Originally posted by royalchickenAren't you throwing 'belongs' and 'empire' around a bit too loosly.
...the modern empire belongs not to any government, but to corporations.
Sure corporations (and international commerce) influences government, but government has to take responsibility for it's decisions. They are representing the views of the country's population (or should, in a perfect democratic world) not only the big corporations.
And what, practically, are the consequences for a government that fails to represent its population over the corporations?
In Britain, during the recent incident in Iraq, the population, as determined by polls, did not support the action. So why was Britain involved? And in the US, where I believe opinion was split about 50/50, why was there virtually no debate of any practical import?
Originally posted by royalchickenI think another important question is this: What are the consequences of a government that favors its political agenda at the expense of the people? Sometimes favoring corporate interests really does improve the lives of the masses with more jobs and a higher standard of living. Sometimes. In a democracy, the most frequent and notable consequences to the question are an orderly turnover of power. Kirk
And what, practically, are the consequences for a government that fails to represent its population over the corporations?
In Britain, during the recent incident in Iraq, the population, as determined by polls, did not support the action. So why was Briain involved? And in the US, where I believe opinion was split about 50/50, why was there virtually no debate of any practical import?
That's another interesting question. This government theoretically shouldn't be in power when it's not representing the people that put it in power. But then there won't be tax increases to improve roads and schools, because the government wants to tax alcohol and cigarettes more (51% drink, smoke and generally enjoy themselves). Just an example obviously. Practically 'true pure democracy' can never work (in my opinion). Sometimes the government will do things you don't agree with.
It seems extremely ironic to me that a president who was not democratically elected considers himself the ideal person to spread democratic ideals throughout the world. That he applauds the "vigorous discussion, free speech and protest that are the hallmarks of democracy" elsewhere in the world, and tries to stifle any dissent at home. That he believes that the best road to peace is through violence.
The people of Iraq should be free to have whatever sort of government they choose, even if that includes an Islamist government. Isn't that the principle of self-determination that the UN has been fostering since its inception?
And Kirksey, I would gladly have Kofe Annan as the US president instead of George Bush. Or Jacques Chirac. Hell, I'd rather have George Bush Sr. in power than his lunatic, idiot son. While I didn't agree with Bush Sr., at least I could understand where he was coming from.
-mike
Originally posted by legionnaireThe maniac in charge has been removed, now help them rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed in doing this.
...tries to stifle any dissent at home...
The people of Iraq should be free to have whatever sort of government they choose, even if that includes an Islamist government. Isn't that the principle of self-determination that the UN has been fostering since its inception?
Then leave.
If he was as bad as they made him out to be, it won't matter what government comes into power, they would be to happy to share their new good fortune and freedom with the liberators...
How did Bush try to stifle dissent at home?
Originally posted by CrowleyThe model that the US should be trying to follow in rebuilding Iraq should be post-world war 2 Germany. That's one of the few examples of successful nation building in world history, and as a result there have been consistently strong relations between the US and Germany ever since. It required an enormous investment in German infrastructure and support that I hope the current administration is willing to make in Iraq. The only problem is that Germany was of huge strategic importance in that it was the bulwark between the USSR and Western Europe - I don't know that Iraq will be as importance to the US as Germany was.
The maniac in charge has been removed, now help them rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed in doing this.
Then leave.
If he was as bad as they made him out to be, it won't matter what government comes into power, they would be to happy to share their new good fortune and freedom with the liberators...
How did Bush try to stifle dissent at home?
As to stifling dissent at home, huge protests have been brushed aside as insignficant, public figures who have openly spoken against the war have been labeled as unpatriotic or traitorous and there has been an assault on civil liberties all in the name of "national security."
-mike
Originally posted by CrowleyI don't know about them-my sister's a fan, said they said some anitwar stuff.
Huh, I saw they posed naked with crap written all over them.
Because their CD sales dropped after they said something about the war?
BTW RoyalChicken - what the hell's an algorist?
An algorist is one who constructs or formulates algorithms.
Congrats on 2000 moves.
Originally posted by legionnaireThey've got so many oil reserves that they don't know what to do with it.
I don't know that Iraq will be as importance to the US as Germany was.
If they start getting the black stuff out in greater volumes, then the price for crude oil would drop. Simple supply and demand.
Originally posted by CrowleyYes, these vacuous bimbos are all in their victimhood like George Bush sent the SS out to destroy their careers. When in doubt, get naked. At least we can look at them and not hear their bad music or their whining. 😠Kirk
Huh, I saw they posed naked with crap written all over them.
Because their CD sales dropped after they said something about the war?
BTW RoyalChicken - what the hell's an algorist?