Campaign donations.

[Andylusion]

You say that will never happen here? Bill Clinton sold high end military grade technology to China, in exchange for cash donations.

What happened to Clinton? Nothing. What happened to the people involved? Two got "probation" and "community service". Everyone else, got nothing. Remember Al Gore collecting half a million dollars at a Buddhist Temple, where they take a vow of poverty? How the monks said openly people gave them sacks of money and were told to give it to Al Gore when he showed up?

Would you care to share your links.
Not because , I care to defend a politician ( I tend to defend policy , not politicians) , but because I would like to read about it.

It was the news papers in the 90s. Not much you can find online. You'll need to buy a subscription to washington post archives and such, none of which I intend to do.

You can look up the wiki page, but of course... it's wiki.
1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some of the sources listed are good. Others are dubious.

Unfortunately, putting everything on the internet wasn't nearly as prolific back than, as today. So unless you want to dig through paid archives, good luck.

 

[danielpalos]

What if everyone discloses where their contributions came from, and that's it. Would it be morally wrong or less ethical?

 

[Boss]

You say that will never happen here? Bill Clinton sold high end military grade technology to China, in exchange for cash donations.

What happened to Clinton? Nothing. What happened to the people involved? Two got "probation" and "community service". Everyone else, got nothing. Remember Al Gore collecting half a million dollars at a Buddhist Temple, where they take a vow of poverty? How the monks said openly people gave them sacks of money and were told to give it to Al Gore when he showed up?

Would you care to share your links.
Not because , I care to defend a politician ( I tend to defend policy , not politicians) , but because I would like to read about it.

It was the news papers in the 90s. Not much you can find online. You'll need to buy a subscription to washington post archives and such, none of which I intend to do.

You can look up the wiki page, but of course... it's wiki.
1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Some of the sources listed are good. Others are dubious.

Unfortunately, putting everything on the internet wasn't nearly as prolific back than, as today. So unless you want to dig through paid archives, good luck.

All of it was in the news when it happened, I remember it well. As you said, it was all swept under the rug, save for a few underlings who had to fall on their swords. No one was impeached, no powers were ceded, things went on business as usual in DC. Two months later, liberals roll their eyes at you when it's mentioned. Like it's all been made up.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Are you going to ban private groups from free speech too? And if you ban groups from free speech, won't you also have to ban individual free speech? After all, if the Swift Boat Vets hire me to buy an ad on TV attacking one candidate in favor of another, and the Switft Boat Vets are getting money from a company, who got to talk with the president.... same thing all over again. So now you have to completely ban all free speech.

Now you have a government, that is completely disconnected from society. Free from all outside influence. Just like Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China, and Castros Cuba.

I don't think that's a goal we want to achieve

Certainly , not. I really despise dictatorships, but my perception of a democracy turning into corporatocracy doesn't make me happy either.
As I told to Boss, I agree with any action a particular wants to take to support a candidate, and that would include the 24/7 rant from Fox news, as long as the money doesn't get transfered from the supporting party towards the political party.
In the case of the company donation you present, it's kind of ok :
The company will have disburse money

You must be confusing this with the liberal argument opposing the Iraq War. No one is saying corrupt politicians shouldn't be punished when caught. To the contrary, probably half of those in DC should be behind bars. We also shouldn't be electing politicians who lie under oath, even if it's only about blow jobs, because people who lie have no character or integrity.

We're already supposed to have transparency in government, in campaign finance and income... it's law of the land. The problem is, everyone doesn't obey the law. It would be peachy if we could just pass a law that everyone has to obey the law, but that doesn't seem to work in reality.

War[/QUOTE]

Ok Boss,
I was talking about the right of the people to topple its own governments.
Not about the right of the US to topple dictatorships and change them with a puppet government.

Pinochet was a dictator in Chile. Why didn't the US move a finger against him?
Because they actually helped him tople a left winged democratically elected government.
So lets not get hypocrital.The war on Iraq was a failed operation to ensure the supply of oil to the US ( which is rather ironic because we are now having an oversupply).
So, I am glad Saddam is gone, but the region is more unstable now and Iraq lost 15 years in its development, and I would have to add that most Iraqui citizens now bear a less friendly attitude towards the US.

I am fine with economic sanctions, specially when they are backed by the UN.

 

[Boss]

What if everyone discloses where their contributions came from, and that's it. Would it be morally wrong or less ethical?

It has always been the law that candidates MUST report where contributions came from. But-- If you are a 527 group under the CFR laws, you can receive all kinds of anonymous donations because you're not the candidate. So now, the corrupt candidate can hide his true source of funding behind one of these 527s and no one is the wiser.

Passage of more restrictions on legal direct contributions only creates more indirect and questionable contributions. The problem is not the contributions, it is the ethics of the candidate.

 

[Andylusion]

Again, that won't change anything.

Just as it didn't work in France, it most certainly won't work here.

So I'm the stereotypical corrupt politician. You gather the public together, and pass a law banning donations.

But I'm a corrupt politician. I didn't follow the campaign laws before. I'm certainly not going to follow them after.

So I accept money from companies, and... you never know about it. 20 years passes, some CEO in France dies, and leaves a video tape, of him explaining the complex kick back scheme.

If that CEO had decided to not make that tape, you would have NEVER KNOWN. The kick back scheme went on for 20 years, and no one knew. The politicians were filthy rich, the CEO was filthy rich, all of it 100% illegal, and nothing happened to anyone. Again, you would have NEVER KNOWN.

That's quite a cynical point of view.
Under the same ground one could argue dictators should be left in place.
Transparency in both , the government and in the parties incomes and expenses is part of the key . An opaque government is not truly democratic.

That's your opinion. To me, it's not a cynical view at all. It is in fact, what has happened routinely.

Again, here's the difference. I would rather KNOW who is donating what to whom. Let it be open and accountable. Let them donate to whomever they will.

BUT... make it open. Anyone can donate to anyone, as long as they make it plain. I want to see the donor list. I want everyone's name on that donor list. That to me, is far better, than banning it, having it happen anyway, but no one knows.

See, your system is going to result in exactly the opaque government, that you claim to be against. We know this, because we've seen it! We have seen the illegal system at work. Everyone buries the donations under the table, and because you don't SEE the donations, you think they don't exist.

Just like when they banned alcohol, there clearly was no alcohol being made.... right? Just like banning guns, means there are no guns being made.... right? Just like banning anything, has of course, caused whatever was banned to no longer exist......... RIGHT?

It does not work. So yes, I would much rather have a transparent system where anyone can donate to anyone, as long as it is made public.

 

[Andylusion]

Are you going to ban private groups from free speech too? And if you ban groups from free speech, won't you also have to ban individual free speech? After all, if the Swift Boat Vets hire me to buy an ad on TV attacking one candidate in favor of another, and the Switft Boat Vets are getting money from a company, who got to talk with the president.... same thing all over again. So now you have to completely ban all free speech.

Now you have a government, that is completely disconnected from society. Free from all outside influence. Just like Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China, and Castros Cuba.

I don't think that's a goal we want to achieve

Certainly , not. I really despise dictatorships, but my perception of a democracy turning into corporatocracy doesn't make me happy either.
As I told to Boss, I agree with any action a particular wants to take to support a candidate, and that would include the 24/7 rant from Fox news, as long as the money doesn't get transfered from the supporting party towards the political party.
In the case of the company donation you present, it's kind of ok :
The company will have disburse money

You must be confusing this with the liberal argument opposing the Iraq War. No one is saying corrupt politicians shouldn't be punished when caught. To the contrary, probably half of those in DC should be behind bars. We also shouldn't be electing politicians who lie under oath, even if it's only about blow jobs, because people who lie have no character or integrity.

We're already supposed to have transparency in government, in campaign finance and income... it's law of the land. The problem is, everyone doesn't obey the law. It would be peachy if we could just pass a law that everyone has to obey the law, but that doesn't seem to work in reality.

Ok Boss,
I was talking about the right of the people to topple its own governments.
Not about the right of the US to topple dictatorships and change them with a puppet government.

Pinochet was a dictator in Chile. Why didn't the US move a finger against him?
Because they actually helped him tople a left winged democratically elected government.
So lets not get hypocrital.The war on Iraq was a failed operation to ensure the supply of oil to the US ( which is rather ironic because we are now having an oversupply).
So, I am glad Saddam is gone, but the region is more unstable now and Iraq lost 15 years in its development, and I would have to add that most Iraqui citizens now bear a less friendly attitude towards the US.

I am fine with economic sanctions, specially when they are backed by the UN.

There are numerous dictators we haven't touched, and shouldn't touch. You act as though we go after every single dictator on a routine basis. That's not so.

The reasons we dealt with Saddam, over Pinochet are numerous, and should be obvious.

First, Pinochet had massive public support. Second, Pinochet was ASKED to be dictator by the government. Third, Pinochet was anti-Soviet, pro-American. Forth, the public of Chile was not clamoring to overthrow Pinochet.

Saddam, invaded a peaceful ally of the US.

Granted, I do not believe the US government should have ever been militarily connected with Kuwait. Not at all. But... the fact is we were. I do not believe in entangling alliances. However... I do believe in standing by your commitments.

So we attacked and drove out Saddam. Then we agreed to a cease-fire.

Saddam didn't abide by the agreement. That's why we went back and finished the job.

No, it had nothing to do with Oil. You are wrong. And all those who claim such, are simply full of crap. The claim isn't even logical.

 

[Boss]

Certainly , not. I really despise dictatorships, but my perception of a democracy turning into corporatocracy doesn't make me happy either.

The thing I wished you could understand is, free market capitalist conservatives are not corporatists. I am a free market capitalist conservative. I go by the moniker Boss because I've always been the boss. I know business and I know how to make one successful. But I have to say, if I were 18 years-old again and had to become successful under today's federal burdens, I doubt I could do it as easily, or if I could do it at all.

We have slowly moved away from true free market capitalism and free enterprise. I want us to return to that and I believe we can, but it starts with changing our direction. The corporatists (both R and D) are having their way in Washington right now. They have found a way to exploit this liberal anger toward capitalist rich folk. All the thousands of laws being passed to regulate and punish those evil bastards.... it's all manipulated by the corporatists who take capitalist advantage.

Here's how we stop the Corporatists. Deregulation. [*liberal heads explode*] By removing the influences of Federal government on free market capitalism and focusing more on corruption and anti-trust, the corporatists no longer have anything to manipulate. You've taken that away from them and opened the door for the spirit of entrepreneurship in a free enterprise system.

The Conservative Right, in 2016, needs to do a better job of articulating the difference between corporatists and free market capitalist conservatives. Contrary to what most left-wing radicals will say, they are not one in the same. Corporatists come in all persuasions, Mitt Romney, George Soros, The Bushes, Billary Clinton... These are capitalists who think we should use the power of government to regulate other capitalists to benefit their own interests. This is not free market capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you going to ban private groups from free speech too? And if you ban groups from free speech, won't you also have to ban individual free speech? After all, if the Swift Boat Vets hire me to buy an ad on TV attacking one candidate in favor of another, and the Switft Boat Vets are getting money from a company, who got to talk with the president.... same thing all over again. So now you have to completely ban all free speech.

Now you have a government, that is completely disconnected from society. Free from all outside influence. Just like Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China, and Castros Cuba.

I don't think that's a goal we want to achieve

Certainly , not. I really despise dictatorships, but my perception of a democracy turning into corporatocracy doesn't make me happy either.
As I told to Boss, I agree with any action a particular wants to take to support a candidate, and that would include the 24/7 rant from Fox news, as long as the money doesn't get transfered from the supporting party towards the political party.
In the case of the company donation you present, it's kind of ok :
The company will have disburse money

You must be confusing this with the liberal argument opposing the Iraq War. No one is saying corrupt politicians shouldn't be punished when caught. To the contrary, probably half of those in DC should be behind bars. We also shouldn't be electing politicians who lie under oath, even if it's only about blow jobs, because people who lie have no character or integrity.

We're already supposed to have transparency in government, in campaign finance and income... it's law of the land. The problem is, everyone doesn't obey the law. It would be peachy if we could just pass a law that everyone has to obey the law, but that doesn't seem to work in reality.

Ok Boss,
I was talking about the right of the people to topple its own governments.
Not about the right of the US to topple dictatorships and change them with a puppet government.

Pinochet was a dictator in Chile. Why didn't the US move a finger against him?
Because they actually helped him tople a left winged democratically elected government.
So lets not get hypocrital.The war on Iraq was a failed operation to ensure the supply of oil to the US ( which is rather ironic because we are now having an oversupply).
So, I am glad Saddam is gone, but the region is more unstable now and Iraq lost 15 years in its development, and I would have to add that most Iraqui citizens now bear a less friendly attitude towards the US.

I am fine with economic sanctions, specially when they are backed by the UN.

There are numerous dictators we haven't touched, and shouldn't touch. You act as though we go after every single dictator on a routine basis. That's not so.

The reasons we dealt with Saddam, over Pinochet are numerous, and should be obvious.

First, Pinochet had massive public support. Second, Pinochet was ASKED to be dictator by the government. Third, Pinochet was anti-Soviet, pro-American. Forth, the public of Chile was not clamoring to overthrow Pinochet.

Saddam, invaded a peaceful ally of the US.

Granted, I do not believe the US government should have ever been militarily connected with Kuwait. Not at all. But... the fact is we were. I do not believe in entangling alliances. However... I do believe in standing by your commitments.

So we attacked and drove out Saddam. Then we agreed to a cease-fire.

Saddam didn't abide by the agreement. That's why we went back and finished the job.

No, it had nothing to do with Oil. You are wrong. And all those who claim such, are simply full of crap. The claim isn't even logical.

Would we have as much interest in the Middle East as we do, if there were no fossil fuels there?

 

[danielpalos]

Certainly , not. I really despise dictatorships, but my perception of a democracy turning into corporatocracy doesn't make me happy either.

The thing I wished you could understand is, free market capitalist conservatives are not corporatists. I am a free market capitalist conservative. I go by the moniker Boss because I've always been the boss. I know business and I know how to make one successful. But I have to say, if I were 18 years-old again and had to become successful under today's federal burdens, I doubt I could do it as easily, or if I could do it at all.

We have slowly moved away from true free market capitalism and free enterprise. I want us to return to that and I believe we can, but it starts with changing our direction. The corporatists (both R and D) are having their way in Washington right now. They have found a way to exploit this liberal anger toward capitalist rich folk. All the thousands of laws being passed to regulate and punish those evil bastards.... it's all manipulated by the corporatists who take capitalist advantage.

Here's how we stop the Corporatists. Deregulation. [*liberal heads explode*] By removing the influences of Federal government on free market capitalism and focusing more on corruption and anti-trust, the corporatists no longer have anything to manipulate. You've taken that away from them and opened the door for the spirit of entrepreneurship in a free enterprise system.

The Conservative Right, in 2016, needs to do a better job of articulating the difference between corporatists and free market capitalist conservatives. Contrary to what most left-wing radicals will say, they are not one in the same. Corporatists come in all persuasions, Mitt Romney, George Soros, The Bushes, Billary Clinton... These are capitalists who think we should use the power of government to regulate other capitalists to benefit their own interests. This is not free market capitalism.

That may entail, actually bearing true witness to our Commerce Clause; even the (religious) right doesn't seem to have that much moral capital at its disposal.

 

[CultureCitizen]

First, Pinochet had massive public support. Second, Pinochet was ASKED to be dictator by the government. Third, Pinochet was anti-Soviet, pro-American. Forth, the public of Chile was not clamoring to overthrow Pinochet.

Saddam, invaded a peaceful ally of the US.

Granted, I do not believe the US government should have ever been militarily connected with Kuwait. Not at all. But... the fact is we were. I do not believe in entangling alliances. However... I do believe in standing by your commitments.

So we attacked and drove out Saddam. Then we agreed to a cease-fire.

Saddam didn't abide by the agreement. That's why we went back and finished the job.

No, it had nothing to do with Oil. You are wrong. And all those who claim such, are simply full of crap. The claim isn't even logical.

I can't really believe that you are capable of Machiavellian thoughts when talking about internal policy and you display such an amount of naiveness regarding foreign policy. Be consistent please.
Although some wars have an ideological background there is allways a resource related component.

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN.com

Kuwait,has tons of oil, so it is completely logical that the US has him as an ally , just as the US has been an ally of Saudi Arabia.

1. No Pinochet did not have massive public support ( why else would he have a coup d'etat instead of winning through an election ).
2. Pinochet was asked to be dictator by the American Government ( let's just get that part straight).
3. Yes they were, but they were brutally repressed. More than 3,000 persons "disapeared" and more than 40,000 were tortured, and many more fleed the country. What do you think Rusians under Stalin didin't want to revolt, or german jews under Hitler ?
4. I feel like puking every time someone defends a caveman like Pinochet.

And yes, Sadam made a partial violation by flying in no fly zones.

The biggest problem from my point of view is that the people from Iraq have a complete mistrust on the USA, which has made reconstruction a hell.

"When asked who benefited the most from the war in Iraq, Iraqis most frequently point to Iran (54%), the United States (48%), and Iraqi elites (40%). Additionally, more than one-quarter of Iraqis see al-Qaeda as a chief beneficiary of the war. Only 4% think the Iraqi people benefited the most from the war."

POLL Iraqis Say They re Worse Off After War View Iran Unfavorably ThinkProgress

There is a section of the USA which is supposedly dedicated to Intelligence activities. I didn't see much of that during Dubya's war. Biggest mistake: liberating a country which did not want to be liberated by the US.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The thing I wished you could understand is, free market capitalist conservatives are not corporatists. I am a free market capitalist conservative. I go by the moniker Boss because I've always been the boss. I know business and I know how to make one successful. But I have to say, if I were 18 years-old again and had to become successful under today's federal burdens, I doubt I could do it as easily, or if I could do it at all.

We have slowly moved away from true free market capitalism and free enterprise. I want us to return to that and I believe we can, but it starts with changing our direction. The corporatists (both R and D) are having their way in Washington right now. They have found a way to exploit this liberal anger toward capitalist rich folk. All the thousands of laws being passed to regulate and punish those evil bastards.... it's all manipulated by the corporatists who take capitalist advantage.

Here's how we stop the Corporatists. Deregulation. [*liberal heads explode*] By removing the influences of Federal government on free market capitalism and focusing more on corruption and anti-trust, the corporatists no longer have anything to manipulate. You've taken that away from them and opened the door for the spirit of entrepreneurship in a free enterprise system.

The Conservative Right, in 2016, needs to do a better job of articulating the difference between corporatists and free market capitalist conservatives. Contrary to what most left-wing radicals will say, they are not one in the same. Corporatists come in all persuasions, Mitt Romney, George Soros, The Bushes, Billary Clinton... These are capitalists who think we should use the power of government to regulate other capitalists to benefit their own interests. This is not free market capitalism.

Ok Boss,
I can agre with many of your points :
1. Corporations are having their way in Washington.
2. Deregulation.Agreed, except I would still like to full enforcement of Glass Steagal for banks. Bailing out is not in my free market book. So it should not be an option for any bank. Split the banks , dont let tem be too big to fail.
3. Other issues healthcare , pensions and education ( the bigest areas of govt. expenditure ) I am open to hearing options.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Would we have as much interest in the Middle East as we do, if there were no fossil fuels there?

Certainly not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The thing I wished you could understand is, free market capitalist conservatives are not corporatists. I am a free market capitalist conservative. I go by the moniker Boss because I've always been the boss. I know business and I know how to make one successful. But I have to say, if I were 18 years-old again and had to become successful under today's federal burdens, I doubt I could do it as easily, or if I could do it at all.

We have slowly moved away from true free market capitalism and free enterprise. I want us to return to that and I believe we can, but it starts with changing our direction. The corporatists (both R and D) are having their way in Washington right now. They have found a way to exploit this liberal anger toward capitalist rich folk. All the thousands of laws being passed to regulate and punish those evil bastards.... it's all manipulated by the corporatists who take capitalist advantage.

Here's how we stop the Corporatists. Deregulation. [*liberal heads explode*] By removing the influences of Federal government on free market capitalism and focusing more on corruption and anti-trust, the corporatists no longer have anything to manipulate. You've taken that away from them and opened the door for the spirit of entrepreneurship in a free enterprise system.

The Conservative Right, in 2016, needs to do a better job of articulating the difference between corporatists and free market capitalist conservatives. Contrary to what most left-wing radicals will say, they are not one in the same. Corporatists come in all persuasions, Mitt Romney, George Soros, The Bushes, Billary Clinton... These are capitalists who think we should use the power of government to regulate other capitalists to benefit their own interests. This is not free market capitalism.

Ok Boss,
I can agre with many of your points :
1. Corporations are having their way in Washington.
2. Deregulation.Agreed, except I would still like to full enforcement of Glass Steagal for banks. Bailing out is not in my free market book. So it should not be an option for any bank. Split the banks , dont let tem be too big to fail.
3. Other issues healthcare , pensions and education ( the bigest areas of govt. expenditure ) I am open to hearing options.

I would still like to full enforcement of Glass Steagal for banks.

Of course! That would have stopped bad mortgages from causing a problem.
Wait, what?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Of course! That would have stopped bad mortgages from causing a problem.
Wait, what?

"Goldman Sachs is on course to pay its top City bankers multimillion-pound bonuses - despite asking the U.S. government for an emergency bail-out.

The struggling Wall Street bank has set aside £7billion for salaries and 2008 year-end bonuses, it emerged yesterday.

Each of the firm's 443 partners is on course to pocket an average Christmas bonus of more than £3million.

The size of the pay pool comfortably dwarfs the £6.1billion lifeline which the U.S. government is throwing to Goldman as part of its £430billion bail-out.

As Washington pours money into the bank, the cash will immediately be channelled to Goldman's already well-heeled employees."

I will repeat myself : bailing out is not part of the free market. That's really closer to government sponsored enterprise ( aka communism ).


Goldman Sachs ready to hand out 7BILLION salary and bonus package... after its 6bn bail-out Daily Mail Online

 

[danielpalos]

Would we have as much interest in the Middle East as we do, if there were no fossil fuels there?

Certainly not.

Yet, we have a Commerce Clause and even our Infrastructure to ensure republican forms of Government to each of the several States, is "crumbling".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course! That would have stopped bad mortgages from causing a problem.
Wait, what?

"Goldman Sachs is on course to pay its top City bankers multimillion-pound bonuses - despite asking the U.S. government for an emergency bail-out.

The struggling Wall Street bank has set aside £7billion for salaries and 2008 year-end bonuses, it emerged yesterday.

Each of the firm's 443 partners is on course to pocket an average Christmas bonus of more than £3million.

The size of the pay pool comfortably dwarfs the £6.1billion lifeline which the U.S. government is throwing to Goldman as part of its £430billion bail-out.

As Washington pours money into the bank, the cash will immediately be channelled to Goldman's already well-heeled employees."

I will repeat myself : bailing out is not part of the free market. That's really closer to government sponsored enterprise ( aka communism ).


Goldman Sachs ready to hand out 7BILLION salary and bonus package... after its 6bn bail-out Daily Mail Online

Goldman wasn't a bank, wouldn't have been covered by Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage.

I will repeat myself : bailing out is not part of the free market.

Neither is endless regulation.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Goldman wasn't a bank, wouldn't have been covered by Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage.

I will repeat myself : bailing out is not part of the free market.

Neither is endless regulation.

I'm against bailout and QE.
True. Glass Steagal wouldn't have prevented bad mortgages. But it would have prevented Goldman Sachs getting a single cent from the government.
Those banks should have been declared in bankrupcy and the deposits being covered as funds in new banks.

 

[Andylusion]

Are you going to ban private groups from free speech too? And if you ban groups from free speech, won't you also have to ban individual free speech? After all, if the Swift Boat Vets hire me to buy an ad on TV attacking one candidate in favor of another, and the Switft Boat Vets are getting money from a company, who got to talk with the president.... same thing all over again. So now you have to completely ban all free speech.

Now you have a government, that is completely disconnected from society. Free from all outside influence. Just like Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China, and Castros Cuba.

I don't think that's a goal we want to achieve

Certainly , not. I really despise dictatorships, but my perception of a democracy turning into corporatocracy doesn't make me happy either.
As I told to Boss, I agree with any action a particular wants to take to support a candidate, and that would include the 24/7 rant from Fox news, as long as the money doesn't get transfered from the supporting party towards the political party.
In the case of the company donation you present, it's kind of ok :
The company will have disburse money

You must be confusing this with the liberal argument opposing the Iraq War. No one is saying corrupt politicians shouldn't be punished when caught. To the contrary, probably half of those in DC should be behind bars. We also shouldn't be electing politicians who lie under oath, even if it's only about blow jobs, because people who lie have no character or integrity.

We're already supposed to have transparency in government, in campaign finance and income... it's law of the land. The problem is, everyone doesn't obey the law. It would be peachy if we could just pass a law that everyone has to obey the law, but that doesn't seem to work in reality.

Ok Boss,
I was talking about the right of the people to topple its own governments.
Not about the right of the US to topple dictatorships and change them with a puppet government.

Pinochet was a dictator in Chile. Why didn't the US move a finger against him?
Because they actually helped him tople a left winged democratically elected government.
So lets not get hypocrital.The war on Iraq was a failed operation to ensure the supply of oil to the US ( which is rather ironic because we are now having an oversupply).
So, I am glad Saddam is gone, but the region is more unstable now and Iraq lost 15 years in its development, and I would have to add that most Iraqui citizens now bear a less friendly attitude towards the US.

I am fine with economic sanctions, specially when they are backed by the UN.

There are numerous dictators we haven't touched, and shouldn't touch. You act as though we go after every single dictator on a routine basis. That's not so.

The reasons we dealt with Saddam, over Pinochet are numerous, and should be obvious.

First, Pinochet had massive public support. Second, Pinochet was ASKED to be dictator by the government. Third, Pinochet was anti-Soviet, pro-American. Forth, the public of Chile was not clamoring to overthrow Pinochet.

Saddam, invaded a peaceful ally of the US.

Granted, I do not believe the US government should have ever been militarily connected with Kuwait. Not at all. But... the fact is we were. I do not believe in entangling alliances. However... I do believe in standing by your commitments.

So we attacked and drove out Saddam. Then we agreed to a cease-fire.

Saddam didn't abide by the agreement. That's why we went back and finished the job.

No, it had nothing to do with Oil. You are wrong. And all those who claim such, are simply full of crap. The claim isn't even logical.

Would we have as much interest in the Middle East as we do, if there were no fossil fuels there?

That's a debatable question.

I'm not 100% positive either way. However, I am 100% positive that those who claim oil is the top concern, are full of crap.

Before we invaded Iraq, we purchased oil on the open market, and Iraq sold oil on the open market.
After we invaded Iraq, we purchased oil on the open market, and Iraq sold oil on the open market.

In between that time.... during the actual war years, prices went *UP* because there was a disruption in oil production.

If in fact the chief concern is oil production.... the absolute last thing we would ever want to do, is start a war. War always causes disruption. The flow of oil is always best during peace times, and worst during war times.

Therefore, from any rational and logical perspective, if the US was determining policy based on Oil, they would have supported keeping Saddam dictator over Iraq for as long as possible. He kept the peace.

So would we have as much interest in the Middle East as we do without oil being there?

Yes, actually I suspect we would. Two reasons. First, America has always been, since the founding of Israel, an Ally of Israel. Now you may disagree with that policy, but that has been the policy. If you look at US middle east involvement prior to world war 2, it really wasn't all that much. But as soon as Israel was founded, we've had an interest there.

Now, beyond that, yes I still think we would have been involved in the middle east, in the context of the Cold War.

The US was involved in hundreds of countries throughout the world, in the context of the Cold War. We were attempting to contain the influence of the Soviet Communist ideology. One middle east country move towards the Soviet view, and we try and influence another to move toward the western view.

Again, I'm not making a moral judgement right or wrong, only that based on this Cold War reality, yes I think we would still have been involved.

Of course, you asked specifically, would we have as much interest as we do.... debatable. I don't know. Hard to prove the counter-factual either way. But am sure that we would be involved in the middle east. Absolutely.

Ironically I just finished reading a book "Private Empire Exxon Mobile". In the book, Exxon sent it's people to Washington, on a education forum. Anyone was welcome to show up. The whole thing was free. They didn't *pay* anyone to show up, and not a whole ton did.

But the whole purpose of the forum, was to give the companies perspective on international oil. What did they say? Anything the produces more oil, is good. Who produces it, doesn't matter. No intervention is wanted or needed.

Now imagine that. A massive international corporation, telling the government, don't get involved at all, because it doesn't matter who is producing the oil, it will benefit us.

Leftist like to claim that corporations push governments to start wars over resources. Here's Exxon, the biggest and most profitable oil company in the world, saying don't start a war. It does not matter if Saddam, or some other person owns the oil fields. As long as they produce and sell oil, that's good for the world.

And Exxon is right. In a global economy, and global market (which oil has always been a globally traded commodity), it doesn't matter who owns what. The only value oil has, is the value it sells for. That obviously requires that it be sold. Who sells it, doesn't matter. There's never a reason to go to war over oil. Whoever has the oil is going to sell it. And we'll still be able to buy it, no matter who sells it.

 

[Andylusion]

First, Pinochet had massive public support. Second, Pinochet was ASKED to be dictator by the government. Third, Pinochet was anti-Soviet, pro-American. Forth, the public of Chile was not clamoring to overthrow Pinochet.

Saddam, invaded a peaceful ally of the US.

Granted, I do not believe the US government should have ever been militarily connected with Kuwait. Not at all. But... the fact is we were. I do not believe in entangling alliances. However... I do believe in standing by your commitments.

So we attacked and drove out Saddam. Then we agreed to a cease-fire.

Saddam didn't abide by the agreement. That's why we went back and finished the job.

No, it had nothing to do with Oil. You are wrong. And all those who claim such, are simply full of crap. The claim isn't even logical.

I can't really believe that you are capable of Machiavellian thoughts when talking about internal policy and you display such an amount of naiveness regarding foreign policy. Be consistent please.
Although some wars have an ideological background there is allways a resource related component.

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil - CNN.com

Kuwait,has tons of oil, so it is completely logical that the US has him as an ally , just as the US has been an ally of Saudi Arabia.

1. No Pinochet did not have massive public support ( why else would he have a coup d'etat instead of winning through an election ).
2. Pinochet was asked to be dictator by the American Government ( let's just get that part straight).
3. Yes they were, but they were brutally repressed. More than 3,000 persons "disapeared" and more than 40,000 were tortured, and many more fleed the country. What do you think Rusians under Stalin didin't want to revolt, or german jews under Hitler ?
4. I feel like puking every time someone defends a caveman like Pinochet.

And yes, Sadam made a partial violation by flying in no fly zones.

The biggest problem from my point of view is that the people from Iraq have a complete mistrust on the USA, which has made reconstruction a hell.

"When asked who benefited the most from the war in Iraq, Iraqis most frequently point to Iran (54%), the United States (48%), and Iraqi elites (40%). Additionally, more than one-quarter of Iraqis see al-Qaeda as a chief beneficiary of the war. Only 4% think the Iraqi people benefited the most from the war."

POLL Iraqis Say They re Worse Off After War View Iran Unfavorably ThinkProgress

There is a section of the USA which is supposedly dedicated to Intelligence activities. I didn't see much of that during Dubya's war. Biggest mistake: liberating a country which did not want to be liberated by the US.

Pinochet did have public support. Allende, only had 34% of the vote.
"When General Augusto Pinochet ousted Chilean president Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 , 80% of Chileans viewed the coup as a rescue operation—a return to order from a chaotic presidency."

Myths of Latin America

When you don't know what you are talking about, make sure you don't accuse others of not knowing. I've read about Pinochet in detail. He was widely supported by the public at the time. Allende was NEVER supported by the public.
In fact, Pinochet had more public support in the 1980s while he was in power, than Obama has right now.

Back to the topic.

An opinion poll in Iraq, doesn't determine truth. Nor does who benefited, determine motive.
Correlation, does not imply causation.

"The distinguishing feature of Iraq's auction of oil rights this weekend is the relative absence of American companies, in contrast to five weeks ago, when US firm ExxonMobil and Anglo-Dutch Shell signed an agreement to develop the West Qurna Phase 1 field."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL16Ak01.html

“The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...its-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Exxon to Pull Out of Huge Iraq Oil Project InvestorPlace

Russia appears ready to step into the Iraqi oil picture - UPI.com
"Iraq's strategic effort to become the world's leading oil producer has taken some bad knocks, with the defection of Exxon Mobil and other majors to independence-minded Kurdistan, and Wednesday's expulsion of Turkey's state oil outfit from an exploration deal.

But Russia seems more than ready to step in and fill the gap in foreign investment that Baghdad needs to rebuild and expand its oil and gas industry on which the country's future depends"

So let's recap....

Claim "Entire war was exclusively about oil".

Reality "The biggest oil winners are China and Russia. And we're still buying oil on the open market, just as we were before"

The claim doesn't match the reality. Can you name for me, which oil field in Iraq is owned by the US Government? Can you name how many shipments of oil we have gotten from Iraq, that we have no paid for?

If not..... the claim doesn't match reality.