Saddam offered to go into exile 1 month before Iraq war

[Insurgent]

RD,

You are growing on me...

I concur, EthanAllen  You're ok with me, RattyDog!

[J’raxis 270145]

You believe what you read in our press about Chavez?

No, that's what I meant—all the mainstream press vilify Chávez. That his opponents are the Venezuelan oil companies and big media companies (both foreign owned, by the U.S. and Europeans), is why I believe very little of what's reported on him.

Actually our corporations are working for him --- Rudy Giuliani's for one. :-)

Guiliani's law firm? That doesn't preclude other companies from being on the other side, although I am surprised they haven't been able to buy sanctions or an embargo or somesuch, and force Guiliani's company to stop supporting Chávez.

[CNHT]

You believe what you read in our press about Chavez?

No, that's what I meant—all the mainstream press vilify Chávez. That his opponents are the Venezuelan oil companies and big media companies (both foreign owned, by the U.S. and Europeans), is why I believe very little of what's reported on him.

Actually our corporations are working for him --- Rudy Giuliani's for one. :-)

Guiliani's law firm? That doesn't preclude other companies from being on the other side, although I am surprised they haven't been able to buy sanctions or an embargo or somesuch, and force Guiliani's company to stop supporting Chávez.

I think they praise him -- after all -- they are all working for the same thing...aren't they?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Aren't they all?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Maybe some human beings. Seems to be a common denominator of government types

[mvpel]

The reason we invaded Iraq was because we were told there was "proof" that they had obtained WMD.

You must not have read the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq if you think that the various WMD that have been found in Iraq were the sole reason for invading.

And the victims of Halabja bear witness to the fact that Iraq had obtained WMD, and the victims of the undeclared in-flight-mixing sarin IED a couple of years ago bear witness to the fact that they still had them.

I agree that income and wealth in dictatorships is usually concentrated at the top.  But take a step back . . . where is all the wealth in the U.S. concentrated?  90% of American wealth is held by 10% of the population.

The difference is, as you should know as a participant in a board which advocates free markets, individual liberty, and personal responsibility, the concentration of wealth in the US is principally as a result of innovation and market success, whereas in a dictatorship it is principally a result of initiation of force, brutality, corruption, and intimidation.

That's not to say that there's no such thing as corruption in the US, but it's nowhere near comparable to that in a dictatorship.

It's rather hard to believe that you think the two situations are comparable.  Are you a closet Marxist?

[CNHT]

I agree that income and wealth in dictatorships is usually concentrated at the top.  But take a step back . . . where is all the wealth in the U.S. concentrated?  90% of American wealth is held by 10% of the population.

The difference is, as you should know as a participant in a board which advocates free markets, individual liberty, and personal responsibility, the concentration of wealth in the US is principally as a result of innovation and market success, whereas in a dictatorship it is principally a result of initiation of force, brutality, corruption, and intimidation.

That's not to say that there's no such thing as corruption in the US, but it's nowhere near comparable to that in a dictatorship.

It's rather hard to believe that you think the two situations are comparable.  Are you a closet Marxist?

Yeah I was thinking the same thing! Killing and stealing is wrong, but a certain amount of greed in the form of motivation is not all that bad and may even be a necessary ingredient to be successful in the struggle to survive in the world. There is too much class warfare and envy...which leads to just such problems as war.

The policy for regime change (ala Kerry's words) was determined 1996 or earlier...it's not one person's war.

Like Ron says, we're invading over there while being invaded over here. Has to make you wonder...

[Lloyd Danforth]

That's not to say that there's no such thing as corruption in the US, but it's nowhere near comparable to that in a dictatorship.

1. How much is acceptable?  I'm guessing that you don't consider lucrative contracts supplying the defense department and rebuilding the damage they have done in Iraq corruption.

2. I'm pretty sure that most of the wealth in this country is not the result of corporate wellfare or other forms of corruption.

[Raineyrocks]

You go RattyDog!  I've got goosebumps reading your posts and feel the same way about the war on Iraq as you do!  I couldn't have written it any better!
I cry when I look at my kids and all they have while there are children in Iraq laying somewhere with their little legs blown off just because this freaking government had to invade Iraq.  I was at an anti-war protest before the war even started and this old guy came up to me with such a nasty look on his face and said, "Yeah, it's easy for you to stand here now, what will you do when "they", (meaning the Iraqi's I'm sure), come over here and kill all of us?"   In that case I guess I should kill my dog in case he's ever going to bite me, kill my family in case they are going to do something wrong to me, hell I guess I should get rid of everybody.   How paranoid and needless was this man's statement?

As far as the picture mvpel has pasted it is very bothersome as for the question of who should have protected him, my answer is his fellow countrymen.  Why are there millions, billions, of people living in countries with such cruel oppression that are not banding together to take the scums in charge down?  Why in America are people being terrorized by the police with tasers, allowing their rights to be violated, allowing the shit head to call himself "the decider", allowing torture of the "detainees"?  The answer is simple there is not a massive uprising and there should be!  I'm not talking about a violent uprising unless need be but let's take Ukraine for example, when there was voter fraud, the Ukrainians protested until the problem was corrected. http://www.skrobach.com/protest.htm 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Ukraine-protest-gathers-critical-mass/2004/11/23/1100972400435.html
http://bangladesh.craigslist.org/pol/403547671.html

[EthanAllen]

The difference is, as you should know as a participant in a board which advocates free markets, individual liberty, and personal responsibility, the concentration of wealth in the US is principally as a result of innovation and market success, whereas in a dictatorship it is principally a result of initiation of force, brutality, corruption, and intimidation.

That is what they want you to believe. Free markets are inherently unstable because the price of goods gets driven to cost with competition and no barriers to entry. So the owners of capital ask and get privileges to protect their profits.

Corporations themselves are set-up under privilege, must innovation relies on intellectual property laws, business does everything it can to protect their interests by subverting the so-called "free" market. This is a Rothbardian analysis.

[J’raxis 270145]

The reason we invaded Iraq was because we were told there was "proof" that they had obtained WMD.

You must not have read the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq if you think that the various WMD that have been found in Iraq were the sole reason for invading.

And the victims of Halabja bear witness to the fact that Iraq had obtained WMD, and the victims of the undeclared in-flight-mixing sarin IED a couple of years ago bear witness to the fact that they still had them.

The war was sold to Americans on the basis of the WMD claims. I remember a big turning point in support of the war was this idiotic speech by Condolleezza Rice about we must act before the WMD allegations are proven by a mushroom cloud over an American city.

You are correct that it was not the "sole" reason for invading, but the resolution was overwhelmingly about the WMDs Saddam allegedly possessed, and attendant concerns about national security, the U.S.' own interests, and how he's assisting terrorists. Of the twenty-three clauses in the resolution, there is only one about Saddam's civilian repression, and one about supporting democracy.

No one is questioning that Iraq had WMDs—at some point. The United States sold him gas to be used against Iran in the early 1980s. The allegations were that he didn't destroy the WMDs persuant to various agreements and U.N. resolutions after the 1991 invasion. As for that sarin IED: Please tell me you're conclusion that Saddam really still possessed WMDs recently isn't based on this IED incident...

[alohamonkey]

As for that sarin IED: Please tell me you're conclusion that Saddam really still possessed WMDs recently isn't based on this IED incident...

I'm pretty sure that's what he is referencing.

[alohamonkey]

The reason we invaded Iraq was because we were told there was "proof" that they had obtained WMD.

You must not have read the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq if you think that the various WMD that have been found in Iraq were the sole reason for invading.

And the victims of Halabja bear witness to the fact that Iraq had obtained WMD, and the victims of the undeclared in-flight-mixing sarin IED a couple of years ago bear witness to the fact that they still had them.

The war was sold on the presence of WMD in Iraq.  We were led into war based on the "clear and present danger" that Saddam and his regime were to the American people.  The Iraq war was trumpeted as necessary to preserve our national security.  It wasn't until we realized that there weren't any significant amounts of WMD that we started saying that another reason for the invasion/occupation was about humanitarian causes.  If you feel so strongly that WMD weren't the main reason for invading Iraq, please provide links to news clips or reports prior to the invasion showing that we went in for humanitarian causes.  For every one you provide, I will provide at least 10 showing that we went in because Saddam and an Iraqi regime with WMD were a threat to our national security. 

I agree that income and wealth in dictatorships is usually concentrated at the top.  But take a step back . . . where is all the wealth in the U.S. concentrated?  90% of American wealth is held by 10% of the population.

The difference is, as you should know as a participant in a board which advocates free markets, individual liberty, and personal responsibility, the concentration of wealth in the US is principally as a result of innovation and market success, whereas in a dictatorship it is principally a result of initiation of force, brutality, corruption, and intimidation.

That's not to say that there's no such thing as corruption in the US, but it's nowhere near comparable to that in a dictatorship.

It's rather hard to believe that you think the two situations are comparable.  Are you a closet Marxist?

I never mentioned anything about how people accumulate wealth.  I responded to someone's statement saying that, in dictatorships, wealth is concentrated at the top.  Wealth is concentrated at the top in the U.S. too.  That's simply what I was saying.  Nothing more . . . nothing less.  If you disagree with my statement, please provide me with verifiable data that proves that the majority of the wealth in the U.S. is NOT concentrated at the top.  Then we might have something to discuss.

Your attempt to paint me as a Marxist is rather pathetic and humorous.  Actually, I bet you watch Faux News alot because you utilize a lot of the same tactics.  Twisting something that someone says to put words into their mouth and then attacking them . . . it's an interesting tactic but it is very transparent. 

[alohamonkey]

That's not to say that there's no such thing as corruption in the US

This movie, Iraq for Sale, displays a lot of corruption and war profiteering that is currently occurring in Iraq.  Actually, it's where most of my tax dollars are going . . . it makes me sick. 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&q=iraq+for+sale&total=367&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

But going back to the original post . . . if this article is accurate, I definitely think we could have saved many people's lives by ushering Saddam out of power.  We also could have saved international relations with many countries.  Even if we were the only ones to shoulder the financial burden, we would also have saved a lot of money:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/09/28/2003380785
Gates seeks more money for Iraq, Afghanistan wars

AFP, WASHINGTON
Friday, Sep 28, 2007, Page 7
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has asked Congress for nearly US$190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, the biggest funding request yet in the six-year-old "war on terror."

[mvpel]

EthanAllen - One of the proper roles of government is to protect individuals from initiation of force, and theft of someone's ideas and the profit they could make from them is as much an initiation of force as theft of something tangible.

Are you saying that it's wrong that most innovation relies on intellectual property laws?  What would be the point of coming up with anything at all if someone more powerful than you could just steal your future profit from you at will?

As for the WMD - I think I also posted a link to a Defense Department report discussing around 500 WMD finds in Iraq.  If a few have been discovered to have been incorrect, there's still hundreds of others.

And that aside, they're still finding still-dangerous chemical weapons in France, some 80 years after WW-I, and it's only about 50% more land area than Iraq, and most of it is much more amenable to human habitation than Iraq's, where several climate stations have recorded temperatures of 120 degrees.



What else is hidden under the trackless sands of western Iraq?

And that aside as well, the fact is that Iraq, as a condition of the armistice following their aggression against Kuwait, agreed to account for and dismantle all WMD programs.  They instead engaged in a decade-long program of obstruction, deception, misdirection, and obfuscation as was documented in detail by the UN inspectors in Iraq.  For example, 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas were declared by Iraq, but they were never found by the inspectors - Saddam's regime claimed they were "lost."

Saddam's regime continued development of missile systems under sanctions, and the development pace quickened with the help of the Oil-for-Food money, according to the Duelfer report, violating the limits placed on them in the terms of the armistice.  The regime showed every intention of resuming their development of chemical, nuclear, and biological weaponry once the sanctions collapsed.

Kennedy learned, when faced with Soviet nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida, that if you wait until a threat is imminent, it's too late.  I think that's what Rice was getting at.