Timing, I think you are missing the point. Our government does not oversee or control the corporations. You are right in that corporate money helps get people elected. It also helps to get certain laws passed. Money is a great influence. Money = power. But... Having said that, it doesn't mean that the government controls the corporations. In fact, it could be said that it is the other way around.
i heard the same...but the good guys got the best of them...grimace and the hamburglar both kicked a couple of frenchies right in the groin.
I understand the point. In this case a current, very powerful government official controlled the corporation in question and denounced sanctions that people alledge the French have violated. Also, I mean you talk French economic interest and what about the US? Here we a guy who waged Gulf I as Secretary of Defense taking a position with a coporation that profitted off of that war and now with Cheney back again as Vice President waging Gulf II here comes Halliburton again to get their contracts. Will Cheney be joining Halliburton again after being Vice President? There are plenty of shady things happening on both sides of the Atlantic here. I just find the bashing of economic interest on behalf of the French pretty hypocritical.
Another madman among us....hey, did you know Canada doesn't agree with us? And now that you mention it, that Chretien has always talked funny...wanna bet he's crazy too? What is the surprise here...the French, along with most of the rest of the world, feel that the US has decided to do whatever it feels like, including start wars, irrespective of the restraint of the United Nations or world opinion...hence they do not trust our leadership, partucilarly in the realm of international relations...so how is it that to follow that up with feeling that by engaging in an unapproved war, with what ( for many ) are at least partially ulterior motives, it would not be advisable to rubber stamp our actions by saying that we vcan proceed from there as though nothing untoward happened? This is insane? Oh, I fogrot...new definition for insane: Disagrees with United States...same goes for irrelelvent...
Other than that French have said that seemingly to just be a pain, what's the big deal? I mean the U.S. wasn't planning on administering post war Iraq were they? This was afterall a plan to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. The U.S. should take the thunder away from Chirac, and come on board as supporting what Chirac said about post war Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. would co-sponser a U.S. resolution stating that there would be no U.S. post Iraq war administration of Iraq. That would be in line with what we were told our mission was there. It would also take away Chirac's ability to be a pain. He would be shocked, and probably at a loss of what to do next. As far as whoever said that France shouldn't get to be a part of post war Iraq, I believe that will be up to the Iraqis who are supposed to get control of their country. The U.S. shouldn't have any say about whether France has a part in it or not. Unless, of course our govt. has been lying to us about the actual mission, and it's purposes in Iraq.
Blade, Of course the US is planning on administrating a post war Iraq, they have already announced plans to award contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq to US companies. If you don't get in on the fight, you don't get the spoils of the war. We will be in Iraq for years, probably have a big military base, we view Iraq as we viewed Germany after WW2. We need to be in that country for years and years until democracy is firmly established and a government that is truly workding for all the Iraqi people is secure. DD
We have troops in Afghanistan too, but there is already an Afghan administration in charge. There is no reason why we can't do that in Iraq. The govt. already lining up contracts for after the war only provides evidence to those that say that this is an imperialistic endeavor. Having troops there for rebuilding, especially if they are part of a UN force is different than setting up a post war administration, and divying out Iraq's contracts and sources as they see fit. I say if the country isn't turned over to the Iraqis promptly it would be inaccurate to say the U.S. was dishonest in their listed reasons for the war.
Timing, I pretty much agree with your suspicions on Cheney. I don't really trust him, or Bush for that matter. I, too, suspect politicians of "helping" those who "help" them. That's why I respect McCain and his efforts to reform campaign financing. I have a hard time dealing with rich lobbyists getting their way. Just like I resent Bush for allowing refineries here in Texas to continue with their polluting ways. (Pollution credits?! Give me a break!) But... That still doesn't mean that these companies are being run by, or overseen by the government. That's the point that Tree is making. Out government does not run the corporations. Corporations and government merely "help" each other out on occasion. Campaign finance reform would change all of this.
You can't be serious...polls show that, as you would expect, British people support their troops now that they are engaged in war...NOT that they support the war on it's merits...
no edit... but in my last post it should read that it would be accurate to say the U.S. was dishonest in the reasons they listed for going to war if they don't turn the country over to the Iraqis.
that's not what I read...I'll have to see if I can find the poll from the BBC website I read the other day...but you'll have to wait in suspense until Monday. i'm going home for the weekend. Have a good weekend.
I just don't understand how anyone could think that the main reason behind this war is because of the ties between corporations and government and/or because of Dick Cheney, which is being alleged, in not so many words. Does nobody care about the fact that if we decided to go with the UN, and war was averted, that the message sent to the world is, with Millosevic (sp?), if you have no WMD, you get what you had coming, but if you do have WMD, ala Hussein, we're a little more scared of you, and you have more leverage, so we have to argue and talk amongst ourselves in the basically useless UN and vote on more of that. Every Joe and Frank who decides they should rule a country from that point forward will start accumulating WMD. N. Korea will be dealt with next, imo. It's not about us accumulating the most wealth or being the only superpower on earth, etc., etc. It's about sending a consistent and effective message to the nuts out there that you can't mess with our ****. A message that, imo, has to be sent. Now, are there other, completely seperate issues we have to deal with, such as campaign election reform, tie between government and corporations, or our foreign affair policy in terms of who gave what to whom in the first place anyway, so we don;t make similar mistakes in the future? Yes! But what the heck does that have to do with the here and now?
Just a couple random thoughts. 1) The Frenchies sacking Mickey D's = first victory for the French in what, over 200 years? And even then, they beat themselves. Drinking wine for 4 years then claming you're part of "Le Resistance" during WW2 doesn't count. 2) Timing, is your name Oliver Stone? Geez you blame everything short of the plague on corporations and Republicans. I thought the whole "military-industrial complex" X-Files way of thinking was passe now.
Talk about a disrespectful disservice to the dead...but it's ok, because the French disagreed...God how far we have fallen on this issue since the days of Payne and Henry...
Oh boo friggin hoo MacBeth. Humor must really be lost on the humorless. I'm so sorry that my view of the world doesn't match yours. I don't like the French. So sorry. You apparently seem to think that America's leaders are pursuing this conflict out of self-interest. I feel the same way about France. I feel their obstructionist view of America is detrimental to our national safety, and is simple grandstanding so they can try to parley their "standing up" to us into a more substantial role in the EU. Chirac's relationship with Hussein and the documented sale of weapons systems by French companies (with governmental oversight) to Iraq shows that, at worst, they are an indirect threat to us. English officials have stated that if it weren't for the threat of France's veto, we would have had at LEAST the 9 votes needed to get the US/UK/Spain resolution passed and giving us the precious "UN Mandate" everyone seems to be crying about. More obstructionism from France. To sum up, I'm going to go with a few quotes from Mr. Mark Twain about the French. "France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." -- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879 "There is nothing lower than the human race except the French." - quoted by Carl Dolmetsch, Our Famous Guest and, even though the quote is in poor taste, it shows the pure lack of esteem Mr. Twain had for the French: "A dead Frenchman has many good qualities, many things to recommend him; many attractions--even innocencies. Why cannot we have more of these?" - Notebook #20, Jan. 1882 - Feb. 1883
