Was The War in Iraq Necessary

[caesar]

They did not get UN resolution on the invasion of Iraq.

When they realized it would be vetoed they just went ahead and invaded Iraq.

[Liberal Krusty]

You are of course 100% right Caesar. They took existing resolutions that were designed to avoid military confrontation, and twisted them, stretced them, tore and reconstructed them into their own convoluted reasoning. And in this re-reasoning of the UN's strong will, they somehow justified this illeagal oil for blood theft of democracy in Iraq to the voting saps of the USA. It may have worked for the Pro War baby killers but tosensitive thinking people like you and I, they fooled nobody.

[Black Dog]

Whoever made up the rumour that the West exploits the Third World must be very pleased at how widely it has spread and how many people, such as yourself, blindly accept it without even bothering to perform a scrap of research to verify it. 5 minutes on the website of the US Census would dispel your illusions.

So I guess all those labels that say "Made in Indonesia" are just covers for the booming manufacturing business in Grosse Point, Michigan.

This is the sort of person who would seize power were the Coalition to pull out tomorrow. Sadr is suspected of the murder of some of his rivals and has collected and armed a rag-tag army to do his will. Clearly, this is not a man whose solemn vow is to hold free elections should he get power in Iraq.

You seem to view the rise of someone like al-Sadr to power as fait accompli, notwithstanding the highly factionalized nature of Iraqi society and the simple fact that Sadr does not speak for all Shiite's, let alone all Iraqis.

However, if we are to accept that theory, I think its worth asking how things got so bad as to make an imposed "caretaker" government backed by a foreign military force the only option. Clearly, this situation could have been avoided or at least mitigated with careful planning from the get go (again, this is assuming that the stated goals of the coalition are true).

Well, let's see about that. Buying weapons? Did you miss the German shipments of military equipment such as night-vision goggles? Sponsoring terrorists? Saddam himself went on Al-Jazeera and promised a large cash prize to the family of any successful suicide bomber who died killing Israelis. Looking to get WMD? Well, BlackDog, why would Saddam have WMD programmes if he had absolutely no interest in WMD?

Sponsoring terrorists means giving them the means to carry out terrorist actions. Saddam promoted terrorism with his payments, but that's hardly the same as "sponsoring" or enabling terrorists. When I hear sponsor, I think of the Saudi sponsored training camps and schools.

WMD: I'm sure, given the opportunity, Saddam would have pushed for WMD. However, he had neither the oportunity or the ability to do so.

Alright, BlackDog, I'll concede. Japan had embryonic, short-lived and clearly very weak democratic institutions.

Unfortunately for your argument, so did Iraq. In 1921 Prince Faisal was elected king with 96% of the vote, and in 1925 Iraq held her first parliamentary elections. In 1941, this admittedly weak democracy came to an end 9 years after Iraq was pronounced an independent kingdom and admitted to the League of Nations. Iraq broke the terms of her alliance with Britain and declared war upon her, and after a 4-week war the British occupied the country and ensured the formation of a pro-British government.

That's ridiculous, and certainly doesn't bolster your argument. When you actually look at the period in question, you'll see Iraq was plagued by the same , economic, ethnic, religious, and ideological conflicts that we see today, which overwhelmed the British-imposed structure. Thus, using Japan as an example of how to build a democracy in a country where ther eis none fails to take into accont those factors.

Also, that was more than 70 years ago, whereas Japan's short-lived democratic movement was almost certainly still fresh in the minds of the people charged with building the post-war democracy.

[Liberal Krusty]

However, if we are to accept that theory, I think its worth asking how things got so bad as to make an imposed "caretaker" government backed by a foreign military force the only option. Clearly, this situation could have been avoided or at least mitigated with careful planning from the get go (again, this is assuming that the stated goals of the coalition are true).

Got that right. You would think that the average Iraqi would have a complete political system in place in order to counter this US backed government. No, the US made sure that they didn't, just so they could steal their oil. Next, the USwill invade other countries like Iran and so on and forth. Maybe these countries will have a complete political system ready to take over the transfer of power so that the US cannot interfere once they have ousted the dictators and Clerics. I, like you Black Dog, know that there are groups that have popular backing from the people of each country simply waiting for UN to allow them to take power.

A question to those who support the US aggression. Why did the US not consult with these popular political parties prior to the invasion? Why did they not set them up as a transitional government?

Sponsoring terrorists means giving them the means to carry out terrorist actions. Saddam promoted terrorism with his payments, but that's hardly the same as "sponsoring" or enabling terrorists.

Black Dog, you are one of the few around here that I have seen that make sense. The Right cannot have it both ways. Either Saddam was supporting terrorists or else he was giving them aid with money and such. Unlike you, they have failed to make a connection. Saddam only gave money to terrorists and thereby was not aiding them.

WMD: I'm sure, given the opportunity, Saddam would have pushed for WMD. However, he had neither the oportunity or the ability to do so.

Absolutely. Saddam did not have WMD. So what if after the UN lifted sanctions and left the area would have resumed trying to accquire them? The US could simply mobilize troops again when the need arose. Like a cop in Toronto when faced with a stoned maniac with a knife. Don't shoot the guy when he lunges, wait until he actually strikes somebody. Then you have a case. It was all done so Cheny could make a few bucks off his Haliburton stock. And of course, so Bush could be like Hitler and own the world, thereby expanding his spread on his Crawford Texas Ranch. And steal Iraq's oil.

[Stoker]

Absolutely. Saddam did not have WMD. So what if after the UN lifted sanctions and left the area would have resumed trying to accquire them? The US could simply mobilize troops again when the need arose. Like a cop in Toronto when faced with a stoned maniac with a knife. Don't shoot the guy when he lunges, wait until he actually strikes somebody. Then you have a case. It was all done so Cheny could make a few bucks off his Haliburton stock. And of course, so Bush could be like Hitler and own the world, thereby expanding his spread on his Crawford Texas Ranch. And steal Iraq's oil.

*Straps on Tin-foil hat*

If the war was just about Oil......why didn't Bush allow drilling in the Alaskan game reserves?

If I was a "Machiavellian GOP President", I'd let my buddies drill in Alaska, in my fist term, well fighting "proxy wars" in the Sudan and Afghanistain to contiune the war on terror (Well keeping my approval rating). Only once I was relected I would invade Iraq.

Yet, it almost seems like Bush was willing to risk his job to go to war.....it's like........it's like there was or there was thought that there was an important reason to go to war......me wonder what that is

[Hugo]

So I guess all those labels that say "Made in Indonesia" are just covers for the booming manufacturing business in Grosse Point, Michigan.

The US imports 2,489 times as much goods from Canada as it does from Indonesia. Is Canada exploited by the US, Blackdog? Are Honda and Toyota exploiting the US by opening up manufacturing plants over there? It takes a lot of "made in Indonesia" t-shirts to cover the value of a single Honda Accord.

Most of the US trade with Indonesia is imports. That means that the US buys a lot more from Indonesia than it sells to them. According to your neo-Marxist theories, is it the buyer or the seller who is the exploiter in capitalist transactions? How many times have you heard people express remorse about how they exploited a car salesman by getting such a good deal on a new car?

Furthermore, in order to be exploiting somebody you need to be making their situation worse. US trade with the third world makes their situation better. Citizens of these countries queue up for jobs in new factories for a good reason: it offers a better life than living hand-to-mouth, subsistence farming and risking starvation on a daily basis.

You seem to view the rise of someone like al-Sadr to power as fait accompli, notwithstanding the highly factionalized nature of Iraqi society and the simple fact that Sadr does not speak for all Shiite's, let alone all Iraqis.

No, I do not. What I am saying is that were it not for the US occupation, Sadr's threat would be far greater. He agreed to a truce thanks to the threat of overwhelming US firepower. Had that threat not been there, he would have tried a coup over at least part of the country. It would have been bloody and a lot of Iraqis would have died. Even if Sadr failed, somebody like him would have eventually succeeded. It was only a rag-tag army, but even that beats no army at all.

When tyrants are allowed to run amok, their bloodshed is usually much more costly than the war that preceded them. Mao Zedong murdered far many more Chinese than died during the Civil War, and after Ho Chi Minh took over South Vietnam he butchered 1,300,000 Vietnamese, which made the 3,000 non-battlefield dead that can be attributed to US forces a mere trifle by comparison.

Saddam promoted terrorism with his payments, but that's hardly the same as "sponsoring" or enabling terrorists. When I hear sponsor, I think of the Saudi sponsored training camps and schools.

Have you heard of Salman Pak? It was a training camp in Iraq, funded and maintained by Saddam's regime, where Iraqis and non-Iraq Arabs received training in planting explosives, hijacking, assassination, biological warfare. Take a look.

WMD: I'm sure, given the opportunity, Saddam would have pushed for WMD. However, he had neither the oportunity or the ability to do so.

Rubbish. I could make WMD in my basement. Obviously I won't go into the details but suffice it to say it's well within the capabilities of a college biology or chemistry student to grow anthrax or produce chlorine or phosgene gas. These things can be hidden very well. Chemical weapons can be kept in tanks identical to the propane tank you fuel your barbecue with. Bioweapons are contained in test tubes.

Bearing in mind that Saddam keenly wanted to acquire WMD and allocated funds towards it, and the ease with which some of these weapons can be produced, I think it's a safe claim that Saddam was actively developing these weapons and probably had some somewhere. They are very small and Iraq is a very big country.

When it's claimed that Saddam had no WMD, I think what is meant is that he had no nuclear weapons and no long-range delivery systems. Only the most naive of leftists would claim that he had no WMD of any kind, as described by international law.

That's ridiculous, and certainly doesn't bolster your argument.

You said: "France Germany et all are flawed comparisons as all were industrialized nations with some established democratic institutions."

You did not say that said democratic institutions had to be fully working, strong, recent or anything like that. When I mentioned Japan you proudly brought out an example of a weak and extremely short-lived democratic heritage and stated that this was why it could not be compared to Iraq. I then showed you the same thing in Iraq, to which your answer is basically, "No, wait, when I said X I meant Y."

What you are basically doing is backpedalling wildly and trying to claim that your original contention had provisos that it never did. You were either wrong then, or you're wrong now.

[Black Dog]

The US imports 2,489 times as much goods from Canada as it does from Indonesia. Is Canada exploited by the US, Blackdog? Are Honda and Toyota exploiting the US by opening up manufacturing plants over there? It takes a lot of "made in Indonesia" t-shirts to cover the value of a single Honda Accord.

Oh brother. A perfect example of a reductio ad absurdum argument, as those the volume if imports tells the tale of how those goods were produced.

Certainly, capital has a global reach, but it is rooted in national markets (U.S., Japan, etc.). The "home market" is the "strategic base of operations" for capital, where the largest share of output is produced, where research and development is concentrated, and where control and ownership are centered. It's at this level where the trade you speak of occurs.

However, the third world continues to be western corporations' go-to source of cheap labor, markets, and low-cost raw materials. This is demonstrated by the increased flow of capital into third world nations (foreign investment in the Third World represents about 35 percent of total foreign investment). This has been facilitated by the removal of barriers to free trade and the closer integration of national economies.

Now, on paper, this would seem to be a good thing. In practice, however, it creates a system in which third world economies are structurally dependant on first world nations, thus making them subordinate.

Most of the US trade with Indonesia is imports. That means that the US buys a lot more from Indonesia than it sells to them. According to your neo-Marxist theories, is it the buyer or the seller who is the exploiter in capitalist transactions?

It depends. Trade relationships ar emore nuanced than the simple volume of goods. For instance: what form do these imports take?? If, as you state, trade transactions always benifit the seller, why is there stlil a disparity between the economy of Indonesia and other third world nations, and the west? By your logic, the third world, which, as I said, is the source of most of the labour and raw materials employed by western economies and tehir surrogates, the third world should have the west over a barrel.

The reality, global trade is far more complicated than your simple numbers would have us believe.

Citizens of these countries queue up for jobs in new factories for a good reason: it offers a better life than living hand-to-mouth, subsistence farming and risking starvation on a daily basis.

WTF? They "queue up" because the influx of foreign capital and the liberalized trade regulations that allow the factories to open up in the first place have the effect of destroying existing local economic structures, leaving citizens with few options.

No, I do not. What I am saying is that were it not for the US occupation, Sadr's threat would be far greater. He agreed to a truce thanks to the threat of overwhelming US firepower. Had that threat not been there, he would have tried a coup over at least part of the country. It would have been bloody and a lot of Iraqis would have died. Even if Sadr failed, somebody like him would have eventually succeeded. It was only a rag-tag army, but even that beats no army at all.

Such a simplistic analysis! Sadr's militia had the strategic advantage in that the U.S. could not afford to deploy "overwhelming firepower" to deal with them, which forced them to negotiate a cease fire, the terms of which were security duties in Najaf and Kufa are to be turned over to the Iraqi police, while the Mahdi Army is supposed to stop carrying arms publicly.

Further you're dealing in purely hypotheical scenarios: frankly the argument could be made that the only reason there is a Sadrist resistance is because there is an occupation to resist.

Have you heard of Salman Pak? It was a training camp in Iraq, funded and maintained by Saddam's regime, where Iraqis and non-Iraq Arabs received training in planting explosives, hijacking, assassination, biological warfare. Take a look.

I've heard of the facilitym, which was well-known to the intelligence community prior to the war as a former bio-chem weapons facility. Strangely, the only mention of this facility as a training camp camp in a Sept. 12, 2003 briefing taht you quoted from directly above.

However, since then, we've heard nothing from the Pentagon about something that would undoubtedly be construned as a possible "smoking gun" connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner's report "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" indicated that, following the war, the Pentgon offered "no compelling evidence" that such a site existed.

Rubbish. I could make WMD in my basement. Obviously I won't go into the details but suffice it to say it's well within the capabilities of a college biology or chemistry student to grow anthrax or produce chlorine or phosgene gas. These things can be hidden very well. Chemical weapons can be kept in tanks identical to the propane tank you fuel your barbecue with. Bioweapons are contained in test tubes.

No kidding?

But we're not talking about single test tubes. We're talking about,as Rumsfeld claimed on numerous occassions before the war "large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas".

Even if you consider that Iraq long ago lost the ability to make such materials, the means to create enough bulk weaponized material, as well as the delivery systems necessary, were out of their reach.

Now, no doubt you'll say that they could hand off one anthrax vial to terrorists. Apparently, so could you. So perhaps we should dispatch the 4th Armoured division to your rumpus room.

What you are basically doing is backpedalling wildly and trying to claim that your original contention had provisos that it never did. You were either wrong then, or you're wrong now.

It seems to me that you see that your case for drawing a comparison to contemporary Iraq and the post-war Axis powers is weak, sio you'r enitpicking on a single detail in hopes of undermining the entire argument. I'm not gonna get sucked in to your niggling.

[Hugo]

In practice, however, [foreign investment] creates a system in which third world economies are structurally dependant on first world nations, thus making them subordinate.

If foreign investment creates dependent economies, then Western Europe and Japan must be the most dependent economies in the world, completely subordinate to the US, for they have recieved the lion's share of all American investment this century.

Obviously, they are not.

They "queue up" because the influx of foreign capital and the liberalized trade regulations that allow the factories to open up in the first place have the effect of destroying existing local economic structures, leaving citizens with few options.

I'll shed no tears for the destruction of subsistence farming and a starvation-level existence. The people in these third-world countries are all growing richer. In India, average income since 1980 (the advent of globalisation) has grown at 5% per annum. That of rich countries grew at about 1.5% in the same period. I quote Dr. Surjit S. Bhalla in the New Delhi Business Standard.

So, if you believe that by improving the standard of living and increasing the incomes of people in the third world we are exploiting them, I invite you to explain to them why a return to grinding poverty and to abandon all hope for a better life for themselves and their children is in their best interests.

This is just neo-Marxist drivel, Blackdog. Marx held that the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer under capitalism, but history has shown that to be nonsense. Sadly, Marxists cannot admit they are wrong and the concept has shifted to the equally wrong-headed idea that rich countries get richer at the expense of poor countries who become poorer. Eventually, it will become common knowledge that this theory is absurd. The question for you, Blackdog, is whether you want to be ahead of the curve or not. Socialist theory is based upon economic superstition and ignorance. This is why you can't find any facts to support your ideas.

Such a simplistic analysis!

I've yet to see any convincing argument that an Iraq without any occupying forces would smoothly and quickly gravitate towards democracy.

It's my opinion that Baghdad might institute a democracy and would probably fight a long and bloody civil war against warlords and mullahs in outlying and ethnically different parts of the country. The existence of men such as Sadr is proof of this. For somebody who claims to cry a river over dead Iraqi civilians, you seem mighty keen for even more of them to be killed in a civil war that the West could prevent.

However, since then, we've heard nothing from the Pentagon about something that would undoubtedly be construned as a possible "smoking gun" connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

It might have escaped your attention, but Al-Queda is not the only terrorist group in the world. It's not even the only Islamic terrorist group. It's entirely possible that terrorists being trained at Salman Pak were for Saddam's use, as a means for him to strike at other countries beyond his borders without an overt show of military force that would doubtless bring the wrath of the UN down upon him.

Regardless, your contention that Saddam was not sponsoring terrorism has been proven false.

But we're not talking about single test tubes. We're talking about,as Rumsfeld claimed on numerous occassions before the war "large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas".

Good for Rumsfeld. It's irrelevant to this discussion. I said that Saddam was looking to get WMD, you said I was wrong. I contend that the existence of 36 known WMD development sites in Iraq proves you wrong, that if Saddam did not have any WMD he had a very, very strong interest in acquiring some.

It seems that your earlier statement of "wrong on all counts" was itself wrong on all counts. How amusing.

It seems to me that you see that your case for drawing a comparison to contemporary Iraq and the post-war Axis powers is weak, sio you'r enitpicking on a single detail in hopes of undermining the entire argument.

This is not a counter-argument.

[Black Dog]

If foreign investment creates dependent economies, then Western Europe and Japan must be the most dependent economies in the world, completely subordinate to the US, for they have recieved the lion's share of all American investment this century.

Foreign investment alone does not creat subordinate economies. The conditions by which third world economies are opened to foreign investment do. Look at the IMF's post-Kenysian "structural adjustments" in Latin America in the '80s as an example.

In India, average income since 1980 (the advent of globalisation) has grown at 5% per annum

Averages are grossly misleading, as globalization polices have a tendancy to further stratify class structures.

So, if you believe that by improving the standard of living and increasing the incomes of people in the third world we are exploiting them, I invite you to explain to them why a return to grinding poverty and to abandon all hope for a better life for themselves and their children is in their best interests.

There's no evidence globalization policies help the poor. Even those godless Marxists at the IMF say so:

Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence

The report shows there is no empirical evidence to suggest financial integration has a positive, significant effect on growth. The report doesn't address how these policies that damage vulnerable economies, raise poverty rates and damage the environment, but given the negligible gain to the poor and local economies, one wonders if its worth it.

As for your red-baiting: feh.

It's my opinion that Baghdad might institute a democracy and would probably fight a long and bloody civil war against warlords and mullahs in outlying and ethnically different parts of the country. The existence of men such as Sadr is proof of this. For somebody who claims to cry a river over dead Iraqi civilians, you seem mighty keen for even more of them to be killed in a civil war that the West could prevent.

Open your eyes: there is a civil war. The CPA has muddled through with no coherent plan for how to build a democracy in Iraq. The current government has no credibility with the people (more than half of which want the U.S. et al out immediately, regardless of the consequenses) and, if it wer enot for the 500,000 U.S. troops backing it, would fall in no time. So the scenario you've outlained is already being played out. Th eonly differnce is the occupation is presenting a target for the Iraqi factions that might otherwise turn against each other. So, the West is preventing no bloodshed, causing much of it.

It might have escaped your attention, but Al-Queda is not the only terrorist group in the world. It's not even the only Islamic terrorist group. It's entirely possible that terrorists being trained at Salman Pak were for Saddam's use, as a means for him to strike at other countries beyond his borders without an overt show of military force that would doubtless bring the wrath of the UN down upon him.

Regardless, your contention that Saddam was not sponsoring terrorism has been proven false.

Whatever, my point stands: there's no definitive proof Salman Pak was a terrorist camp. The source of those claims was two defectors from Iraqi intelligence, and tehy have not been substaniated.

(Otherwise, don't you think such a sensational claim would be blasted all over the headlines and every news channel?)

Good for Rumsfeld. It's irrelevant to this discussion. I said that Saddam was looking to get WMD, you said I was wrong. I contend that the existence of 36 known WMD development sites in Iraq proves you wrong, that if Saddam did not have any WMD he had a very, very strong interest in acquiring some.

It seems that your earlier statement of "wrong on all counts" was itself wrong on all counts. How amusing.

Well, Rumsfeld's comments are entirely relevant as they formed part of the main case for the war in the first place.

What development sites? That's a new one.

Again, nowhere did I contend Saddam had no interest in WMD. However, he simply lacked the means to do so.

Your selective interpretation of the facts doesn't make you any more correct.

[Hugo]

Averages are grossly misleading, as globalization polices have a tendancy to further stratify class structures.

I don't see any evidence of that. What I do see is that in developing countries where there is substantial foreign investment, the indices of income and standard of living (literacy, life expectancy) rise and those of poverty fall. You say these economic indicators are invalid, you don't say what indicators we should use instead and you don't say why every economist alive is wrong to use them.

Your counter-argument basically amounts to "No it isn't." The IMF information does not support your argument. It opines that integration may not be the key factor in growth but it does not state that integration creates poverty, exploitation and dependent economies as you claim. You still haven't posted any evidence of that.

Open your eyes: there is a civil war.

There would be a much worse one. By the standards of the rest of the 20th Century, what's happening in Iraq now is not even newsworthy.

Whatever, my point stands: there's no definitive proof Salman Pak was a terrorist camp.

There's two primary witnesses who say it was, and no definitive proof that it was not a terrorist camp. So I've shown you a training camp, and I've shown you Saddam's promises of money to terrorists. He was a sponsor of terrorism. End of story. Anything else is nothing but naivete and self-deception on your part.

You accuse others of blind faith in the US, but you give every benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein and want to believe the best of him in every circumstance. Have you absolutely no judgement of character whatsoever?

Again, nowhere did I contend Saddam had no interest in WMD.

Are you mad? I said that "Saddam was looking to get WMD." You said "Wrong on all counts." Those were your exact words in direct response to that claim. Now you're backpedalling and literally trying to eat your own words. What a mess you've gotten yourself into, again.

[Black Dog]

I don't see any evidence of that. What I do see is that in developing countries where there is substantial foreign investment, the indices of income and standard of living (literacy, life expectancy) rise and those of poverty fall. You say these economic indicators are invalid, you don't say what indicators we should use instead and you don't say why every economist alive is wrong to use them.

Globalization: threat or opportunity.

During the 20th century, global average per capita income rose strongly, but with considerable variation among countries. It is clear that the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. The most recent World Economic Outlook studies 42 countries (representing almost 90 percent of world population) for which data are available for the entire 20th century. It reaches the conclusion that output per capita has risen appreciably but that the distribution of income among countries has become more unequal than at the beginning of the century.

But incomes do not tell the whole story; broader measures of welfare that take account of social conditions show that poorer countries have made considerable progress. For instance, some low-income countries, e.g. Sri Lanka, have quite impressive social indicators. One recent paper2 finds that if countries are compared using the UN’s Human Development Indicators (HDI), which take education and life expectancy into account, then the picture that emerges is quite different from that suggested by the income data alone.

Indeed the gaps may have narrowed. A striking inference from the study is a contrast between what may be termed an "income gap" and an "HDI gap". The (inflation-adjusted) income levels of today’s poor countries are still well below those of the leading countries in 1870. And the gap in incomes has increased. But judged by their HDIs, today’s poor countries are well ahead of where the leading countries were in 1870. This is largely because medical advances and improved living standards have brought strong increases in life expectancy.

But even if the HDI gap has narrowed in the long-term, far too many people are losing ground. Life expectancy may have increased but the quality of life for many has not improved, with many still in abject poverty. And the spread of AIDS through Africa in the past decade is reducing life expectancy in many countries.

This has brought new urgency to policies specifically designed to alleviate poverty. Countries with a strong growth record, pursuing the right policies, can expect to see a sustained reduction in poverty, since recent evidence suggests that there exists at least a one-to-one correspondence between growth and poverty reduction. And if strongly pro-poor policies—for instance in well-targeted social expenditure—are pursued then there is a better chance that growth will be amplified into more rapid poverty reduction. This is one compelling reason for all economic policy makers, including the IMF, to pay heed more explicitly to the objective of poverty reduction.

As globalization has progressed, living conditions (particularly when measured by broader indicators of well being) have improved significantly in virtually all countries. However, the strongest gains have been made by the advanced countries and only some of the developing countries.

That the income gap between high-income and low-income countries has grown wider is a matter for concern. And the number of the world’s citizens in abject poverty is deeply disturbing. But it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that globalization has caused the divergence, or that nothing can be done to improve the situation. To the contrary: low-income countries have not been able to integrate with the global economy as quickly as others, partly because of their chosen policies and partly because of factors outside their control. No country, least of all the poorest, can afford to remain isolated from the world economy. Every country should seek to reduce poverty. The international community should endeavor—by strengthening the international financial system, through trade, and through aid—to help the poorest countries integrate into the world economy, grow more rapidly, and reduce poverty. That is the way to ensure all people in all countries have access to the benefits of globalization.

Of course, its natural for the IMF to conclude that what's needed is more of the economic policies that created the problems they cite and to duck blame for them. But they do acknowledge the fact taht a rising tide does not lift all boats.

There's two primary witnesses who say it was, and no definitive proof that it was not a terrorist camp.

1. How reliable are the witnesses?

2. You can't prove a negative.

You accuse others of blind faith in the US, but you give every benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein and want to believe the best of him in every circumstance. Have you absolutely no judgement of character whatsoever?

Anothe red herring. The old "oppossition to the war=support for Saddam" B.S. all over again. I don't need to trust Saddam to belive that he was disarmed, nor to question the claims that led to this conflict.

Are you mad? I said that "Saddam was looking to get WMD." You said "Wrong on all counts." Those were your exact words in direct response to that claim. Now you're backpedalling and literally trying to eat your own words. What a mess you've gotten yourself into, again.

Nice try, but if you look back, I stated (during my exchanges with KK) that I had no doubt Saddam, given the opportunity, pursued WMD development.

"Wrong on all counts" was my response to the allegation that Saddam had active WMD programs, which is, at best, unproven.

[Hugo]

During the 20th century

That's a farcical way to look at globalisation. Pre-1945, virtually all foreign investment and commerce with developing countries was colonialism. The phenomenon of globalisation has only been around for 25 years or so. Those first four words make your entire citation invalid, I'm afraid. Colonialism was deliberately crippling and exploitative and invariably accompanied by military force.

That is no longer with us. There are no Western troops in India, China or Mexico to enforce these deals, as was the case with the East India Company. There are no bans on manufacturing and processing in these foreign countries, as there were under colonial rule. There are no enforced monopolies or price fixing. You have compared apples to oranges, and used that comparison to denounce the orange.

You can't prove a negative.

You can, if you can prove that camp was something else.

I don't need to trust Saddam to belive that he was disarmed, nor to question the claims that led to this conflict.

That's not what you are doing. You have evidence that Saddam was developing WMD and training terrorists from multiple independent sources. You choose to ignore them all, to believe that Saddam was as pure as the driven snow and was attacked by the evil aggressor, George W. Bush. Either you are unbelievably gullible, or you have taken a cue from a quote of Winston Churchill's and decided that you hate President Bush so much that you will side with the very devil himself to try and discredit him.

Nice try, but if you look back, I stated (during my exchanges with KK) that I had no doubt Saddam, given the opportunity, pursued WMD development.

"Wrong on all counts" was my response to the allegation that Saddam had active WMD programs, which is, at best, unproven.

This is just funny. Let me refresh your memory. Here is the exact quote from an exchange between you and I, Krusty having nothing to do with it. My text is in italics, yours is not.

[saddam] happened to be buying weapons, sponsoring terrorists and looking to get WMD. A problem.

Wrong on all counts.

That is what you said. Now you say,

nowhere did I contend Saddam had no interest in WMD.

Nice try, indeed. You are floundering.

[Black Dog]

That's a farcical way to look at globalisation. Pre-1945, virtually all foreign investment and commerce with developing countries was colonialism. The phenomenon of globalisation has only been around for 25 years or so. Those first four words make your entire citation invalid, I'm afraid. Colonialism was deliberately crippling and exploitative and invariably accompanied by military force.

That is no longer with us. There are no Western troops in India, China or Mexico to enforce these deals, as was the case with the East India Company. There are no bans on manufacturing and processing in these foreign countries, as there were under colonial rule. There are no enforced monopolies or price fixing. You have compared apples to oranges, and used that comparison to denounce the orange.

As usual, nuance and critical thinking are lost on you. Your defense of globalization vis a vis cololialism is "If X and Y aren't identical, they are completely different", despite the many similarities between the two.

While globalization lacks the obviousness of colonialism, both involve economic domination of resources, labor, and often markets. The primary vehicle of colonialism, the nation-state, has been superseded in the globalized world by supranational corporations, which still rely on national governments to enforce the agenda of globalization, either tacitly through liberalized trade agreements, or, if necessary, by force (the recent western-backed coups (succesful and attempted) in Haiti and Venezuala are prime examples.)

As to the business practices on the ground, commodity dumping, selective adherence to trade policies ("free trade" agreements erect trade barriers as often as they remove them) and costly and anti-competitive forms of protectionism (patents, copyrights and other monopolies grouped under "intellectual property rights") are hallmarks of globalization.

Another striking similarity is the tendancy for defenders of both practices to legitimize or promote these systems, based on belief that the mores and practices of the powerful are superior to those of the undeveloped nations, and further, that the practices being imposed by the powerful are "for their own good".

You can, if you can prove that camp was something else.

Well, it was confirmed as a bio-weapons testing site and Feyadeen training facility. Anything else is, as I said, pure speculation.

(Further, I see Laurie Myrolie is a big proponent of the Salman Pak/islamic terrorist connection. That alone is almost enough to convince me it's a lie, as Myrolie is a kook.)

You have evidence that Saddam was developing WMD and training terrorists from multiple independent sources.

You're kidding, right? I went back over this entire thread and the only "evidence" you've posted was the single link to Salman Pak (which, again, if it was really the "smoking gun" connection you allege, would have been political gold for the Bush administration, which, curiously, did nothing with the "information"). So the "multiple, independant" sources you mention esxist purely in your mind.

The rest is ad hominem.

is is just funny. Let me refresh your memory. Here is the exact quote from an exchange between you and I, Krusty having nothing to do with it. My text is in italics, yours is not.

Upon further review, i was mistaken. My conversation with KK was in another thread, but here's what I told him:

Seeking (WMD) and having the capability to do so are two very different things. Look back a ways to Scott Ritter's description of how Iraq's WMD program was operating. Unlike you rpicture of a hyper focussed, ultra efficient WMD machine that was poised to swing into action the instant sanctions were lifted and the pressure was off, we instead see a corrupt, bloated, bureaucratic regime where scientists took money from Saddam for WMD work that was never done, filed false information and basically, lied to stay alive and to line their own pockets.

"Looking to get WMD" denotes and active, viable WMD program, which Iraq did not have. You're still wrong.

[Hugo]

As usual, nuance and critical thinking are lost on you.

If you say so. I think it's absurd that you have a hard time separating the East India Company from Exxon or GM. I notice that you still have absolutely no evidence of your allegations. Can I safely assume that you will never provide any?

As I said, there are massive differences between colonialism and globalisation. I'll repeat them again for you.

Colonialism requires troop deployments to quell native populations from the colonising country. Globalisation does not. China has been known to use her own troops but to protect the interests of the Communist Party, not Western investors. India, Mexico and so forth don't, nor do they allow foreign troops on their soil to enforce business interests.

Colonialism forbids manufacturing and processing in the colony. The colony is used as a source of raw materials, all manufacturing is done in the mother country to preserve their jobs and industry. Globalisation is the exact opposite: manufacturing is done in the developing country at the cost of jobs in the developed country.

Colonialism forces monopolies on trade. Colonial rulers forced native populations to sell to them at low prices with force or threat of it, they also imposed rules that imports to the colony come only from the mother country or another colony. There are no such rules in globalisation.

If you still believe that globalisation is bad, explain why Robert Mugabe went abroad begging Western corporations to set up shop in his country, and explain why Fidel Castro advised the Nicaraguans not to shut their doors to Western investment as he had.

Your argument has gone from "globalisation is the same as colonialism" to "globalisation is quite similar to colonialism." The correct answer is, "globalisation is not colonialism."

Well, it was confirmed as a bio-weapons testing site and Feyadeen training facility. Anything else is, as I said, pure speculation.

OK, so, we have it confirmed as a testing site for bio-weapons and a training camp for terrorist forces, in your own words, and yet you still claim that Saddam had no bioweapons and no interest in bioweapons and was not sponsoring terrorism.

What is the matter with you?

Further, I see Laurie Myrolie is a big proponent of the Salman Pak/islamic terrorist connection. That alone is almost enough to convince me it's a lie, as Myrolie is a kook.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

So the "multiple, independant" sources you mention esxist purely in your mind.

There are Iraqi intelligence officers, Iraqi scientists, satellite reconnaisance, failure of Saddam to disclose, sudden heavy traffic from Iraq into Syria in March 2003 (did Saddam pick that moment to triple his exports to Syria?). I think that reams of circumstantial evidence and multiple and independent eyewitness accounts are enough. Plenty of people have gotten convicted on less. The murder weapon you seek is almost certainly in Syria.

I think you need to use your intuition, Blackdog. You are like a lawyer who will get his client acquitted on a technicality even though everybody knows he is as guilty as sin.

"Looking to get WMD" denotes and active, viable WMD program, which Iraq did not have.

No, it doesn't. If I say I'm "looking to get a car" does that mean I'm building one now? Does it mean I'm even in the showroom trying to get finance? No, it just means that I'm interested and actively trying to acquire a car. It does not mean I have one or that I'll have one tomorrow.

Same with Saddam. You're playing word games to try and claim that what I said has a meaning that is not contained in either my words or my intent.

[KrustyKidd]

What is the matter with you?

He believes in something Hugo. And that belief is so strong that it distorts the proof in front of him. So much so that he ignores some things, amplifies others and also makes it hard for him to keep his stories straight. He takes the words in front of him and reads between the lines in ways that were not intended by the author to suit this belief. Because his case is so weak this is his only way to support it.

[Black Dog]

If you say so. I think it's absurd that you have a hard time separating the East India Company from Exxon or GM. I notice that you still have absolutely no evidence of your allegations. Can I safely assume that you will never provide any?

What's wrong with the WTO.

Oil companies complicit in human rights abuses in Sudan.

Bolivia's water war

Business rules.

Your argument has gone from "globalisation is the same as colonialism" to "globalisation is quite similar to colonialism." The correct answer is, "globalisation is not colonialism."

Never said that. Corporate driven globalization, as promoted by western governments and bodies like the WTO, shares many of the same goals and practices as colonialism.

OK, so, we have it confirmed as a testing site for bio-weapons and a training camp for terrorist forces, in your own words, and yet you still claim that Saddam had no bioweapons and no interest in bioweapons and was not sponsoring terrorism.

What is the matter with you?

What's the amtter with you that you continue to blur the facts and mis-represent my arguments to bolster your own?

The Feyadeen were the Iraqi military's special forces, not "terrorist forces". An the defectors? They were working for Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC). ANd we know how reliable thei rintelligence has been.

As for Salman Pak's use as a bioweapons research facility, this was uncovered in 1992 by UNSCOM inspections. No actual bioweapons were found to have been produced, and the facility was bombed several times, both during Desert Fox and the recent war.

Again: if Salman Pak was what you say it was, why didn't the administration make more of it?

In retrospect, therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that one of the most significant reasons that U.S. and British troops have not found nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons or proscribed missiles in Iraq is that, following the 1991 Gulf War, the bulk of these weapons and associated facilities were destroyed either by the United Nations or unilaterally by Iraq. Thus, significant quantities of proscribed weapons (nuclear, chemical, or missile) simply did not exist. On top of that, any attempt by Baghdad to regenerate its proscribed weapons programs was effectively inhibited by the package of other UN control measures in operation since 1991. These measures included a severe sanctions program initiated in 1991, the export/import monitoring mechanism that followed, the UN escrow funds into which all Iraqi oil sales revenue was directed, the strict management of those funds by the UN Office of the Iraq Program, the interdiction operations at sea undertaken under UN mandate, and a number of other control mechanisms. Although relatively unknown to the general public, these control mechanisms operated effectively throughout the decade of the 1990s. In combination, they served to prevent any significant reactivation of WMD programs on the part of Iraq

What happened to WMD?

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Very convincing.

Armchair Provocateur

There are Iraqi intelligence officers, Iraqi scientists, satellite reconnaisance, failure of Saddam to disclose, sudden heavy traffic from Iraq into Syria in March 2003 (did Saddam pick that moment to triple his exports to Syria?). I think that reams of circumstantial evidence and multiple and independent eyewitness accounts are enough. Plenty of people have gotten convicted on less. The murder weapon you seek is almost certainly in Syria.

So much "circumstantial evidence and multiple and independent eyewitness accounts" and you can't even bother with a link?

You're playing word games to try and claim that what I said has a meaning that is not contained in either my words or my intent.

The word "looking" is pretty open to interpretation. If you want to avoid being misinterpreted, then use more precise language.

He believes in something Hugo. And that belief is so strong that it distorts the proof in front of him. So much so that he ignores some things, amplifies others and also makes it hard for him to keep his stories straight. He takes the words in front of him and reads between the lines in ways that were not intended by the author to suit this belief. Because his case is so weak this is his only way to support it.

Pot, kettle, black.

[KrustyKidd]

Just enjoying the frantic repititious counter arguments of yours Black Dog. Like a caged squirel and it's repititious movements. GTG, see how you are when I get back in a couple days.

[Black Dog]

Just enjoying the frantic repititious counter arguments of yours Black Dog. Like a caged squirel and it's repititious movements. GTG, see how you are when I get back in a couple days.

My arguments are "repititious" because certain parties are too thick to acknowledge them. Enjoy your orgy of self-congratulation.

[Hugo]

What's wrong with the WTO.

This is an opinion column. It makes statements like "nearly all WTO decisions have gutted democratic restrictions on trade" but it mentions no examples of where this has happened. This column also assumes that you will find capitalism and trade intrinsically bad, if you have a knowledge of economics and know that they are not the obvious response to the allegations of this author is, "so what?"

Oil companies complicit in human rights abuses in Sudan.

This says "The report documents how the government has used the roads, bridges and airfields built by the oil companies as a means for it to launch attacks on civilians... Oil company executives turned a blind eye"

OK, so they watched somebody else abusing human rights and somebody else used their infrastructure to facilitate their abuse of human rights, and you believe that makes them culpable for these actions.

Next on your to-do list is to charge steak-knife manufacturers with one count of murder for every known stabbing victim.

Bolivia's water war

It says, "In April 2000 Bechtel was finally forced to leave." So a corporation did something that didn't jive with the market and ended up out of business in that country. Sounds like that problem took care of itself. Oh, and they filed a lawsuit which any judge is free to throw out should he want to.

Never said that... "globalisation is quite similar to colonialism."

You said "While globalization lacks the obviousness of colonialism, both involve economic domination of resources, labor, and often markets... Another striking similarity is the tendancy for defenders of both practices to legitimize or promote [certain] systems"

So you said that there were "striking similarities" between colonialism and globalisation, and that globalisation and colonialism shared a lot of aspects barring "obviousness" but not that they were "quite similar." Gotcha.

The Feyadeen were the Iraqi military's special forces, not "terrorist forces".

They're terrorists now. They are implicated in car bombings and so forth that have killed Iraqi civilians as well as US troops. Where did they learn terrorist techniques, Blackdog?

As for Salman Pak's use as a bioweapons research facility, this was uncovered in 1992 by UNSCOM inspections.

So it was documented as a bioweapons facility, but you still claim that Saddam had no interest in WMD and was not actively pursuing WMD.

So much "circumstantial evidence and multiple and independent eyewitness accounts" and you can't even bother with a link?

I gave you the global security link. It's very easy to navigate that site, you'll find all you need there. They also provide sources and original documents for you to verify what they say.

The word "looking" is pretty open to interpretation. If you want to avoid being misinterpreted, then use more precise language.

Oh, so now it's my fault that you're tripping over yourself?

I think the word "looking" is pretty clearly defined. In this context it means seeking, searching for etc. Certainly not producing or developing as you claim you thought I said.

[Black Dog]

OK, so they watched somebody else abusing human rights and somebody else used their infrastructure to facilitate their abuse of human rights, and you believe that makes them culpable for these actions.

Read on:

"Oil companies operating in Sudan were aware of the killing, bombing, and looting that took place in the south, all in the name of opening up the oilfields," said Rone. "These facts were repeatedly brought to their attention in public and private meetings, but they continued to operate and make a profit as the devastation went on

(emphasis mine)

The report also holds that oil production had been financing the Sudanese civil war. Statistics from the Sudanese government and the oil companies had shown how the major share (60 percent) of the US$ 580 million received in oil revenue by Sudan in 2001 was absorbed by its military, both for foreign weapons purchases and for the development of a domestic arms industry.

- The Sudanese government has used the oil money in conducting scorched-earth campaigns to drive hundreds of thousands of farmers and pastoralists from their homes atop the oil fields, said Ms Rone. "These civilians have not been compensated nor relocated peacefully-far from it.

- Instead, she continues, "government forces have looted their cattle and grain, and destroyed their homes and villages, killed and injured their relatives, and even prevented emergency relief agencies from bringing any assistance to them."

The crimes were committed by the government to aid the foreign oil companies' work. So yeah, that makes them complicit in the regime's crimes.

t says, "In April 2000 Bechtel was finally forced to leave." So a corporation did something that didn't jive with the market and ended up out of business in that country. Sounds like that problem took care of itself. Oh, and they filed a lawsuit which any judge is free to throw out should he want to.

Gee and it only took mass civil disobedience in the face of violent opposition by government forces for them to do it! The system works!

You said "While globalization lacks the obviousness of colonialism, both involve economic domination of resources, labor, and often markets... Another striking similarity is the tendancy for defenders of both practices to legitimize or promote [certain] systems"

So you said that there were "striking similarities" between colonialism and globalisation, and that globalisation and colonialism shared a lot of aspects barring "obviousness" but not that they were "quite similar." Gotcha.

No, oh-pedantic one. You claimed I said: "globalisation is the same as colonialism", which I never did.

It's not my fault you're incabable of non-linear thought.

They're terrorists now. They are implicated in car bombings and so forth that have killed Iraqi civilians as well as US troops. Where did they learn terrorist techniques, Blackdog?

Now whose backpedalling?

You originally alleged the Salman Pak was evidence that Saddam "sponsored terrorism" (that is to say, Saddam, in some way, enabled groups or organizations to engage in terrorist activities during his reign).

Now you're changing your argument to indicate that since, groups or organizations currently designated as "terrorists" trained at Salman Pak, ipso facto it's a terrorist training facility.

So it was documented as a bioweapons facility, but you still claim that Saddam had no interest in WMD and was not actively pursuing WMD.

Holy crap. Apparently, one has to spell everything out for you in big block letters, using short, simple terms.

Here it is: in nice, simple terms for Hugo:

-Iraq had an active chemical-bio weapons program prior to the first Gulf War.

-Following the war and subsequent inspections, 90-95 per cent of Iraq's WMD production capability was destroyed.

- There's no evidence to indicate Iraq had an active WMD program at the time of the 2003 invasion.

-What was found was, primarily, documents that would enable Iraq to reconstitute, at a future date, WMD capability, provided it had the time, resources, infrastructure and freedom from scrutiny to do so.

As to your "evidence" of Iraq hiding weapons in Syria: further exploration indicates a fair amount of division on the matter: some say it happened, while, apparently, officials at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) swept the allegations aside as lacking credibility.

So the jury is still out.

[Hugo]

Your examples of corporate abuse are interesting. Although I don't think the pictures are as clear as you make them out to be, these were instances of abuse and as with all things, abuses are inevitable due purely to human nature. Democracies have been known to make flawed choices and commit wrong or evil acts, however, that does not invalidate democracy or disqualify it from the position of best available mode of government.

Furthermore, your examples are not evidence of a global and general decline in standard of living due to globalisation. You still have that to prove.

What I have said is that globalisation is beneficial to third world countries as a whole. You have taken four incidents to prove that it isn't. That is not good enough. I would need statistics of declining standards of living from a majority of third-world countries to accept what you are saying.

No, oh-pedantic one. You claimed I said: "globalisation is the same as colonialism", which I never did.

First you tried to tell me that evidence throughout the 20th Century proves that globalisation is wrong. That is like saying that historical evidence from Russia in the entire 20th Century, averaged out, proves how evil the current regime of Vladimir Putin is. Invalid. That's your claim that globalisation = colonialism, as surely as the claim in my example means you'd believe stalinism = Russian republic.

Then you said - and I've already quoted this to you -

"While globalization lacks the obviousness of colonialism, both involve economic domination of resources, labor, and often markets... Another striking similarity is the tendancy for defenders of both practices to legitimize or promote [certain] systems"

You see how you have changed your ideas? Your first argument was ridiculous and you know it, but rather than recant you chose to try and twist your way out of it by claiming you said other than you did.

Now you're changing your argument to indicate that since, groups or organizations currently designated as "terrorists" trained at Salman Pak, ipso facto it's a terrorist training facility.

My evidence thus far is that Saddam promised large cash prizes to successful terrorists, that according to Iraqi defectors Saddam operated a terrorist training camp for Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs, and that "special forces" soldiers who came out of that camp seem to have a great deal more terrorist training than any other special forces soldiers would or should.

Here it is: in nice, simple terms for Hugo:

And here it is in nice simple terms for you:

You claimed X. Then you said you actually claimed Y. Now you are claiming Z.

First you said that Saddam had no interest in WMD. Then you said you meant that Saddam was interested in WMD but just couldn't build them. Now you say that Iraq in fact retained 5-10% of her WMD production capability and plenty of documents that they intended to resume said production as soon as possible.

[Black Dog]

First you tried to tell me that evidence throughout the 20th Century proves that globalisation is wrong.

I was racking my memory trying to find out where you got the quote "during the 20th century". Then I see it was from the IMF report I linked to earlier.

You're mis-attributing statements to me that I did not make, but came from sources I merely offered up for information.

So, I haven't changed my argument at all. You just don't know how to read.

As for colonialism, the first person to mentuon it was you, who pulled the "globalisation=colonialism" argument from thin air, then claimed I said it.

Since it's becoming clear that you will stoop to any depth to avoid acknowledging any of my points (including fabricating statements I did no make) or discussing the actual substance of the issues at hand (you're argument thus far has consisted mostly of weasely attempts to catch me in rhetorical traps of your own creation) I don't see the point in continuing.

[Hugo]

You're mis-attributing statements to me that I did not make, but came from sources I merely offered up for information.

Then why would you offer a source that is not only wrong, but contradicts the very point you want to make? You have done a better job discrediting yourself than I ever could.

I don't see the point in continuing.

Why don't you go and think about what the actual points you want to make are, get them clear in your head, find some evidence, and then there would be a point in continuing.

[cgarrett]

black dog... you rock!

talk about good research! its too bad that some people have made up their minds that the earth is flat!

if i may add... globalization is simply a device to subvert democracy! it places unheard of powers into the hands of corporations whose operations are not transparent to view by citizens who are affected by their activities.

canadians are now being sued by two huge american corporations under the free trade agreement.

sun belt water: US$1.5 to $10.5 billion

united parcel service: C$230 million

because we decided democratically to, for example, not allow the export of water but under nafta we don't necessarily get to decide what we want!

[caesar]

Canada get sued for not selling our resources but the USA completely ignores NAFTA rulings on softwood lumber.

I say we opt out of the free trade agreement with the USA which uses strong armed tactics to get what it wants and ignores rulings against the USA