Nope, the liberation was in 2003, remember? Plus the Iraqis had plenty of experts, the CIA were shocked at the sophistication as to what they uncovered.
Last time I checked Pearl Harbour was in the US? You believe Saddam and Tariq Aziz? 9/11 was an attack on the US, just not by a nation state, the Zimmerman telegram was a plot for Germany/Mexico to attack the US. What the allies didn't find after the liberation was a functioning chemical weapons programme, as previously proven there were plenty of WMDs left over from the 90s. Yes I can handle the truth, can you refute the facts? I know that must shake you to your core?
The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they compliment one another. You refuse to recognize the importance of this balance because you've bought into Rand's atomistic nonsense. Evolution explains all living systems, including humans, whether individually or as a species. Humans evolved, not as selfish beings, but as cooperative and communal beings. That is just a scientific fact. Without cooperation among individuals, humans would have gone extinct a LONG time ago. Your "be selfish" philosophy would be the death of humanity. It would also make it easier for the state to tyrannize individuals.
It's hard to say. There are things I like about many different countries, including America. I like that America has the first and second amendment. I like that America has lots of guns in the hands of common people. But I also like things about Canada, and Ireland, and Switzerland, and Norway, etc. Generally speaking, I believe in freedom and democracy.
Lots of guns !!!!????? To the rest of the world you guys are crazy. Firstly you won't fight the government with light arms but you kill a lot of each other.
You'd better check again unless you think the Japanese attacked in 1959? On the strength that the UN inspection team also said there were no WMD's. That Hans Blix also said there were no WMD's. President Bush also said there were no WMD's. And the fact that no WMD's were found. So maybe I should put the question to you ... "Do you NOT BELIEVE the UN inspection team or Hans Blix or President Bush or the fact that no WMD's were found?" They all agree with Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz. Maybe they were all conspiring just to confuse you? There was no occupation, no plan of occupation and no declaration of war. Mexico did not invade the U.S. and there was no attempt by Mexico to invade the U.S. either. And how many telegrams were sent between Mexico and the U.S.? Maybe you are not aware that Mexico was an active partner in the western allies. In other words ........ there were no WMD's. I see that's is a very difficult thing for you to grasp. Having WMD's or not having WMD's - it ought to be a simple thing to understand but you don't seem able to grasp it. No, apparently you cannot handle the truth. This above response of yours is proof of it.
Certainly there was WMD because Iraq used them. Saying Hussein "tipped them out in the desert somewhere" and there's no possibility of verification might appeal to the Left as Gospel truth - just as they believe in Ho Chi Minh, Uncle Joe and Uncle Mao.
The pragmatic view is that western democracy is an illusion. The people, the electorate, do not control the government, special interests do.
I know that Hawaii hadn't become a state yet but it was still an attack on the US and killed thousands of Americans, just like 9/11. There were WMDs but no programme, thousands left in Saddam's cache's, come on, no believes the Bush lied, people died nonsense any more. Germany conspired with Mexico to invade the US, hence why America joined WW1. Hey look, WMDs! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uranium-shipped-to-montreal-from-iraq-in-top-secret-mission-1.742303 https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/ Which of these facts can you not grasp?
My definition of democracy is the freedom of citizens to engage in political action which is not approved of by the ruling party. Thus it's democracy when just about every newspaper in America pokes fun at the sitting president. And it's not democracy when Putin has protestors arrested for protesting government corruption or election fraud.
Special interests? You need to define this. How is it that speech codes for gender expression can land you in jail or dismissed from your job. In this case, who is the "special interest"? The burgeoning anti-vaccine lobby, like the GM lobby before that and the anti-nuclear before even that - what "special interest" party was/is responsible?
Rule by the people with those they elect accountable to them. The present era is a great example of it because with things like Brexit and Trump it shows that the political establishment can be defied by the population.
I believe the baseless invasion was in 2003. And if you can actually find a document where the CIA was shocked at the sophistication of the nuclear program I will gladly read it even though I bet it will show that the program was long abandoned before the invasion. As for the supposed biological or chemical WMDs: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-weapons-program-hushed-soldiers-injured.html
A meaningless piece of jargon meant to avoid the evidence. Nope, it's a fiction peddled by the ruling classes to keep dupes placated and distracted. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the US political system does not operate democratically, but as an oligarchy. This is based on simple math. Because the most important predictor of whether or not something will become law or policy in the US is how strongly the richest and most powerful support said policy/law. If the richest and most powerful support a law or a policy, then it has a very high likelihood of becoming a political reality, even when it goes against the majority of the country. Empirically speaking, that is the exact opposite of how a democracy works. So you can throw around meaningless terms like "conspiracy theory" all you like, but it won't persuade any but the stupidest people.
Yes. When the common people are armed, tyranny can be kept in check. When common people are unarmed, they become prey for anyone powerful enough to dominate them. There are hundreds of examples of unarmed populations being tyrannized throughout history. It happens all the time. And that's why common people need to be armed, to protect themselves against tyranny. I don't really care. I was in the government for four years. During that time, I fought against insurgents and other militants who used nothing but small arms and improvised explosives. So I know from direct experience that you are completely wrong. Not that direct experience is required. Any person with a cursory understanding of military history knows that many successful rebellions and insurgencies have been fought using small arms. Ever heard of "guerrilla warfare" before? It's how smaller, less technologically advanced forces balance the odds against conventional forces. Today, the modern parlance is "asymmetric warfare". Even America's own revolution relied on guerrilla tactics to defeat the British empire. The overwhelming majority of gun crime in America is hyper-localized to a few dozen neighborhoods inside large cities. If you wander into one of those neighborhoods, then you are in serious danger of being shot. But those neighborhoods only constitute a tiny percentage of the overall population and land mass. 99% of the areas you visit in America are very safe.
Sure https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/ So Saddam did have WMD and was still developing more but had no manufacturing programme, that was were everyone got it wrong.
Conspiracy theory is not a meaningless term, it's when people decide to believe what they want to believe despite all the facts to the contrary because they ARE the stupidest of people. Brexit and Trump prove your hypothesis wrong, the ordinary people CAN defy the rich and powerful, people who decry democracy do so as an excuse to promote their own anti-democratic principles whilst sitting in their gun rooms stocked with tinned food.
