Why do Liberals always sqawk when the US interferes in the internal affairs of other countries?

Why do Liberals always sqawk when the US interferes in the internal affairs of other countries?
But neither Libs nor Cons seem to care when other countries do it to us? Not just multinational corporations, but Foreign Governments make heavy contributions to our poltical campaigns and maintain thousands of lobbyists in DC, our major cities and state capitals. GATT, NAFTA and CAFTA trump our food and highway safety laws. A huge chunk of out media is foreign owned. Not just Rupert Murdoch and Sung Yung Moon, but Cuban exiles, Arabs, the Brits, the Japs and even the Red Chinese. You wanna know why the Chicago Cubs suck? Arabs don't play baseball and that's who owns the Cubs through the Tribune Group, which is in turn owned by Arabs through a British Holding company. Saudi Arabia has enough money sunk into Bush family businesses and campaigns to own the clan outright. And no politician is going to stay in office long if he gives a higher priority to US interests than he does to Israel's. There's a lot more to protecting US Sovereignity than Deporting wetbacks. Theresa, there's a big difference between Free Markets, where everyone has equal access and rigged markets, where other countries freely sell their goods here while blocking our exports. I'm being a little hard on Liberals here because it ain't like there are REAL Conservatives anymore. As the only people who still care about America, it's on Liberals to do something about our increasing slide into foreign control. I finished the question with 10 characters to spare Lilly. And I noticed you ducked the Bush-Saudi connection. Bill Clinton did sell the Chinese missile bases on US soil--the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. But Bush is likely to let them take Taiwan before he leaves office. And Lilly, Osama bin Laden was Bush's Family friend--not any Liberal's. Gary, has it occurred to you that we intervened in Iraq twice by way of doing the Saudis dirty work for them? Just plain Jim, maybe you can explain how we can beat Red China at the slave labor game?
Politics - 18 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
oh please
2 :
Interesting points. I would say it is because Liberals don't see a problem with market involvement, just military or political involvement. Neither do Conservatives for that matter - they are all about free markets.
3 :
You can stick a fork in the U.S.A. It's done! http://stopmartiallaw.blogspot.com/
4 :
If you are really interested in the answer, check out 'America: Freedom to Facism'. It's a DVD documentary about America's ties to foriegn interests, and there is some interesting information on the immigration issue. By the way, using the words 'liberals', 'squawk', and 'wetback' don't lend a whole lot of credibilty to an otherwise valid point. You would do well to keep your questions a bit less biased and concentrate on the facts. Your arguement is solid without mudslinging. Just my opinion....
5 :
Good question. If you want to know the answer,it's because liberals are bastards. You can thank Bill Clinton personally for GATT,NAFTA,the WTO, and permanent MFN to China.(mmmm lead...) .
6 :
Why do Liberals always sqawk when the US interferes in the internal affairs of other countries ? In the light of all this that you have mentioned herein ---- could it be that these "liberals" that you're speaking of see that there is FAR MORE WORK TO DO HERE---- which makes it all that much more important --- than to be spending time somewhere ELSE doing "business" ?? !!!
7 :
Here is Why: http://stopmartiallaw.blogspot.com/ .. http://www.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=S15_homepage
8 :
yo bro: thomas jefferson. end of question! Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321
9 :
Guess you should know, there is more democrats that has run to terrorist countries, took their side and talk bad about the US, and that is why the democrats, more than republicans want the illegals from Mexico gave amnesty, for their votes, only way they might be able to win. I know Dem's sure would hate to disappoint their foreign campaign fund donors. I noticed you forgot to mention the China Clinton Connection.
10 :
this is common conservative fallacious logic. One doesn't affect the other. NAFTA and the rest are frauds, but so is what we do all over the world. what you re saying is we either have to squawk both times or neither. study some critical thinking, youll understand why we can squawk whenever we want.
11 :
Excellent queston, Madpol. I think at least part of the problem lies in the fact they (both Libs and Cons) do not consider the influence of foreign interests in the US threatening to our democracy (and it is very threatening indeed) as they think the US is invincible and thus not subject to a vague and diffuse threat such as mass media ownership by foreigners or Chinese owning most of our debt, or DC lobbies. It is, I believe, a calculated unwillingness to admit US is not a country it was a few decades ago. They live in the past and still refuse to ackgnowledge, even to themselves, the world has changed and so did the US. House of Saud - roughly 80 BILLION dollars invested in the US Prince Walid, a Saudi, de facto ownership of Citigroup Red China - owns most of US debt R. Murdoch - owner of the US mass media IPAC in DC, the most powerful lobby - let me give you a quote of Y. Shamir (former PM) "who cares who the president is in the US, as long as we have the Congress" Cuban Exiles - de facto dictating US policy toward Cuba I think we gave away, or sold, our sovereignity when we became the biggest debtor nation in the world, and that momentous event was not lost on the likes of Murdoch or the Saudis. And I must say we did this rather nonchalantly and with premeditation. It was about the same time a war on the middle class was declared. Besides, they can't tell the people the ugly truth, if they did there would be a revolution in the US which would end up exposing and then deposing them for what they did.
12 :
Good question, wrong assumption. According to a 2005 congressional study, the USA sells 35% of the worlds arms, some independent studies put that at 50% and others as high as 60%. Therefore, I'd say we interfere in others countries in ways that are murderous. As far as economically, again good question, wrong assumption. What the USA needs to do is not to have protectionist practices, but rather beat the China's of the world at their own game. We do not plan (except ones like Cheney's secret energy plan) while other countries, like China plan and their people know what those plans are. Our biggest problem is lack of planning. We'd rather argue about protectionist practices and tell everyone to buy America when there is little to buy from America. Our biggest allies are the countries that do plan for their economic future. Our biggest enemy, is we don't listen to them. We can learn so much from the ones that are planning, how to do it, why its working for them, how we can make it work for us. But we don't. At least we don't do it publicly, it seems we'd rather take our eyes off the eight ball and argue about flag burning, abortion, and prayer in school, issues that don't affect the vast majority of us, as we fetter away our future and most importantly, our children's future. That is why I have lost faith in America's economic future. Peace Jim .
13 :
there is a big difference in our government interfering in other countries , and privet citizens from any country investing in privet companies , i do have a problem with us leasing out our public roads to foreign investors to make toll roads , i have a problem with us using foreign company's doing our checks on our docks and airports, and i do have a problem with foreign countries running our pipeline
14 :
because liberals was a combination of all religions party in disguised. Example : IRAQ WAS A MUSLIM RELIGION PARTY OF A COUNTRY.loll.
15 :
Instigator! Back Back! Some one get me an exorcist! This guy is at it again. Morning Steve. You speak the truth, most of us will never hear. The liberals have a defective gene that leads to a common form of Tourets syndrom. They squawk they can't help it. I tend to humour them. I am pretty sure I know what you think, so I will go down the road with my own little dittie doo doo. Maybe there is just not enough incentive to keep American money in America. The billionaires and millionaires of North America are afraid to lose their money, or they are selfish, or they just think they have to leave some sort of legacy behind for their equally shallow offspring. They are not willing to put forth the effort to save any other American but their own. So the field is left open for buy outs takeovers, or just hand it to em on a plate cause 'quicknobodieslooking' kinda deals. Youscrachamyballsiscratchayouballs and then there's 'we don hav ta tell ya wut we do'
16 :
Mad, my friend, I see where you're going with this. GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA are NOT intended to be a "FREE" Market. They're intended to BOOST foreign interests in order to bring lesser developed nations to a more level playing field. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has NOT happened. American multi-national corporations haveused those treaties to EXPORT American jobs overseas, NOT American products. Foreign multi-national Corporations have used them to export GOODS to the US at ridiculously subsidized rates and evading MOST US import tarriffs. The intent was to make foreign workers be able to achieve a higher standard of living (which it has NOT), and to make America more competetive in foreign markets (also which it has NOT). Many of the nations who have signed onto those treaties EXCLUDE American investment as a matter of law whereas, the U.S. does not. The playng field is NOT a level one and foreign interests DO have the advantage. This is at the disadvantage of the average American Working family, who has seen a loos of REAL income, a loss of REAL jobs that pay a living wage, AND a loss of spending power by the American consumer. As long as the major economic indexes are linked to the stock marketsto define the health of the economy we will remain in this quandry. The Wall Street economy has NO relevance to the Main Street Economy, and while things are nice and rosey on Wall Street, they are NOT very reassuring when it comes to the Main street economy. America's job base has slipped from being primarily a manufacturing economy to being a Service economy. Service jobs typically pay substantially lower than manufacturing jobs. This has a result in an overall lowering of the standard of living for the typical Amercian worker. The people are further hoodwinked when the reporting agencies stiopped using the Average American income and switched to the Median American income. It was a trick of political usage of statistics. Median Income is NOT Average income. Median is the midway point between the highest earner and the lowest earner. Average is ALL incomes added up and divided by the number of ALL workers earning an income. Doing the math BOTH ways, Median is significantly higher (as top executives are earning MUCH more in salaries and benefits than the lowest paid workers). Based on the AVERAGE income, Americans are earning, on average, barely enough to meet their financial obligations, leaving little left over for savings and investments. Just another example of WHY Statistics are NOT a reliable tool to gauge how well or bad things are doing, because the statistics are only as good as the FIGURES that are used to make one's point. BB, Raji the Green Witch
17 :
Dude... You should hear the Galactic Empire...
18 :
Nothing to add. Don't care about the points. Just wanted you to know that I learned something from your question - and the answers it drew. Guess I'll go do some "research" on the subject - so as to be able to "squawk" more intelligently - assuming, that is, that squawking does not necessitate affiliation to any political party in particular. Does it? Anyway, thanks muchly, Mad. Very interesting.

• Will someone make me a good spring outfit on eithe...
• Did i make the right choice concerning this job?
• Does anyone still have interest in traditional fil...
• are american eagle shorts worth more money?

don't you wish we can send every conservative woman to Saudi Arabia? don't you just love the way a ?

don't you wish we can send every conservative woman to Saudi Arabia? don't you just love the way a ?
conservative religious run government treats their women? don't you just love sending all your gas money to them making them richer and you poorer?! http://news.aol.com/story/_a/saudi-court-sentences-rape-victim/20071116093109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 they seem like a conservative religious country cause most conservatives i know don't believe in the separation of church and state! or as JESUS would say `give to caesar what belongs to caesar and give to GOD what belongs to GOD!` I'm sure godless communist china gets oil products from them and then turns it into cheap slave labor crap to sell to us! after they poison it first that is!
Religion & Spirituality - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I think you need to look up the word 'conservative', you seem confused to me.
2 :
Not really... since we get very little "gas" from the Middle East in general. Anyone who bothers to look at import percentages would know that.
3 :
Actually, yes.
4 :
I'm afraid the harsh sun over Saudi Arabia would damage my baby soft skin, so I'll pass. Hey -- when I'm 60 and I still look 30, you'll know why I stayed out of the sun.
5 :
Can you be that cruel to think your is clever or funny?
6 :
I'm sure it would do a whole lot of people well to see firsthand what non separation of church and state means. If you intended anything else by your question, I must have missed it in my silly liberal mind.
7 :
If this conservative lady could understand your question, she would answer. Besides, I love being a Christian American and won't move to a Muslim country.
8 :
You need to get a dictionary and look up the word "conservative." It's the liberals who are always whining and yelping about "racism" every time anyone questions whether the flood of muslim immigration to the West is a good thing.

• Will someone make me a good spring outfit on eithe...
• Did i make the right choice concerning this job?
• Does anyone still have interest in traditional fil...
• are american eagle shorts worth more money?

Will America ever make a profit from the war in Iraq?

Will America ever make a profit from the war in Iraq?
I was watching PBS, and they said the Iraq has more untapped oil than saudi arabia. And that the iraqi government will give 3/4 of that oil to american countries. Obviously, this will benefit bush(GOD I HATE BUSH!!!), but will america make a profit. Will we as a country as a whole make more money from the oil than the costs to obtain it(military presence costs etc...)? the end of the first paragraph should read "American companies." Srry for the typo
Politics - 12 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Only Dubya and company will make profits.
2 :
I honestly hope not. The war is criminal and unnecessary, and noone deserves to benefit from it. I sincerely hope that Iraq gives its oil to China in order to spite the US.
3 :
No. American companies might but it's wrong. Please tell me that my fears are wrong and unfounded. I don't think the prospects are good for America. I think hope is waning. The trickle down theory doesn't work. It's really ridiculous actually. I may as well throw money on lottery tickets. Maybe I'll make back what I throw at it. (Not likely.) I've never bought a lottery ticket and I never will. I gambled once at Las Vegas (very small amount, with a bunch of guys) and never will again. Never. What a waste.
4 :
The true nature of the war OF terror is unfolding day by day. However we still have the blind head in the sanders that will talk about freedom, getting rid of a Dictator, Democracy etc etc.... OIL, OIL, OIL.... Yes I agree 100% with your sentiments.
5 :
NO! We have spent more than we can make in oil! This is not about Profits it is about FREEDOM. Where the hell are these people coming from.
6 :
America won't, we have a trillion dollars added to the National Debt because of the war. Only Halliburton and other large contributors to the political parties will benefit.
7 :
The thing is, the oil companies who stand to make that profit are not -American- companies. Large corporations today don't have any particular national allegiance. They are active all over the world. That's part of the idea of 'globalization', to allow large, powerful corporations to search the world for cheap resources, cheap labor, and rich markets. So even if they -do- make good profits, they aren't really American profits. But enormous profits are being made off this war, not just by the oil companies. Halliburton is doing very well. And Bechtel. And Blackwater. One of the main reasons for the war was to allow Bush to shovel taxpayer money at his friends, campaign contributors and the well-connected. For the rest of us it means huge debt and probably a coming wave of double-digit inflation.
8 :
This war was designed so certain companies will get the profit out of it (oil companies, weapons manufacturing companies). At the and all the money will end up in the accounts of certain people who planned this war. Americans will get nothing other than sending their tax money and children to Iraq.
9 :
America as a whole will be paying for this war for years to come at NO profit to the country as a whole. Now a certain 3% will make mega profits from oil contracts and no bid reconstruction contracts..........makes Bush and Cheyney smile at the thought of their retirement years being paid for by the sweat and blood of the US service man and woman.....what the heck do they care, as most service personnel are from the remaining 97% and not equal to their social standing in that 3%.
10 :
someone is making money off of it
11 :
in theory yes. in practice, no. some who claim american citizenship will greatly profit.
12 :
What do you mean by America? I guarantee that Big Oil will make the profits. Otherwise financially, it's a loss that will surface once Bush leaves office.

• Will someone make me a good spring outfit on eithe...
• Did i make the right choice concerning this job?
• Does anyone still have interest in traditional fil...
• are american eagle shorts worth more money?

how can we " the Public" end the AlSaud ruling Period in Saudi Arabia and start the one Islamic country?

how can we " the Public" end the AlSaud ruling Period in Saudi Arabia and start the one Islamic country?
I'm sick of them and their friend "America" . they are a stone on the way to one Islamic country. we don't want to spread their blood but want to kick them out the middle east forever. they are spreading the money on every thing make them stay for long time. they look like cancer in our community. from the start of this kingdom until now it was saving the israeli ass as well as an ex-british Colony. the reason that makes our imams (mutawa) keep silence on this because they want to save Muslims blood and unity "again the public", thanks for your time to read this crap.
Saudi Arabia - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
well, the system will end by its own so soon, but we don't want to be ruled by Islamic radicals. we want real Islamic country that showes the real Islam for the whole world.
2 :
If you want to change your government then you should find some way to let people know what is going on in the kingdom. If you think that the government is doing something wrong then expose its actions. When people know what is happening and there is a political unrest in the country then the government is forced to change in order to avoid war. The best thing to do is to find a way to point out whats wrong so that the people will force them to change. Its kind of like what happened in the UK, people were unhappy with the way that the royal family had absolute control over everything and were unhappy with the way that they were treated by the royal family and when the royal family noticed that they had virtually no supporters in the country and that they could be easily over thrown because even their own military was unsatisfied they gave most of the control over to elected officials but still stayed the "royal family" but just by name and they are mostly just figure heads now. And the British public were happy to keep the royal family as just a symbol of their culture. So it all ended well with everyone happy and no war. I think if the Saudi people were unhappy that they could arrange something like that. IF they really WANTED to.
3 :
who is "we" and "our" ? I have to say I agree on one thing though, your post is crap!

• Will someone make me a good spring outfit on eithe...
• Did i make the right choice concerning this job?
• Does anyone still have interest in traditional fil...
• are american eagle shorts worth more money?