Iraq run by the Corleone family?
October 16, 2002 12:39 PM   Subscribe

Iraq run by the Corleone family? Found a good story on Saddam Hussein’s two sons who seem to be poised to rule. It's reported that Saddam's favorite movie is The Godfather and the similarities between the film and the family is pretty interesting.
posted by rampage (23 comments total)
Should we invade, Iraq will be run by whoever we install, and we will have some 30 thousand troops stationed there for a long, long time, as we presently do in South Korea. Why not the Soprano gang, since soon they will have finished off most of them as the series closes down ?
They will be no more crooked than most politicians and sure now how to eat.
posted by Postroad at 12:46 PM on October 16, 2002

bring on the bad mob jokes.....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:47 PM on October 16, 2002

There are good mob jokes?
posted by UnReality at 12:51 PM on October 16, 2002

Well.. let me dig up Saddam facts.

"To show how close fruit falls from the tree in Iraq, he made his wife's brother, Adnan, defense minister and his wife's father the governor of Baghdad. You should also know he had Adnan killed. All in all, Saddam has had 40 of his relatives whacked."

"He once shot dead a general who rashly disagreed with him in a cabinet meeting."

"He survived a failed military coup in May 1991, and he offed 18 senior army officers just to make sure he could get a good night's sleep."

"In June 1991, he fired 1,500 senior army officers and 180 senior police officers as a reward for following his orders during the Gulf War."

Saddam is a mafia don, plain and simple.
posted by RobbieFal at 1:01 PM on October 16, 2002

If you read Mark Bowden's great Atlantic piece about Saddam, he makes a brilliant point about how Saddam loves The Godfather films but fails to see that the movies are really about Michael (not Vito) and how he becomes a cold vicious dictator that destroys his family under the guise of leading and protecting it. I love good irony.
posted by McBain at 1:03 PM on October 16, 2002

TIME tells another story of Uday's imperious rapes, and the torture of the brother who tried to protect his sister. More on Uday; an extensive interview with a defector from his inner circle.

Some think that Saddam may resign in favor of Qusay on the eve of an invasion.

Strangely, some millennial sites have nominated the sons as the Antichrist -- along with various world leaders and Eurocrats.
posted by dhartung at 1:16 PM on October 16, 2002

That would make us(Americans) the Tattaglia's then. I say we mail the bastard a fish and be done with it.
posted by jonmc at 1:31 PM on October 16, 2002

Well, you said "bring on the bad mob jokes"
posted by jonmc at 1:31 PM on October 16, 2002

Comparing Saddam to the Corleones is an insult to the Corleones. At least Vito and Michael had advisers who could speak their minds, whereas Saddam has made sure that he will never get anything from his advisers other than exactly what he wants to hear. Right now his consigliere is probably whispering to him about how badly Iraq will kick the U.S.'s ass if the U.S. invades.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:21 PM on October 16, 2002

How can we possibly know what goes on in Saddams "inner sanctum"? Making generalizations and and such broad statements is emotion speaking, not logic or reason. Maybe we should get MTV to make "the Hussiens"? My idea is we send in the army, get rid of Saddam, and put Al Gore in as president of Iraq. That way he gets to be President, Bush gets to be president, everybody wins. It's true! And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:30 PM on October 16, 2002

The Godfather is such a generic representation of a patriarchal , feudalistic system that it can be easily compared to anything. From the Carolingians, to the Gottis, to the Bushes.

Anything involving a closeknit group of people (or families) who have power are easily related to about any other group with the same features.

Paranoid men in power with sons is nothing new, just look at the long line of Roman empowers.
posted by geoff. at 3:08 PM on October 16, 2002

Paranoid men in power with sons is nothing new, just look at the long line of Bush Presidents Roman emperors.
posted by goethean at 5:00 PM on October 16, 2002

Yeah two Bushs, whew, that is a huge number...

Thank God we finally got rid of the Roosevelt family's stranglehold on the office...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:30 PM on October 16, 2002

How many people live in the US, a country that's allegedly great because "anyone can become president"? What is the chance of father and son both becoming president, drawn from this random population? Mmmm privellage, it's a wonderful thing. Face it, not anyone can become president, and quite frankly, I think both a father and son being president IS a huge number for a "democracy".
posted by Jimbob at 5:59 PM on October 16, 2002

Nobody used to make a big deal about John Adams and John Quincy Adams.

Well, maybe JQA's enemies at the time.

In any case, Jimbob, if you have some bright ideas about changes we could make that would distribute the job a little more "randomly" -- hey, why not give the guy who spent today noisily dismantling a file cabinet in my alley a chance? -- feel free to do something constructive.
posted by dhartung at 8:39 PM on October 16, 2002

"Take the falafel!"
posted by AccordionGuy at 11:21 PM on October 16, 2002

Well, maybe JQA's enemies at the time.

That's a bit dismissive, given the history. Jackson initially won *both* the popular and electoral votes. Adams became Prez in a House decision only because Speaker Henry Clay, who'd been eliminated in the first round, told supporters to shift to Adams. Adams then made Clay Secretary of State. If I'd been alive back then, I'm pretty sure that I'd be among the folks shouting "Corrupt Bargain!"

I think educating ourselves about the power of certain families in U.S. history is just plain smart. And btw, great stuff about Saddam here.
posted by mediareport at 11:29 PM on October 16, 2002

*cough* Jackson won 99 of 261 electoral votes, according to your link there. That's not a win, but a plurality. But good points to mention all the appointment nepotism; that's bad form by the Bushies.

As regards political families, we continue to have Tafts, Humphreys, Kennedys, Shrivers, Rockefellers, Gores, Cuomos, Daleys, and even Jacksons, hanging around state and national politics. My own experience in the trenches suggests it tends to be very much a family calling. And though I'd have added more Republicans to the list if I'd thought of them, not one that Democrats can make much hay out of.
posted by dhartung at 12:58 AM on October 17, 2002

Oh, to balance the list a tad, I remembered one I just have to add: Schwarzenegger. How can an Austrian-born actor be part of an American political dynasty? Why, when he's a Kennedy by marriage, of course. (As is Andrew Cuomo.)
posted by dhartung at 2:00 AM on October 17, 2002

the Roosevelt family's stranglehold on the office

"Stranglehold?" Oh, please, Steve; you make it sound like a single-minded cabal. The truth is the Roosevelt family was sprawling and its politics were multi-faceted - you know, like most families. Hell, Teddy's grandson Kermit was the CIA's point man behind the 1953 Iran coup (his London Times obit is must-reading).

According to this book excerpt posted at a Delano family site, only one of Teddy's 17 grandchildren ever showed serious interest in politics - and she gave a seconding speech for Nixon at the 1970 Republican convention. So did Franklin's youngest son, who'd also campaigned heavily for Eisenhower in 1952. Teddy's wife even complained publicly in 1936 that the New Deal was "incompatible with our American democracy and liberty."

Suggesting that a single-minded Roosevelt family ever had a "stranglehold" on the presidency is absurd.
posted by mediareport at 7:25 PM on October 17, 2002

mediareport, I guess you didn't see the big "sarcasm" flag I was waving... wasn't to be taken literally...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:56 PM on October 17, 2002

like a single-minded cabal

That has a nice ring to it...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:00 PM on October 17, 2002

I saw it in the first line, not the 2nd, sorry. Still, it gave me a chance to mention Kermit Roosevelt, so everything turned out fine. Kermit Roosevelt Kermit Roosevelt Kermit Roosevelt. I love that name!
posted by mediareport at 11:51 PM on October 17, 2002

« Older Attention all Peters, Parkers, or both:   |   Legato Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments