>you couldnt say or do shit without a thousand saddam spies
>waiting to jump on your ass. how you gonna revolt for freedom
>when the majority are too scared to take a shit without
>asking.

Man, you are dumb as a second coat
of paint.

It wasn't fear that precluded the
Iraqis from revolting against the
Hussein regime, rather it was U.S.
military and financial support that
continued to strengthen Saddam's
grip on power, thereby impeding any
chance of an overthrow by the general
population.

And let's not split hairs, based on
a consistent and systematic pattern
of U.S. support for Middle Eastern
dictatorial regimes, Washington never
had any intention of allowing ordinary
Iraqis to chart their own destiny.

>yea apparently you don't get the point of changing presidents
>every 4-8 years. Could it be that one administrations views on
>the world could be different from the next?

You know what's really sad (but no
doubt comforting to you)? Most U.S.
citizens think exactly like you.

You honestly believe that a change in
presidential administrations changes
multinational corporate policy on a
large scale level?

No doubt Jimmy Carter's views on social
spending maybe have been radically different
from Ronald Reagan's, but that's fairly
inconsequential when ruling elites at a
high level of influence dictate domestic
and foreign policy.

There's some pretty good research on this
done by the likes of social researchers
like C. Wright Mills and Robert Dahl.