Posted on 04/06/2003 5:05:31 PM PDT by Dog Gone
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:30:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
After weeks of U.S.-led bombings and Iraqi-lit oil trenches and a decade of economic embargo decay, it may be hard to see Baghdad as the once-mighty, modern Arab capital that Saddam Hussein built.
U.S. troops now on the city's edge are likely to obliterate much of what is left of Baghdad's glory before they get to see it.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
A foray into socialism is usually paid for by taxes on the middle class. What is interesting in Iraq's case is the socialism was entirely paid for by fossil fuel. Why does socialism always fail, even in the unusual case when the tax rate is zero?
All I need is some venture capital to make zillions.
Because no one is that smart. And no one can move as fast as is required even in the days of modern comunications.
When everything is decided by a central govenment it is just too slow.
Let's say that you will need 100,000 tons of food to feed the country. (it's a small country) So you order that 100,000 tons of wheat be planted. Now the farmer get the order, looks at his field and says "He's got to be out of his mind, my land is no good for wheat." So, presuming that he can talk back to you without loosing his head. He sends back a message saying that he doesn't think that it is a good idea to plant wheat. What do you think about chickpeas?
By the time you have decided what to plant it will be harvest time. And then you are going to tell him what he can sell it for and where he can sell it and you are going to need lots of people to do this, so you have lots of people who aren't actually producing anything bossing around the people who are producing. And then the producers are going to get resentful and stop producing. And so you are going to have to get even more people, (This time with big guns) to make the producers produce and you are still not going to get much of anything planted but every one is still going to want to eat....
Saddam had his statues built because two of his heros, Stalin and Lenin, were fond of monuments to themselves and having their names attached to landmarks.
In the beginning, she describes Saddam's government is Stalinist - which is correct, though Saddam also borrowed heavily from the guy who ran the party of which his 'uncle' and mentor was also a member of : the Nazi Party.
Later, she describes Saddam's Ba'ath party as 'a homegrown Arab form of socialism.' No, it ISN'T except that there are more Muslims there.
Maybe it's just me, but the author really seems to be playing both sides of the fence here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.