Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on May 12, 2008, 07:05:00 PM
-
Washington drew out a draft proposal for a security deal in January 2008, a preliminary part of which was signed by officials of the two countries on March 17.
The negotiation, set to conclude in late July, will not only establish the basis for a long-term US occupation of Iraq, but will also turn the country into a US colony and yet another military base for Washington in the Middle East.
The accord with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government will replace the UN mandate and allow multinational military presence in the country.
This 'firm handshake' between the US president and the Iraqi prime minister is referred to by the Western media as the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
One look at Article 10 of the treaty makes it apparent that the US administration hopes to quietly impose the binding contract and legitimize its indefinite military presence in the country.
"As long as Iraqi security/military forces are not well-trained, security hasn't been ensured, the neighboring states pose a threat, and terrorist attacks continue, the treaty will be officially binding and both parties are obliged to implement it."
Article 1 of the treaty allows the US Army to carry out military operations in Iraq at any time and any place.
Under Article 2, American and British troops can arrest suspects at any time without the consent of the Iraqi government.
Article 3 reinforces Article 10 by asserting that there are no time limits for the presence of American forces, thus annulling the 1790 UN Security Council anti-occupation Resolution.
The contents of the treaty will dissipate all hopes of a sovereign Iraq, turning the country into a medieval US colony.
According to Article 4, American servicemen and non-servicemen are not obliged to attend any court hearings in Iraq, literally granting them capitulation privileges.
Article 7 puts the Iraqi ministries of defense, interior and intelligence under the direct supervision of US officials, ensuring Iraq will be officially governed by the United States.
Article 6 allows the US to set up 41 military bases in Iraq; Article 8 provides American forces with the authority to supervise arms sales as well as train Iraqi military and law enforcement personnel.
Article 9 argues that as a member of the international community Iraq must recognize Israel and unconditionally support Washington's Middle East policies.
-
Fvckin A. thats a one sided contract if i ever heard one. We agree to be there and do what we want when we want, how we want ,and dont need to report to you at all.
Occupation accomplished!!! However the worst part is we're allowing ourselves to continue fighting for them instead of setting up an independant democracy as originally stated.
The admin is trying to lock us there forever without regard for fellow Americans or Iraq's feelings on the war.
Bush and company should be tried for War crimes. Still no WMD's which garnered congress support at the time.....all out bullshit.
-
yeah it's one-sided.
yeah it's what things were about all along.
But...
yeah, it makes us stronger in the world. can't deny that. so it's a good thing.
-
So how is it we are colonizing the place?
Looks like a set up to give a free hand to act militarily. Not a bad idea considering the instability of the region and the people's inability to govern themselves.
-
So how is it we are colonizing the place?
US firms chopped up some of their oil fields = foreign power arrived to take resources.
US uses place for military launching base = foreign power arrived to take strategic position.
resources and position... kinda the historical goals of colonization, to a tee!
-
US firms chopped up some of their oil fields = foreign power arrived to take resources.
US uses place for military launching base = foreign power arrived to take strategic position.
resources and position... kinda the historical goals of colonization, to a tee!
Here's what constitutes a colony:
Dictionary:
colony
(kŏl'ə-nē) pronunciation
n., pl. -nies.
1.
1. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
2. A territory thus settled.
2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.
3.
1. A group of people with the same interests or ethnic origin concentrated in a particular area: the American colony in Paris.
2. The area occupied by such a group.
Does our occupation of Iraq satisfy any of these?
-
yeah, it makes us stronger in the world. can't deny that. so it's a good thing.
Really? I tought it's been pretty well established that the war has been anyting but a success or make us stronger. Last I heard the military is stretched to the max and wouldnt be able to defend against another foreign problem properly.
-
A group of ants can be a colony, right? I'm not sure that applies either.
In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state. (WIKI)
The term informed colony has also been used in relation to countries which, while they have never been conquered by force or officially ruled by a foreign power, have a clearly subordinate social or economic relationship to one. (WIKI) ;)
-
Really? I tought it's been pretty well established that the war has been anyting but a success or make us stronger. Last I heard the military is stretched to the max and wouldnt be able to defend against another foreign problem properly.
Yes, military stretched and we borrowed money. There isn't another forign problem, and if there was, we have plenty of missiles to fire at them.
In cheney/bush eyes, the war is a success. you keep the civil war going while setting up bases and oil control and a puppet govt you chose. end of day, you manage 50 to 75 tril worth of oil, and maintain ability to kill anything in iraq yo'd like without consequence.
-
Colony: A group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.
I'd say that America is trying to "westernize" Iraq in some fucked up way.
-
A group of ants can be a colony, right? I'm not sure that applies either.
In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state. (WIKI)
The term informed colony has also been used in relation to countries which, while they have never been conquered by force or officially ruled by a foreign power, have a clearly subordinate social or economic relationship to one. (WIKI) ;)
Not on paper. Don't they have a government?
We are an more of an occupation. And we are not taxing there GNP either. Otherwise we not have this 500 billion debt.
-
Not on paper. Don't they have a government?
We are an more of an occupation. And we are not taxing there GNP either. Otherwise we not have this 500 billion debt.
Patraeus and crocker just told congress 2 weeks ago that Iraqi reconstruction will now be funded by iraqi oil revenues, not our funds. Only 3% of allocated funds remain for reconstruction.
When you say "We are an more of an occupation", you're kinda demonstrating it was colonialism. Even if you ignore oil, and we invaded solely to build bases - that is colonialism too- it still falls under auspices of economic relationship.
-
Colony: A group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.
I'd say that America is trying to "westernize" Iraq in some fucked up way.
No one is settling in Iraq.
And if America is trying to westernize Iraq, I say good. The only thing most of those religious nut jobs responded to in the past was brutality at least if they get "westernized" we won't have incidents of father killing their daughters because they expressed feelings for a boy AND they'll settle their differences the western way with commercialism and lobbies combined with the corporate fueled manipulation of the government. At least as they get it in the ass, the western culture will act as a pain killer.
-
No one is settling in Iraq.
Article 3 reinforces Article 10 by asserting that there are no time limits for the presence of American forces, thus annulling the 1790 UN Security Council anti-occupation Resolution.
Article 6 allows the US to set up 41 military bases in Iraq
41 bases, forever. I'd call that settling!
-
Patraeus and crocker just told congress 2 weeks ago that Iraqi reconstruction will now be funded by iraqi oil revenues, not our funds. Only 3% of allocated funds remain for reconstruction.
When you say "We are an more of an occupation", you're kinda demonstrating it was colonialism. Even if you ignore oil, and we invaded solely to build bases - that is colonialism too- it still falls under auspices of economic relationship.
We didn't invade solely for oil. And it's about time they started paying for shit. We they are sending us tribute in billions every month then we can call them a colony. Until then it's all schematics. They are not a colony.
-
41 bases, forever. I'd call that settling!
No, that's called establishing military bases. Like in Germany, South Korea, Turkey etc... are we colonizing them too? Perhaps someone should tell their people.
Settling is moving large groups of population who stay there permanently raise families, grow old, have reunions etc.. .
-
We didn't invade solely for oil. And it's about time they started paying for shit. We they are sending us tribute in billions every month then we can call them a colony. Until then it's all schematics. They are not a colony.
We have 41 bases in their yard, forever. Part of their oil is being managed by US firms in US dollars.
"Solely"? Come on. If I break in your house and rape your dog, but I also mop the floor... would you consider me a criminal? Yes. If we had just went in and kicked out saddam and fixed them up then left, that would have been on thing... but we are now there permanently. There is value of that location, and we took it.
-
We have 41 bases in their yard, forever. Part of their oil is being managed by US firms in US dollars.
"Solely"? Come on. If I break in your house and rape your dog, but I also mop the floor... would you consider me a criminal? Yes. If we had just went in and kicked out saddam and fixed them up then left, that would have been on thing... but we are now there permanently. There is value of that location, and we took it.
Oil was one of the reasons, I'm sure. But there was more.
Also, military bases is not colonization. Send and e-mail to Germany, S. Korea, Turkey, the Philippines, etc...
There is plenty of legit stuff to criticize the USA about, no need to make this into something it's not. It just makes the accuser look bad.
-
Oil was one of the reasons, I'm sure. But there was more.
If oil was 1% of the reason, then yes, we are a foreign power who entered a soverign nation unprovoked *partially* to control their oil.
Is it partial colonialism?
is she kinda pregnant?
-
If oil was 1% of the reason, then yes, we are a foreign power who entered a soverign nation unprovoked *partially* to control their oil.
Is it partial colonialism?
is she kinda pregnant?
By that logic then any unprovoked invasion through history is colonization.
NO not in this case.
Colonization is mainly settling and area with people and becoming the main or exclusive profit-tee of their resources.
Even your wiki definition don't really define it. We are occupying Iraq. And we are actively trying not to.
-
I'll concede everything you said above because i love this point you made:
We are occupying Iraq. And we are actively trying not to.
PNAC document, (written by cheney, jeb, rummy and wolfy and bolton) talked about a new pearl harbor justifying series of wars to justify setting up permanent bases and control oil flow.
Is it jsut a coincidence that is exactly what is happening?
And, are you saying that Bush/Cheney admin is working "actively" to prevent their very own clearly defined goals from completion?
-
No one is settling in Iraq.
And if America is trying to westernize Iraq, I say good. The only thing most of those religious nut jobs responded to in the past was brutality at least if they get "westernized" we won't have incidents of father killing their daughters because they expressed feelings for a boy AND they'll settle their differences the western way with commercialism and lobbies combined with the corporate fueled manipulation of the government. At least as they get it in the ass, the western culture will act as a pain killer.
lol
-
BD and 240:
Is Japan a colony of the USA?
Because they meet the similar requirements you are apply to Iraq.
Because if they are, i want a dam discount the next time a buy a Sony flat screen!
-
I'll concede everything you said above because i love this point you made:
PNAC document, (written by cheney, jeb, rummy and wolfy and bolton) talked about a new pearl harbor justifying series of wars to justify setting up permanent bases and control oil flow.
Is it jsut a coincidence that is exactly what is happening?
And, are you saying that Bush/Cheney admin is working "actively" to prevent their very own clearly defined goals from completion?
Hey, I met this chic the other day............. She's has the perfect ass. She really does! I get all warm thinking about it. But she's also a BUSH supporter and i've been watching fox news non-stop with her......So what can i say? ;D
-
Hey, I met this chic the other day............. She's has the perfect ass. She really does! I get all warm thinking about it. But she's also a BUSH supporter and i've been watching fox news non-stop with her......So what can i say? ;D
Hi red herring!
-
I'll concede everything you said above because i love this point you made:
PNAC document, (written by cheney, jeb, rummy and wolfy and bolton) talked about a new pearl harbor justifying series of wars to justify setting up permanent bases and control oil flow.
Is it jsut a coincidence that is exactly what is happening?
And, are you saying that Bush/Cheney admin is working "actively" to prevent their very own clearly defined goals from completion?
A PNAC doc written before 9/11? Not surprising. Contingently planning is a past time for those in the military. Heck, if Fiji launch an invasion of California i wouldn't be surprised if there was a plan for that. And then you'd be here saying it really was a BUSH scam becuase of a contingency plan.
-
We are occupying Iraq. And we are actively trying not to.
PNAC document, (written by cheney, jeb, rummy and wolfy and bolton) talked about a new pearl harbor justifying series of wars to justify setting up permanent bases and control oil flow.
Is it jsut a coincidence that is exactly what is happening?
And, are you saying that Bush/Cheney admin is working "actively" to prevent their very own clearly defined goals from completion?
Are you saying this, seriously? I mean to me, it looks like everything is working exactly as they said they'd to it. What possible evidence do you have that "And we are actively trying not to (occupy Iraq)"?
I have evidence, called the pnac document, that we worked very hard according to a very detailed plan, to occupy them. What evidence do you have that we're "actively trying not to"?
-
BD and 240:
Is Japan a colony of the USA?
Because they meet the similar requirements you are apply to Iraq.
Because if they are, i want a dam discount the next time a buy a Sony flat screen!
I'll have to post the whole article or provide a link, which I forgot to do intially. I took out what I found interesting in the article so it may not fit the context of the actual thread title. If I can find it, I'll get it on here.
-
Hi red herring!
;D ;D
-
Plus were reeally talking about laying a foundation for colonization.
-
A PNAC doc written before 9/11? Not surprising. Contingently planning is a past time for those in the military. Heck, if Fiji launch an invasion of California i wouldn't be surprised if there was a plan for that. And then you'd be here saying it really was a BUSH scam becuase of a contingency plan.
no - this wasn't a contingency plan - it was written 6 months before the 2000 election by a private thinktank of all these smart people.
now, these smart people run the country, and the war has been 6 years that exactly followed their blueprint.
I'm really surprised here. maybe you're jsut being adversarial for the fun of it. They're doing exactly what they said we should do, and now this contract shows that 1/2 of the goals of the PNAC document has been met (dozens of bases for unlimited timeframe).
-
PNAC document, (written by cheney, jeb, rummy and wolfy and bolton) talked about a new pearl harbor justifying series of wars to justify setting up permanent bases and control oil flow.
Is it jsut a coincidence that is exactly what is happening?
And, are you saying that Bush/Cheney admin is working "actively" to prevent their very own clearly defined goals from completion?
Are you saying this, seriously? I mean to me, it looks like everything is working exactly as they said they'd to it. What possible evidence do you have that "And we are actively trying not to (occupy Iraq)"?
I have evidence, called the pnac document, that we worked very hard according to a very detailed plan, to occupy them. What evidence do you have that we're "actively trying not to"?
Sorry man, I'll answer fully later tomorrow. I'm tired. Got to get up a 5:00am. Cardio, back and bi's ;D
Like i said i'm sure they have all sorts of plans, but the fact is, they are working to stabilize the country. Maybe on a CT level you might think it's not true. But what real evidence is there to the contrary?
Other than it took them 4 years to come up with the "surge plan" hmmmmmm (looks left, looks right...........turns out the lights)
-
Plus were reeally talking about laying a foundation for colonization.
Good point. I've booked passage on the Mayflower all ready. ;D
-
i think we want stability there, yes.
but i think we also want to guarantee a need for our presence, hence our "arming both sunni and shiite" as GAO reveals we have been.
that would prove we're not actively trying THAT hard.
later!
-
no - this wasn't a contingency plan - it was written 6 months before the 2000 election by a private thinktank of all these smart people.
now, these smart people run the country, and the war has been 6 years that exactly followed their blueprint.
I'm really surprised here. maybe you're jsut being adversarial for the fun of it. They're doing exactly what they said we should do, and now this contract shows that 1/2 of the goals of the PNAC document has been met (dozens of bases for unlimited timeframe).
No, all I'm saying is that there hundreds of thousands of plans for all kinds of things. just becuase there was a plan for something like this doesn't mean the whole thing was pre-meditated.
I am being a bit adversarial becuase the idea we are colonizing Iraq is silly. We are occupying it. Please feel free to apply some of what you measured Iraq with to Japan. Japan is not our colony yet much of what you said applies.
-
i think we want stability there, yes.
but i think we also want to guarantee a need for our presence, hence our "arming both sunni and shiite" as GAO reveals we have been.
that would prove we're not actively trying THAT hard.
later!
gn ;D
i really don't think we needed to help them. There is too much to gain for those that oppose us.
-
I am being a bit adversarial becuase the idea we are colonizing Iraq is silly. We are occupying it.
fair enough.
we're staying long enough to get the oil.
oh, and we're keeping bases there to cook any country in the region.
both good ideas. I'll concede it's not colonialism by dictionary sense, rather, it's straight jacking them.
-
lebensraum
sweet
-
fair enough.
we're staying long enough to get the oil.
oh, and we're keeping bases there to cook any country in the region.
both good ideas. I'll concede it's not colonialism by dictionary sense, rather, it's straight jacking them.
You should know we are jacking them for their own good ;D
-
You should know we are jacking them for their own good ;D
haha feisty. cardio, back, biceps and sleep in that short of time? I'm impressed. I watched Dora the Explorer then went to the playground.
-
So how is it we are colonizing the place?
Looks like a set up to give a free hand to act militarily. Not a bad idea considering the instability of the region and the people's inability to govern themselves.
tomorrow i'm gonna visit your house...set fire to half of it and then offer to help build it..
o..while helping i'll set up perm residence
you seem to be ok with such so why not!
-
tomorrow i'm gonna visit your house...set fire to half of it and then offer to help build it..
o..while helping i'll set up perm residence
you seem to be ok with such so why not!
hahahaha kill the landlord (saddam), burn down half the house (shock n awe), offer to rebuild it, but require one room rent-free for life (bases) and free access to all the food in fridge (oil)
-
haha feisty. cardio, back, biceps and sleep in that short of time? I'm impressed. I watched Dora the Explorer then went to the playground.
hehehe, not that much of a work out.
-
tomorrow i'm gonna visit your house...set fire to half of it and then offer to help build it..
o..while helping i'll set up perm residence
you seem to be ok with such so why not!
I feel great about it.
What you did was burn half my house down to find and kill a evil termite.
But we will call that fighting for freedom.
-
I feel great about it.
What you did was burn half my house down to find and kill a evil termite.
But we will call that fighting for freedom.
you'r not gonna be mad if some of your family also died along the way r ya?
-
Project for a new American Century is an organization not a document.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
This is the 2000 document you keep referring to,
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
from section V CREATING TOMORROW’S DOMINANT FORCE
"Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause"
while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple
American and allied interests.
A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades."
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Roger Barnett
U.S. Naval War College
Alvin Bernstein
National Defense University
Stephen Cambone
National Defense University
Eliot Cohen
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Devon Gaffney Cross
Donors' Forum for International Affairs
Thomas Donnelly
Project for the New American Century
David Epstein
Office of Secretary of Defense,
Net Assessment
David Fautua
Lt. Col., U.S. Army
Dan Goure
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Donald Kagan
Yale University
Fred Kagan
U. S. Military Academy at West Point
Robert Kagan
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Robert Killebrew
Col., USA (Ret.)
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
Mark Lagon
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
James Lasswell
GAMA Corporation
I. Lewis Libby
Dechert Price & Rhoads
Robert Martinage
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment
Phil Meilinger
U.S. Naval War College
Mackubin Owens
U.S. Naval War College
Steve Rosen
Harvard University
Gary Schmitt
Project for the New American Century
Abram Shulsky
The RAND Corporation
Michael Vickers
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment
Barry Watts
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Paul Wolfowitz
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Dov Zakheim
System Planning Corporation
Statement of Principles for their organization.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
-
yeah it's one-sided.
yeah it's what things were about all along.
But...
yeah, it makes us stronger in the world. can't deny that. so it's a good thing.
Unless you are a transnational corporation, I think anything inuring to your (or the USA's) benefit from this war is a fantasy.
Corporations have no allegiance to any country. Reincorporating in a foreign land is easy. Ask Halliburton about that.
Those corporations will sell its Iraqi oil to whomever will buy it. The Grand Ol' US military is used as mafia muscle to make sure those corporations prosper b/c our political leaders want it so.
-
you'r not gonna be mad if some of your family also died along the way r ya?
We all must sacrifice for the greater good. 8)
-
We all must sacrifice for the greater good. 8)
so i figure you r gonna joint the army tomorrow! 8)
-
so i figure you r gonna joint the army tomorrow! 8)
He does his part by facilitating discussion on this very awesome war.
-
Unless you are a transnational corporation, I think anything inuring to your (or the USA's) benefit from this war is a fantasy.
Corporations have no allegiance to any country. Reincorporating in a foreign land is easy. Ask Halliburton about that.
Those corporations will sell its Iraqi oil to whomever will buy it. The Grand Ol' US military is used as mafia muscle to make sure those corporations prosper b/c our political leaders want it so.
Best post of the day. 8)