Saddam's son Uday was poised to topple dad : controversial US journalist

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&u=/afp/iraqusudaycoup&printer=1

The eldest son of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was plotting to overthrow his father just as US troops advanced on Baghdad in March 2003, journalist Peter Arnett claimed in Playboy Magazine.

Uday Hussein, known for his ruthlessness and flashy lifestyle, had won the support of the leadership of his father's Fedayeen militia to overthrow Saddam's 35-year rule, according to an advance copy of the April edition of Playboy obtained by AFP.

The controversial reporter, who was fired by the US NBC television network in 2003 after suggesting that the US war plan in Iraq had failed, made the claim following an 18-month investigation in which he says he gained access to Uday Hussein's inner circle.

The article cited a letter from Saddam Fedayeen commander General Maki Humudat, dated March 26, 2003, in which he swore allegiance to a new Iraqi government under the control of Fedayeen chief Uday Hussein.

"According to your direction and command to form a new government under the leadership of your Excellency (Uday), we have informed all the senior officers of the Saddam Fedayeen of your desire to appoint them as your candidates for office in your government," the letter said.

Oh, the irony.

have found out about and use if we hadn't been so busy looking for WMD.

Wouldn't one? :eyes:

Uday was a piece of work in his own right.

didn't want it to happen, Saddam wasn't the reason he had us go in, the Euro was....

Well that and oil. Had to liberate the oil and free the Iraqi people from the Euro.

are both gone. They destabilized the whole area. May the USA learn to never, ever use strong men again!!

One of the few things one can say about Hussein in the positive is he did what no one else has ever managed to do; he stabilized the area. Which is one of the leading reasons the vast majority of the world opposed bush's illegal invasion & occupation of Iraq. WE have now destabilized the whole area.

Meanwhile, bushCartel are pushing for their car-bombing terrorist summary executioner puoppet Allawi for Iraq's government.

No, the US didn't learn a damn thing. And as the US has financed and supported every rightwingnut thug & dictator on the planet since WWII, it's doubtful the US will learn any time soon.

and before his megalomania really took off and he gassed the Kurds he did modernize Iraq and make a middle class. Unlike the Saudi -he shared some of his Oil wealth by building up things for the people and a middle class erupted. That being said he had billions at his disposal to do this in the 1980s. He also started a war with Iran (at the pleasure of USA angry that the Shaw got booted out and AM hostages taken as a result of American interference in Iran). That is bad Saddam also tortured & murdered his way around the place. He drained the swamps (homeland of huge number of farmers) to get them back for having sympathies with Iran (they were of the same religious sept as the Iranians). And if you destroy the farms of a million you do a great disserve to your country. A decade later millions of Iraqis were starving. He also gassed the Kurds and tortured people.

The story is not that Saddam was a good egg. The story is that he was Bush Sr., Reagan, Cheney's & Rumsfield's egg in the 1980s when his sociopathy suited their imperial oil needs... and that Saddam ended up 1)starving his people so he could keep power after 1990 2) supporting terrorism all around Israel with petrodollars. Saddam pretty much made everyone near him pay with their lives and that includes Israel, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc. etc. Saddam is probably directly responsible for the death of a million people (I do not know the exact numbers for the Iran/Iraq war).

Saddam Hussein of course wanted to impress his USA friends in the 1980s with his ability to mirror them by building an Iraq that looked sturdy & secular... but it was just to impress (and control) the USA while he gained wealth & entrenched power.

He was a bad boy - willing to start a War at the drop of a hat. But he was their boy in the 1980s. So the reason why he needed to be taken out was to "undo" all that Saddam had done in terms of funding terrorism between Israel & Palestine (and break up the peace process) in the 1990s. All those murders & gassings & war starting & swamp draining & peace stopping & people starving under sanctions.

To say that psychopaths should never be in power does not put us in the same boat at the neocons or the Bush WH. The people in power & calling the shots today realized they made a horrid mistake in promoting Saddam Hussein and had to undo it - or be labeled in history as the group of Americans who pretty much made the Middle East a place of fundamentalist Islamist & unstable - forever.

The reason why is because USA & imperial policy had started the Islamist reaction in Iran. The pendulum swings back when you deal for oil through some rich class because they give you the best deal. Money doesn't improve the lives of the people and they get mad. The Iranians are a different kind of Islam than all the rest so their kind of fundamentalist revolution didn't spread. But Islamist Arabs did get a toe-hold in Afghanistan and through bin Laden (& the USA) that was a place where the Arab dream of creating and Arab Islamist state from the Mediterranean sea to the India Ocean got some traction. And money. Israel not getting final peace with Palestine played into this nurturing of fundamentalist Arab Islamists.

One could say that all the 'games USA' had played in the Middle East in the 1980s & before resulted in a situation in the 1990s where Islamist Fundamentalists were growing, using hate of the USA and no peace deal for Palestine as the tools for growth, and that Saddam Hussein was funding people who would stop the peace in Israel at all cost. And the money needed to be turned off. How do you get rid of billions of Petrodollars that go to funding terrorism that keeps peace from breaking out and grows Islamist fundamentalists in numbers? You force everyone into the democracies many of the people have been begging for, but that you the USA has 'discouraged' ore the years (fewer petrodollars for Big Oil when you cannot deal directly with a rich strongman or Shaw - USA used to just cut the people out of the transaction to make money). With everyone in democracies in the Middle East and Oil Wealth actually being shared, the money that funds fundamentalist teachings, terrorism, and the stopping of the peace process in Palestine goes to schools, health, food and better lives for people. The money is out of your enemies hands because there is not excess bundles of it floating around.

So Saddam Hussein was evil and really - someone that sick should never be allowed by the world community to get into power. But this whole Iraq thing is about USA turning 'all taps' off on Oil Dollars and turning the 'taps of democracy' AKA starving fundamentalists & terrorists of money - turning those taps of money directed at people on.

And because the USA marched into the Middle East and fought a War or two with much fanfare & shock & awe - it may look to 'the world' like the USA set Democracy in motion. In actual fact... the USA just really stopped putting Oil riches ahead of democracy and backing strongmen instead of true democracies. But to make it look like a big War - with USA & democracy winning on one side and Islamist fundies loosing on the other side - is an important "idea" for the whole world to accept.

And while we agree on some points, we will continue to disagree on many.

:)

Whoever we leave behind will be a puppet.

What am I saying? There's no plan to leave either Iraq or Afghanistan "behind"--we'll keep military forces in both areas indefinitely. A weak puppet will do our bidding. A strong one might decide to kick us out. (Leading to another overthrow as the cycle continues...)

It's been quite some time since I've seen Peter Arnett. I was very disappointed when NBC discharged him.