Dogs chasing cars and other puzzlements

[ambitious_wench]

I read today that the U.S. Is sepping up efforts (again?) to find Saddam.
(http://www.msnbc.com/news/937851.asp?0na=x22014D3-)

A thought occured to me--Just what are they going to do with him if they get him alive? And what if they find his remains?

I fear that if he is alive, he will not be brought to international justice. I think that he will be killed outright.

What do you all think?
Edie

Comments

[revalkorn.livejournal.com]

I foresee two options.

1. Hussein will pull a Hitler and shoot himself before anyone else could.
2. Hussein will make it impossible to take him alive.

In the unlikely event that he is taken alive, he will be brought to international "justice". Could be the best thing he could do. The international community is so screwed up that he'd probably go free and be praised as the great humanitarian of the 21st century.

Re:

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

In the unlikely event that he is taken alive, he will be brought to international "justice". Could be the best thing he could do. The international community is so screwed up that he'd probably go free and be praised as the great humanitarian of the 21st century.


Just out of curiousity, how did someone so young get so cynical?

Or am I that naive, and if so, how did I manage to reach the age of 43 and stay this naive?

Edie

[revalkorn.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiousity, how did someone so young get so cynical?

Cynical? Me? Nah. Just realistic. Considering the current international climate with people decrying Bush as a warmonger and nations withholding their support from the war/liberation effort, it wouldn't surprise me to see Hussein go free. Hell, even Osama Bin Laden would stand a decent chance in the current world climate.

With postmodernism there is no objective truth, and thus no right or wrong. How can there be crimes against humanity when nothing is considered "wrong"?

Re:

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

With postmodernism there is no objective truth, and thus no right or wrong.

*blink*

I'm not sure that follows. The objectiveness of truth is not required to instill a sense of right or wrong. The nature of truth as a concept means that it is valuable regardless of objectivity.

I don't believe in objective truth, but I do have a VERY well defined sense of right and wrong.

I think that if a world court were to release Hussein, it would be more about a sense of balance for percieved wrongs by the US.

Of course, I don't think he will get to stand before a court because those who are in position to capture him probably believe as you do, Al. They also probably have possession of instant justice in the form of a rifle, and the frustration of seeing their comrades being shot down beside them as impetus.

Now I have to wonder how *I* got so cynical? I suppose from serving in the US Navy for 9 years and hearing the stories.

Edie

[revalkorn.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in objective truth, but I do have a VERY well defined sense of right and wrong.

I see the connection between "truth" and "right and wrong" as more of a symbiotic relationship. The fact that you and I disagree about what is right and wrong is because we have a different idea of what truth is. We both have a defined sense of right and wrong, and yet we obviously disagree, for example, on homosexuality. And that's because I believe in objective truth and you don't. How you view truth will color how you view "right and wrong".

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

We both have a defined sense of right and wrong, and yet we obviously disagree, for example, on homosexuality. And that's because I believe in objective truth and you don't. How you view truth will color how you view "right and wrong".

Actually, Al, I know others who don't believe in objective truth who agree with you on homosexuality. At least they say they don't believe in objective truth. For example, atheists.

Now there was an oddity if I ever saw one. Although I suspect that he trying very hard to not be too far from the surrounding morality. He was as homophobic and bigoted as the rest of his drinking buddies.

Edie

[revalkorn.livejournal.com]

Atheists are rather odd.

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

This assumes the United States even *wants* Hussein alive. It is entirely possible that there are things that happened between Hussein and Rumsfeld when Rumsfeld was serving as Reagan's special envoy in the early 80's that certain parties in our government might not want particularly rehashed (http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1). Hard to say. Hussein's body might be enough for Bush's purposes.

As for how we got so cynical, as you ask below --I wouldn't necessarily say cynical. Merely realistic. It has been grimly amusing watching the wheels spin over the entire WMD hunt, for example. Raise your hand if you didn't see George Tenet being made a sacrificial lamb a dozen miles off...

We've all read Machiavelli.

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

As I was saying before I punched the wrong button --we've all read Machiavelli. We know how the game is played. I mean, when you go to raise $200 million in war-chest funds and move your nominating convention to a few days of September 11th in New York City, we know exactly what Karl Rove is thinking.

[remus-shepherd.livejournal.com]

The secret military tribunal law was created just for people like Hussein and Bin Laden. If they're captured, they'll be thrown in prison and nobody without a high level security clearance will ever see them again. That way Bush can claim they didn't just kill him, but there will still be no chance of anything he says getting to the press.

[revalkorn.livejournal.com]

I'm too self-respecting to read Machiavelli.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

It's not quite the Book of Evil its reputation would suggest. Most of its advice is expressly intended for people in power, so unless you're planning on becoming a politician or a newspaper magnate there's not too much risk of it corrupting you.

I view 'The Prince' as a chance to get a look at the enemy's playbook. There's nothing in there I can use myself, but having read it makes it easier to watch the news and say "Ah, that's what they're up to."

[revalkorn.livejournal.com]

You might be surprised at the power a pastor carries, even in this age of postmodernism.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Different sort of power, though. Your authority is basically spiritual - if people don't want to be 'ruled' by you any more, they just have to stop showing up to church. OTOH, if they accept the beliefs from which your power arises, they can't buck that power by armed revolt as they could with a temporal authority.

Macchiavelli deals more with temporal authority, in particular why conquered states do or don't rebel. Interestingly enough, he tends to advocate a "hearts-and-minds" approach rather than brute force, on the grounds that occupying a people who hate you is dangerous and expensive.

[revalkorn.livejournal.com]

I was actually being a smart-ass. I always forget the disclaimer.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

/me glances at Al.

"You haven't read it either? Hrrrm. With a line like that, I am gonna HAVE to read it, now."

*Grin*
Edie

[panacea1.livejournal.com]

It's very useful for writing devilbunnies.

*glances at her copy sitting on the reference shelf right next to "Squirrels of the West"*

[revalkorn.livejournal.com]

That's just plain contrariness, and I won't be a party to that!

[malada.livejournal.com]

Super-Cynical-Me thinks that he may never be found, even if he is found.

Why the contradiction? Simple: if we find him and haul his ass to some international court, he'll blab about how his country was USA's best friend for years and years, got aid and support with chemical and biological weapons from the United States, etc, etc, etc. He'll be a major embarassment if he ever goes public.

So, if his captured and quietly killed the administration can still wave the spectre of a Saddam on the loose. I'd even expect there'll surface calls for attacks on Americans from 'Saddam' every time the Administration gets into trouble.

You can do a lot with old tape recordings and Cool Edit audio editing software.

Unless he is taken _alive_ and displayed publically, I'll have my doubts.

And so will everyone else.

At the moment I'm betting we won't see Saddam alive again. He's just too valuable to the administration that way.

-m

Finding Saddam, and keeping him

[j-shelbourne.livejournal.com]

Given that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney seem to have had a get-Saddam agenda since before September 11, 2001, and since Bush has publicly stated that the search for Osama Bin Laden is not important any more (I'm paraphrasing; I can't track the original wording down right now), I suspect they really want to catch him.

So will they?

Maybe. One can stay alive for a long, long time--the nearest example I can think of is the Nazis that were hunted by Wiesenthal et al., and some of them lasted 40+ years. I don't know enough about Saddam Hussein to know whether he has the personality for that kind of hiding.

Yes, of course he can say damning things about his relationship with the US government, but the glory of the democratic process is that we can always point to previous governments and say, "Not us!" There's lots of damning things that can be said about the current administration, or in fact any administration.

I believe that no big conspiracy can be contained for long, but little ones can go on for nearly ever. I think that Hussein could be hidden for a few years, but would eventually be exposed, because nearly everything the government gets involved with becomes a big conspiracy.

My impression of the current administration's agenda is that it would suit their needs better if he turned up dead, but I'm not sure how they could arrange that without leaving a damning trail of evidence. (I regard stories of super-secret government assassins as myths; highly inconvenient people continue to go on living when I'd think the super-secret government assassin would have been aimed at them long ago.)

The identification would have to be utterly positive--nobody would want the equivalent of a Jacobite movement for Hussein. (If I've got my movements correct: Or the equivalent of an Anastasia of Russia story.) In that sense, a live Hussein is a better catch.

Re: Finding Saddam, and keeping him

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course he can say damning things about his relationship with the US government, but the glory of the democratic process is that we can always point to previous governments and say, "Not us!" There's lots of damning things that can be said about the current administration, or in fact any administration.

The problem with that is that it was Reagan's administration who took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations, apparently specifically so that the US could sell Iraq the materiel to make WoMD. Yes, Ronald Reagan is now a vegetable, and really beyond the reach of criticism: he can safely be blamed for anything, because as far as taking blame goes, he's effectively legally dead.

However, the following people who were involved in the selling of WoMD to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, in the Reagan administration and out of it, are still alive and well, and many of them are senior people in the current Bush administration.

Between 1982 and 1991, the years when Saddam Hussein was "our man in Iraq" (gassing Iranians and Kurds):

Donald Rumsfeld was a member of the General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, Special Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty, a Senior Advisor to the Panel on Strategic Systems, a Special Envoy to the Middle East (in which capacity he met Saddam Hussein several times).

Dick Cheney was Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987, in 1987 he was Chairman of the House Republican Conference, and in 1988 he was House Minority Whip. He was also Secretary of Defense from March 1989 onwards.

Paul D. Wolfowitz was directing policy planning for the State Department from 1981 to 1982, and acted as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 1982 to 1986. (In 1986, Reagan nominated Wolfowitz as ambassador to Indonesia. This was while the Indonesians were massacring the East Timorese, but of course as Indonesia was a US ally, no notice need to taken of that.) He was also Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993.

I could go on. Those are just the easy ones.

My impression of the current administration's agenda is that it would suit their needs better if he turned up dead, but I'm not sure how they could arrange that without leaving a damning trail of evidence.

Send B-52 bombers to bomb the restaurant they think he's in, killing everyone in it. That's what they did last time, without regard for civilian casualties. That's what I think they'll do if they think they know where he is next time. someone should start a rumour that he's in the White House