>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.
The Rand (Paul or Ayn) philosophy, putting private property rights at the same level of human rights, equates the status of things with the status of human beings. If property is considered equal