Is History Over?

[rjaypeters]

Fukuyama was right: history is over.

I disagree. Just like stocks have reached a permanently high level? Real estate values will never decline?

More like: Communism isn't coming back. Neither is the Ottoman Empire. Those aren't trends that are going to reverse.

I won't say war is dead. A limited conflict over the status of Taiwan is still possible (though increasingly unlikely), Russia gets possessive over its former satellites, and there are enough crazy Muslims who want to bring back the Caliphate to cause a lot of trouble across the Mideast, some already with various degress of state control.

But there's a dynamic over the whole of human history that Ray Kurzweil has identified pretty convincingly: productivity gains are cumulative, exponential, and pervasive. Rich liberal societies go to war only very reluctantly, and all societies are continuing to become richer and more liberal because of productivity gains. The next 20 years should see conflict in most of Asia become as unthinkable as a major state war in Western Europe or North America is today.

You had better believe war will continue. Rich liberal societies go to war only very reluctantly? I would like to agree. In the case of the USA v. Afghanistan, the provocation was extreme or non-existent depending on perspective (the Taliban harbored the terrorists or Al-Qaeda was responsible-not the people of Afghanistan). USA v. Iraq? Much less provocation of the USA, and still my country invaded Iraq (over my strenuous objections).

But let's talk about history. At the same time we are seeing Mr. Kurzweil's productivity gains, we are also seeing the concentration of the wealth resulting those gains in the hands of fewer people. In my own country, we see the development of a ruling class. These last two items alone are enough to cause the USA to become more aggressive against the rest of the world.

Let's add the "peaceful rise" of China which is ruled by an oppressive, post-communist ruling class which has no legitimacy from ideology. But the post-communist party does have power and we have not seen the limit to what it will do to remain in power.

I hope the USA and China will not go to war, but there are and will be competitions which will not be purely bi-polar. The Russians may get their act together. India will not merely watch while China does whatever it is going to do. History is not over.

[TallDave]

At the same time we are seeing Mr. Kurzweil's productivity gains, we are also seeing the concentration of the wealth resulting those gains in the hands of fewer people...we see the development of a ruling class

Not really, most of the richest people today started out pretty humbly -- Sam Walton was the manager of a five-and-dime, Jobs started in a garage as did Gates, that billionaire Graeme in NZ was a tow truck driver...

Wealth is becoming more concentrated mostly because markets are getting bigger. If the market for a product is one million people, and I build something everyone wants with a profit margin of a dollar, I can make a million dollars. If my market is 100 million people, I can make $100M. This is a function of globalization, technology, income growth, and population growth. That probably explains quite a bit of the growth in income disparity at the high end.

This is why Sergey Brin is a billionaire -- he built something (Google) that maybe a couple billion people use on a daily basis. That would have been impossible without the Internet, globalization, and the fact there are now 6 billion people around. The same logic applies to the markets for other specialized skills -- athletes, entertainers, CEOs, financial traders.

Of course, the rich are generally enriching everyone else's lives as well, in ways subtle or obvious, because consensual exchange generally leads to gains for both parties. That's why you get paid in dollars, so you have a medium with which to efficiently exchange the fruits of your work for the fruits of other people's work. To get rich in a free market economy, you must (almost by definition) offer society valuable exchanges. People shop at WalMart because Sam Walton devised ways to deliver them more value for their dollar.

There is of course a mechanism by which the rich can change the rules to ensure they stay rich, as the rich have tried to do since time immemorial, and its name is government. Europe has had this problem for a while -- most of the biggest companies in Europe today are the same ones as 50 years ago.

Anyways, Iraq was initially invaded in 1991 in response to their invasion of Kuwait after a vote that passed by a very slim margin in the U.S. Congress. The next 12 years saw ongoing provocations by the hideously repressive Hussein regime, including firing on U.S. troops on a weekly basis and a general refusal to abide by the terms of the cease-fire. Given the relative military strength of the two countries, such reticence to resume hostilities on the part of the USA is historically unusual. It wasn't until 2003 that the American public decided it was a threat we should deal with, for the sake of Iraqis (who are far better off today) as well as ourselves.

[krenshala]

If I remember correctly* Kuwait officially asked for defensive military support from the US (or was it the UN?) when Iraq invaded.


* I had only been in the USAF about 18 months at the time, and I've slept since then, so I might be mis-remembering. At the time I had the chance to climb in after the first C-5 load of cargo to unloading it all at Prince Sultan AB, Saudi ... I chose to continue loading C-5s at Langley AFB instead; 14 days of 14 hour shifts before my team got rotated off for a break (I think I slept for 10 hours straight each night, and for 15 hours the first day I had 'off'). That was a LOT of C-5s, usually 5 to 8 at a time on the flightline getting loaded simultaneously.

I did 4 mo in Kuwait in '99, mostly a quiet stay keeping the base network up so folks could surf the 'net and infect all my PCs with ginormous numbers of viruses.

[rjaypeters]

USA v. Iraq? Much less provocation of the USA, and still my country invaded Iraq (over my strenuous objections).

Sorry. I forgot about USA v. Iraq I; that was some provocation! I meant USA v. Iraq II where Saddam Hussein was cornered and could only torment the people of Iraq.

At the same time we are seeing Mr. Kurzweil's productivity gains, we are also seeing the concentration of the wealth resulting those gains in the hands of fewer people.

Please see here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026

The United States of Inequality: Introducing the Great Divergence By Timothy Noah, Posted Friday, Sept. 3, 2010, at 3:06 PM ET

Relevant quotes: In 1915 "King was somewhat troubled to find that the richest 1 percent possessed about 15 percent of the nation's income. (A more authoritative subsequent calculation puts the figure slightly higher, at about 18 percent.)" and "Today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income."

I gratefully acknowledge the contributions the people you mention have made to our lives. We are richer because of their work. I, however, am talking about the concentration of wealth. Bad during the Gilded Age, worse now. In the Gilded Age, the US only had robber barons, whom do we have today?

There is of course a mechanism by which the rich can change the rules to ensure they stay rich, as the rich have tried to do since time immemorial, and its name is government.

Which brings me to my next point:

In my own country, we see the development of a ruling class.

Again, I must apologize for my imprecision. I meant a political ruling class. As evidence, look at the increasing rate of incumbents returning to the US House of Representative and Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressio ... ted_States

"Congressional stagnation in the United States"

These Congresspeople are supported in electoral campaigns funded by whom? We can't tell any more because the US Supreme Court has removed the requirement to reveal campaign contributions!

Before some take up arms, I do NOT support government income redistribution schemes (write about that in another thread) and I'm not sure how to improve the turnover rate for US Congress and other offices. We've tried a lot of tinkering (e.g. term limits) and not much has changed.

My main concern for the US role in the future is concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands makes those hands less accountable and responsible to the vast majority of the people of the US. At the moment, I don't see how the US national interest would be supported by any new foreign adventure. Since real power is concentrating in fewer hands, it will be easier for passion or narrow interest to sway those people in the wrong direction.

It will not be the end of history. Just more of the same.

[TallDave]

Please see here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026

Well, that's talking about the concentration of income rather than wealth, which are somewhat different things.

Yes, the top decile of income earners earn a greater proportion of income that they used to, which again is simply the result of greater specialization and larger markets and not necessarily an undesirable condition. I don't see any problem with that as long as they're subject to the same laws as everyone else and everyone gets the same one vote in elections. I'm in that top decile myself, off and on, and I can tell you we're not any kind of master class. Mostly we just work more hours than people not in the decile.

This income disparity is also partly a function of the fact that there is a bare subsistence minimum of income which some people are happy to live at, that has not changed as incomes have grown: it's an absolute value, not a relative one. By today's poverty standard, which is calculated on a relative basis, about half the population in the 1950s was living in poverty (i.e., the inflation-adjusted poverty line in 2010 is about where average incomes were in the 1950s), and that's before we even start talking about things like qualitative improvements in terms of having more things to choose from in 2010 even at those income levels. And by 1950s standards of poverty, poverty is essentially nonexistent in the U.S. of 2010. So the poor and middle classes have benefitted quite a lot as well, perhaps even much more than the rich in terms of relative gains in utility given that most products are aimed at the mass markets.

Keep in mind too, that top 1% now pay more taxes than the bottom 50% -- a pretty good deal for the latter.

Anyways... the result of all of the above is that citizens of liberal democracies are not eager to support wars of expansion. Our lives are just too wonderful. We only got involved in Mideast nation-building because the consequences of not doing so were beginning to affect us here, and that's proved to be fairly unpopular even despite costs in lives and GDP that are miminal by historical standards.

As for how it affects power -- yes, there is some amount of corruption, such as earmarks and rent-seeking regulation, but people are generally smart enough to see the problems with that kind of thing regardless of political campaigning. I'm not sure exactly how much of people's knowledge of issues comes from campaigns, but I'd bet it's less than 10%. The Internet has made information flow very fast and very democratic.

We can't tell any more because the US Supreme Court has removed the requirement to reveal campaign contributions!

That's a common misconception. Citizens United only says corporations can fund political broadcasts by politicial advocacy groups. Disclosure requirements have not changed, and corporations still can't donate directly to parties or candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_f ... Disclosure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_U ... Commission

where Saddam Hussein was cornered and could only torment the people of Iraq.

Well, they and our troops who were trying to enforce the no-fly zones. And the people of Israel, whom he funded suicide bombers attacks against. And the people of the Philippines, whom he funded Abu Sayyaf terrorist attacks against. And support for sanctions was collapsing, so it's not clear how much longer the bottle would hold him.

It's true we didn't have to invade Iraq again, but it's also true leaving Saddam in power had its own dangers as a long-term policy.

Iraq II was the result of the recognition of several realities that were not apparent in 1991: Saddam was never going to fall from internal forces, it's dangerous to have rogue states playing WMD shell games in a post-9/11 world, sanctions could not be enforced much longer and were hugely corrupted anyway, and another 12 years of bombing and sanctions wouldn't accomplish anything useful,

[rjaypeters]

Yes, the top decile of income earners earn a greater proportion of income that they used to,...

Yes and over time those who have the greater income become wealthier. The wealth has been accumulating, in some cases, for generations. The question is what do the wealthy do with their wealth. See below.

Edit: Here are some wealth numbers: "The report "Building a Better America -- One Wealth Quintile At A Time" by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School (hat tip to Paul Kedrosky), shows that across ideological, economic and gender groups, Americans thought the richest 20 percent of our society controlled about 59 percent of the wealth, while the real number is closer to 84 percent." Found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/2 ... 36132.html

End edit.

I don't see any problem with that as long as they're subject to the same laws as everyone else and everyone gets the same one vote in elections. I'm in that top decile myself, off and on, and I can tell you we're not any kind of master class.

That's what I'd expect a member of the ruling class to say. Joke!

Seriously, of course the wealthy don't see a problem, the current situation is suitable. Should a rich man choose to use his money to help fund a campaign, can he get the ear of a candidate or successfully-elected Congresscritter? Can this same man provide money to a lobbying group to do the same? I can provide little money to my Congressman (I'm in South Carolina - I'd rather fund an outbreak of Salmonella). The pittance I could send to a lobbying group or firm would be ineffective. I do not despair, though. I'm a citizen, I have other recourse.

This income disparity is also partly a function of the fact that there is a bare subsistence minimum of income which some people are happy to live at, ...mass markets.

I am not saying we are not all better off than before, I am writing about relative differences.

Keep in mind too, that top 1% now pay more taxes than the bottom 50% -- a pretty good deal for the latter.

Is it axiomatic capital tends to concentrate? This is not a good situation either. Do we want the concentration of income/wealth trend to continue? Do we want a pyramidal society; a few wealthy, small middle class and large lower class? Is it good for the Republic? The answer provided by the philosphers is no, republics do not do well with pyramidal societies. They become something else.

Anyways... the result of all of the above is that citizens of liberal democracies are not eager to support wars of expansion. Our lives are just too wonderful.

Yes, our bread and circuses are the best there have ever been!

We only got involved in Mideast nation-building because the consequences of not doing so were beginning to affect us here, and that's proved to be fairly unpopular even despite costs in lives and GDP that are miminal by historical standards.

In these cases, it might have been better for the liberal democracies involved to recognize the futility of invading Afghanistan (read ancient and modern history - those folks just don't give up against foreign invaders).

Iraq? I'm waiting to read Secretary Rumsfelds autobiography. Although I'm certain it will be self-serving, a big part of my interest is the decision to invade Iraq. I read a rumor that went something like this: Afghanistan had been invaded and then the administration wanted to do something big. Chasing Al-Qaeda and Taliban around the mountains wasn't satisfying enough. Who was next on the Bush administration's fecal roster? Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

We can't tell any more because the US Supreme Court has removed the requirement to reveal campaign contributions!

That's a common misconception. Citizens United only says corporations can make donations. Disclosure requirements have not changed.

Yes, a key provision of campaign finance reform was removed on First Amendment grounds. Now corporations will have no limit on how much they can spend.

...where Saddam Hussein was cornered and could only torment the people of Iraq.

Well, they and our troops who were trying to enforce the no-fly zones. ... and sanctions could not be enforced much longer and were hugely corrupted anyway,

Yes, I was wrong about that, too*. Before the first Persian Gulf war, he was tormenting Iran and Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia. After PG I, Saddam Hussein hadn't fundamentally changed, but his ambitions were narrower.

I'd like Fukuyama to be at least partially right, I'd prefer republics over liberal democracies, but that's probably a nit. One of the problems with republics and democracies is their instability. As the oldest extant republic/democracy the US is showing its age. In describing the US trends above, I am attempting to show it may soon be neither republic nor democracy except in name. Then where will Fukuyama's end of history be?

*I almost feel like changing my signature line to: "to err is human...", but it's in use here.

[AcesHigh]

There is of course a mechanism by which the rich can change the rules to ensure they stay rich, as the rich have tried to do since time immemorial, and its name is government.

with less government, the rich can become the government itself. They will provide to society. True sheiks, like in the UAE.

the balance is needed.

[TallDave]

Seriously, of course the wealthy don't see a problem, the current situation is suitable. Should a rich man choose to use his money to help fund a campaign, can he get the ear of a candidate or successfully-elected Congresscritter

Well, kind of. I mean, he might get a 30-minute meeting. But what is he going to get the government to do for him? Influence-peddling puts a lot of pols behind bars -- it's how Blagoyevich ended up at 0% approval and in front of a jury. Anyways, it takes hundreds of Congresspeople to get laws passed. Usually what happens is that someone who feels strongly about an issue spends his money not on the politicians, but on issue ads -- or even whole foundations with their own publications (see George Soros) to push a point of view to the electorate. That's just free speech, and the public will either agree or not.

Yes, our bread and circuses are the best there have ever been!

I think it's a mistake to assume bread and circuses aren't an end in themselves.

In these cases, it might have been better for the liberal democracies involved to recognize the futility of invading Afghanistan (read ancient and modern history - those folks just don't give up against foreign invaders).

Afghanistan isn't unconquerable. Hell, it isn't even especially difficult to conquer. The Soviets only left because we were arming the mujahideen with MANPADS; before that the country was prostrate beneath the bear, and the locals hated them but mostly like us. The main reason current fighting hasn't already ended is the stupid insistence on telling Afghans they can grow what is by far their most profitable crop under the Taliban but not under us.

Yes, a key provision of campaign finance reform was removed on First Amendment grounds. Now corporations will have no limit on how much they can spend.

They can spend whatever the shareholders allow. A victory for free speech.

I'd prefer republics over liberal democracies, but that's probably a nit

Yes, what we really want is liberal republics, democracy is subordinate. No tyranny of 50.1%!

[rjaypeters]

Afghanistan isn't unconquerable. Hell, it isn't even especially difficult to conquer...

But it is proving especially hard to govern.

But what about Fukuyama? Liberal republics/democracies may result from the trends you describe, but I describe only some of the trends that destroy them. If a liberal government becomes something other, e.g. despotism, theocracy, will not that be the recommencement of history for that country?

[rjaypeters]

We only got involved in Mideast nation-building because the consequences of not doing so were beginning to affect us here, and that's proved to be fairly unpopular even despite costs in lives and GDP that are miminal by historical standards.

...Iraq? I'm waiting to read Secretary Rumsfelds autobiography. Although I'm certain it will be self-serving, a big part of my interest is the decision to invade Iraq. I read a rumor that went something like this: Afghanistan had been invaded and then the administration wanted to do something big. Chasing Al-Qaeda and Taliban around the mountains wasn't satisfying enough. Who was next on the Bush administration's fecal roster? Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Back then, based on reading the papers, I had a feeling the second Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11. I didn't write about it before because it was a feeling.

Recently declassified and FOIA'd information greatly strengthens the case. Key points: The second Bush administration knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the administration knew Iraq was not developing WMD and it was necessary to find a pretext to justify the war and make it palatable to the public, US and foreign.

Newly Declassified Documents Show Bush Administration Looked For Excuse To Start War In Iraq In Nov. 2001
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/23/doc ... ovember/?=

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 326
Timeline
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSA ... meline.pdf

THE IRAQ WAR – PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 326
Quotes
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSA ... Quotes.pdf

Its a fair amount of reading (I haven't read it all), but expect to argue with my father-in-law about this over the holidays.

[TallDave]

Actually, nothing destroys wealthy liberal democracies. Once democracies become rich they appear to become immortal; none over per capita GDP over $9K has ever fallen. The trend covers a historically small span of time, but a large number of liberal democracies. Fareed Zakaria has a chapter on this in his book.

Nobel nominee Rudy Rummel has also noted that liberal democracies tend to be much less violent.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE6.HTM

Despotism and theocracy are increasingly unpopular.

I had a feeling the second Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11

Regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy starting under Clinton. It wasn't a secret. Remember, we were bombing them regularly anyway. It would be odd if they hadn't started planning an invasion before 9/11. It probably should have been done before 1995.

The admin never claimed Iraq was a major player in 9/11, they only made the (perfectly rational) case that in a post-9/11 world, we could not live with one of the foremost state sponsors of terror playing three card monte with WMD. The issue wasn't whether Iraq was developing WMD; they had already used WMD, even on their own people. The question was whether Saddam was fully complying with the 1991 agreement to destroy all weapons and dismantle all programs. He wasn't, as the final Kay report found.

But it is proving especially hard to govern.

Well, again, this is primarily the result of telling people they can't do something they really really want to do. We're not forcibly converting them to our religion like the Samanids and Ghaznavids, we're doing something considerably more problematic: forcing them to act against their economic self-interest.

[rjaypeters]

For a President (G. W. Bush) and administration of a wealthy, liberal democracy that entered office so completely disdainful of nation building, is it counter to Fukuyama's thesis to have been clearly planning to invade Iraq? After all, life was too wonderful to want to invade another country!

Shouldn't the Powell doctrine (you break it, you own it) have been enough to warn them not to invade? Wasn't Secretary of State Powell telling them don't do it?

Nothing destroys wealthy liberal democracies? You really make an absolute statement about human history? Why the $9K limit? Is $8K per capita not enough money to keep a democracy going? Would not economic calamity be enough?

"The admin never claimed Iraq was a major player in 9/11,..."

Neither did I, but the Bush administration sought hard for and linked Saddam Hussein to the plot even though Al-Qaeda's theocratic stance and the Ba'ath party's secularism are incompatible. All in an effort to convince us invasion was a good idea.

I think it's a mistake to assume bread and circuses aren't an end in themselves.

Interesting, please expand. We all need to eat, but for whom are the circuses an end in themselves?

[TallDave]

is it counter to Fukuyama's thesis to have been clearly planning to invade Iraq?

No, they considered it an act of self-defense, and an expansion of liberal democracy that would benefit everyone involved except the Saddamists. The Kurds and Shia had been begging for help, and the Israelis and Filipinos were angry about Saddam killing their people as well. Anyways, Fukuyama did not see an end of all conflict, just an end of the great conflicts over how to organize societies.

The Powell doctrine as applied in 1991 was a failure. It gave us 12 years of bombing and sanctioning Iraq and in the end we had to invade anyway.

You really make an absolute statement about human history? Why the $9K limit?

It's really more of an observation. Something like 2/3 fail below $3K, 2/3 make it above $6000, and none fail over $9K. The reasons for this are myriad, but probably most important are the meeting of basic needs and the propensity of the electorate to better understand why liberal democracies work better -- few nondemocracies ever make it to that level without some sort of windfall wealth like oil.

Neither did I, but the Bush administration sought hard for and linked Saddam Hussein to the plot even though Al-Qaeda's theocratic stance and the Ba'ath party's secularism are incompatible.

This is one of the most weakest of the anti-war arguments. It was Czech intelligence that had Atta meeting with Iraqis, Saddam happily funded Abu Sayyaf, and AQ generally left Saddam alone. So what if they were incompatible ruling philosophies? So were liberal democracy, Nazism and Communism, yet we had the Ribbentropp pact, and later the U.S.-- Soviet alliance. The presence of powerful common enemies often leads to such alliances of convenience. People also tend to forget AQ and Saddam's regime had a major commonality-- they were both Sunni supremacists. That's why they hopped into bed together so easily after 2003.

We all need to eat, but for whom are the circuses an end in themselves?

For anyone who wants to enjoy life.

[rjaypeters]

I am still thinking about liberal democracies, wealthy and not that have failed.

I'm also thinking about US democracy beset by tendencies away from democracy, e.g. theocracy (religious extremism), marxism (income and wealth disparities continue) and oligarchy (income and wealth disparities formalized in power disparities). Can you think of any others?

I find it difficult to wish the failure of anyone's liberal democracy to provide a counterexample.

[GW Johnson]

Just on a footnote on Soviet Afghanistan:

It wasn't MANPADS, it was MAPADS plus a decoy that ran the Soviets out.

One mujahadeen fighter behind a scrub bush in the desert blows a fighter or helicopter out of the sky with a Stinger, the victim's wingmen come over to the bush at the base of the smoke trail, and blow the mujahadeen fighter to bits.

One fighter, one aircraft. The Soviets had more aircraft than there were mujahadeen fighters. The mujahadeen were losing, even with Stingers.

Now, imagine a decoy launched from behind one scrub bush by remote control, while several mujahadeen with stingers hide behind other scrub bushes. When the flight of Soviet aircraft go destroy the bush with the smoke trail, all the mujahadeen pop up at once behind them, and shoot them all down.

I was one of two men tasked with developing that decoy. We made it out of a folding-fin 2.75. A year or two after it was given to the mujahadeen, the Soviets left Afghanistan. Their aircraft losses were unsustainable.

The mujahadeen leader at that time was Osama bin Laden. Few remember that today. He turned against us during the '91 Gulf War. (Although being turned-on by an Arab ally is not all that unusual, historically.)

Another footnote on Iraq / Saddam Hussein:

As for Saddam Hussein, few today know he first went on the CIA payroll in 1959, to help stage the Baathist coup in Iraq. In the mid 60's to mid 70's, he was on the Soviet payroll, which is when he got all the Mig-21's. By the late 1970's, he was back on the US payroll as "our boy" against Iran.

The gas and nerve gas bombs he used on the Iranians during the '80-88 Iran-Iraq war were given to him by us, to make sure he didn't lose to the Iranians. He used them, of course. He also used them on his own Kurds right after that war ended. He spent years trying to make more gas and nerve gas weapons for himself, but with almost no success (those things are really hard to make).

We weren't sure whether he had any left during the '91 Gulf War, which is why our troops went in wearing gas masks. Gulf War Syndrome is really a suite of maladies from low level gas and nerve gas exposure, from the destruction of the weapons dump at Kamisiyah. The Brits wore gas masks and don't suffer from Gulf War Syndrome. Our troops did not wear masks, and suffer. QED.

The half-dozen "WMD's" we found in 2004 were lost leftovers from the '80-88 Iran Iraq war. They actually had "made in USA" stamped on them, which is why that news story died so quickly, after all the fuss to justify the invasion by "finding his WMD's".

Truth is always stranger than fiction, and our history with Iraq is very strange.