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.
