[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

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?

Sheesh, [slap head]

Bill Clinton did reverse the course. He raised taxes and had a budget surplus when he left office.

The CBO study simply started in 1979.

Read the damn PNAC page and you will understand what a Neo-Conservative is. They ran this country from 2000 to 2008.

Saddam never attacked the US. Iraq posed no threat to the US at all after 9/11. The Bush administration fabricated a fear of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction KNOWING it was a lie. Then the story changed to "Saddam had ties to Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his right hand man Osama bin Laden". When that was exposed to be a lie the reason for invading became "we liberated the Iraqis from a brutal dictator and established a democracy, see the pretty blue thumbs."

I am sure the Iraqis would have been more than happy if we had never invaded their country. Ditto, for American service men and women. In the end the Iraq war did nothing but create a huge vacuum in the Mid East and we have no clue who or what is going to fill it. It also caused the deaths of 4479 American soldiers and wounded an estimated 100,000. Iraqi deaths are estimated at 112,000. There is no telling how many Iraqis fled the country and are living as refuges.

al Gaddafi did directly attack American citizens using terrorist methods first in Berlin in 1986 when the East Berlin Libyan embassy planned and carried out the bombing of a West Berlin night club La Belle killing two American service men and wounding 79 other American service men. Reagan bombed Tripoli in retaliation. Then as i mentioned before he blew a Pan Am 747 out of the sky in retaliation for the US sinking two libyan warships in the Gulf of Sidra after they sank a US patrol boat. That was not written in stone. The Pan Am bombing was not solved until Libya admitted responsibility in 2003.
In many respects the US did have a good reason to remove al Gaddafi from power.

Socialism can have many different definitions and there are more than one social theories out there. Which do you want a definition for? Utopian versus scientific, Marxism, socialism from above and below, reform versus revolution, or equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

How about the economics involved. State directed economy, market socialism a favorite of the Communist Chinese, planned economy, or self managed.

Now for the fun part; the politics. Leninism, anarchisim, syndicalism, social democracy, libertarian socialism, or what I think you are looking for democratic socialism.

I tell you what, you give me your definition since I seem to know nothing about the subject. Oh and social engineering is not socialism.