Quote:
Originally Posted by wgrr
The Iraq war had nothing to do with removing Saddam Hussein from power. Bush had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq. It was Dick Cheney. Why do I say this. Well the neo-con desire to invade Iraq, a second time, dates back to the late 90's. Ever hear of PNAC? http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Read through this and you might get a better insight into the neo-con philosophy of governing the world using military strength. By the way, "W" was never a member of PNAC Dick Cheney was.
Iraq was a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq did not support Al-Qaihda or the Taliban. I don't give a damn how bad of a guy Saddam was, we had no business invading Iraq. The neo-cons lied this country into a devastating 10 year war. Ask Colin Powell who presented all the bullshit "evidence" to invade Iraq to the UN. He is not very happy about that today.
Now, onto the subject of the "mass redistribution of wealth". This is what it really looks like. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485 It seems we have been living under a socialist government since 1979. The Republicans have used social engineering in the form of massive tax cuts to move wealth up to the top income earners.
|
Ohhh wow!! Interesting, and so misguided.....
(1)
"Bush had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq..." George Bush wasn't the President of the United States? He did not give the marching orders to the U.S. Military? I guess his masters, the leaders of the NWO, in that secret bunker somewhere, did.
(2)
"...better insight into the neo-con philosophy of governing the world using military strength." "neo-con philosophy"... LOL. Tell me, what was the philosophy of Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, and so many others through history. Are they all "neo-cons" as their primary philosophy involved world domination through military strength? Or is it only confined to a small number of convenient "whipping boys"?
(3)
"I don't give a damn how bad of a guy Saddam was, we had no business invading Iraq. The neo-cons lied this country into a devastating 10 year war. Ask Colin Powell who presented all the bullshit "evidence" to invade Iraq to the UN."
Really? and yet... "
Why is Libya different? That is easy to answer.... because the rebels wanted Gaddafi out of power." So what are you saying... That there was on active resistance in Iraq against Saddam Hussein and he was universally beloved by his population? I guess that is why Saddam Hussein gassed his own people with VX, to show his devotion to them.
"The neo-cons lied.." really... yet Congress, including most Democrats, voted for it. How can George Bush be so stupid, such an idiot, yet such a brilliant mastermind at the same time. How is it possible that this man who liberals claim has the intellect of an amoeba can devise such a fiendish plan that fools all the brilliant Democrats to vote his way? Then he got a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do his bidding. Not only that, he manipulated the clandestine intelligence agencies of FIFTY nations or more, including Russia (at that time still the SOVIET UNION), PRC, United Kingdom, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, France, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and others.... I can hardly contain my laughter.
Then another lovely caveat to:
"Why is Libya different? So George Bush (a Republican), that imbecile behind the NWO with an IQ of 35, is evil for bombing and removing a dictator (Saddam Hussein) who has gassed his own people with VX nerve gas and killed his countrymen by the millions. Yet Barrack Hussein Obama (a Democrat), and without question the most brilliant mind the planet has ever produced, is a hero for bombing and deposing another dictator, one who has never gassed his own people, and never killed 1% as many as Hussein..... just because "the rebels wanted Gaddafi out of power."....
I'm a "rebel" and I want "Big-Ears" Obama deposed... So what are you saying? If I were to ask President Islam Karmov of Uzbekistan to remove him it would be justified by whatever means necessary?
Does this mean that I don't have to wait till the 2012 election to celebrate?
(4)
"It seems we have been living under a socialist government since 1979. The Republicans have used social engineering in the form of massive tax cuts to move wealth up to the top income earners."
Really... Do you actually know what a definition of a "socialist government" is? "The Republicans used social engineering", since "1979" even... I guess Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama are now Republicans. If they were not, why did they not reverse the course of this "modified" socialism, in the nearly 11 years of their reign? How about Jimmy Carter, since he was in office until January 1981?
Then by your definition, Obama is trying to take the country back to a path of... ummm, true capitalism?