trial for war crimes.
Logistics of assembling every email address in the US.
I understand one can purchase lists of email addresses for money. You wouldn’t need every single one. He has the resources of a country behind him.
Revealing head of state’s email.
They wouldn’t have to use shussein@hotmail.com, they could use something from the Iraqi foreign ministry. Imagine the propaganda value of all the emails they would get back! “Yes, Saddam, you are right! President Bush is inflicting an unjust war on the people of Iraq…”
It wouldn’t be believed/waste of time.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t be believed if it was officially verified. And it wouldn’t be a waste of time because of its propaganda value. He wants delay and division, both in the US and in the rest of the world.
1. email can be faked.
Yes, so they would have to send official transcripts to news organizations so people wouldn know it wasn’t fake.
In which case, why bother with the e-mail at all? Just send out a press release.
2. The medium lacks credibility.
That doesn’t stop zillions of legitimate and semi-legitimate enterprises from using it for advertising purposes.
Their doing that is part of why it lacks credibility. It’s not used for serious, meaningful messages to the public.
3. Someone in a prestigious position wouldn’t use it.
Bloodthirsty dictator for life is a prestigious position? If he can’t prevent this war he could end up in a much less prestigious position, on trial for war crimes.
Head of state is a prestigious position. He’s not a very prestigious head of state, but his position is shared by only a few hundred people in the whole world.
4. Logistics of assembling every email address in the US.
I understand one can purchase lists of email addresses for money. You wouldn’t need every single one. He has the resources of a country behind him.
Seems to me just using whatever purchasable lists are available would significantly dilute any effectiveness.
5. Revealing head of state’s email.
They wouldn’t have to use shussein@hotmail.com, they could use something from the Iraqi foreign ministry. Imagine the propaganda value of all the emails they would get back! “Yes, Saddam, you are right! President Bush is inflicting an unjust war on the people of Iraq…”
Can’t argue that. (Of course, I’d love to see the non-supporting replies!)
6. It wouldn’t be believed/waste of time.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t be believed if it was officially verified.
I mean that anything claimed by Hussein is not likely to be believed by very many. He hasn’t exactly established a reputation of dealing in truth and honor.
"Do you honestly think the ruler of a country would even consider such a thing? "
Sure, did you see on the news how Bush has been dropping millions of flyers on Iraq via plane?
Does there remain a valid General Question here?