Cheney in '92: Removing Saddam Is Not Worth American Casualties [VIDEO]

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Cheney in '92: Removing Saddam Is Not Worth American Casualties [VIDEO]

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Cheney in '92: Removing Saddam Is Not Worth American Casualties [VIDEO]

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Cheney in '92: Removing Saddam Is Not Worth American Ca... - 10/3/2007 8:47:51 AM

SugarMyChurro

Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline

Cheney in '92: Removing Saddam Is Not Worth American Casualties [VIDEO]
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/63827/

-----

People ask what changed since then to make this man take back his words. Well...

1. He had new opportunities to make more money and get a sweet deal at Halliburton. The money trail is something everyone knows to follow. If you follow the money trail here it leads to corruption of an untold level - literally trading human lives for a profit margin.

2. PNAC - think of this as the "shock doctrine" agenda before the actual shock occurred. The events of 9/11 were so fortuitous given the agenda of PNAC that many still look for and fear finding the smoking gun in the hands of our own countrymen. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Final words: If they can get away with it, they mean for this state of war to be perpetual.

< Message edited by SugarMyChurro -- 10/3/2007 9:28:19 AM >

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Cheney in '92: Removing Saddam Is Not Worth America... - 10/3/2007 9:17:04 AM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

This is on of the things I see has changed http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

This is where I feel the birth of the Non-Con's came from (you use the term Neo-Con, which is a misnomer). This is also when they started to hijack the Republican party.

Sheep, sheep, everywhere I see sheep, and the wolves just love it.

Orion

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)

Profile

Post #: 2