Would it be against the law to build a militia group, take it overseas, and attack another country to take it over?
ie, since Iran is pulling all this BS with their uranium right now, could you put together an army, take it overseas, take over their country, and then start selling oil at a reasonable price again?
You'd make a rediculous profit.
On a side note - I'm turning into a hard-core Democrat, I'm afraid. The current policies of the Bush administration are so far to the right that it requires going way, way to the left in order to offset them. I think this will result in Hilary winning the next election, if North Korea and Iran don't nuke us first.
Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Bush's policies to the right? Dude, you're smoking something really not good for you. Bush's policies are that of a Socialist. Modern Libralism and the Neo-Conservative movement share almost every single plank of their ideology.
If you compare President's Kennedy and Bush, I'm afriad you'll have to put Kennedy on the right side. The mainstream Republican party is moving so far to the left it's hard to see them zooming past.
If you want me to get more specific perhaps I could work up my own blog entry...
Oh, and as for the private army thing...no it's not legal. You should look into what some of the private security firms are doing these days. They're pushing the boundaries of what's legal and it seems to be expanding a little bit as well, but full-on private armies are far from it.
I did read awhile back that one of the larger security firms was wanting to contract out soldiers to the US military as opposed to it using enlisted soldiers for some tasks. It sounded like it might happen for 'security' or non-combat type roles from what I was reading at the time. Though I haven't followed up on it much.
However, if you do manage to overthrow the government, and you are the government of Iran, well, then, whatever you did to get there is probably a moot point. I mean, look at any goverment insurrection that was successful. Whatever the people did to overthrow the government was certainly illegal when they did it...
I'm mostly worried about what would happen if the US decided I was to blame for it and decided to nuke me :)
And the specific policies I'm referring to are those that Bush is doing in the name of security, ie, the justice department trying to get Google's search records, or the whole Patriot act thing...
A right-wing conservative viewpoint is not one of bigger government. Bigger, more powerful, more encroaching government is a sign of socialist and/or communist policies.
Historically in this nation the Democratic party has been on the socialist side of things, whilst the Republican's have, for the most part, followed a more open and freedom-minded position. In recent years this has changed significantly.
The last gasp of true right-wing conservitave political action in this country would have to be the election of Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America followers.
However, once they took power, it didn't take long for them to fold their hand to the special interests and to continue the same old song and dance with the Democratic leadership. While they were the ones that had the majority stake, they kept on acting like the minority party.
The neo-conservitives took it upon themselves to run as the "real" conservitives and then without missing a step turn away from thier campaign ideologies, to their true ideologies.
The scary thing to notice is that most of the time neither party is in disagreement about anything substantial. Sure, the Democrats wanted even more spending on the Medicare prescription drug plan, but still, both of them wanted it.
The even more scary thing is to see some Democrats (i.e. Hillary Clinton) start to tack to the right on some issues, such as the border, because polling shows that most people in this nation take that stance and the current Republican leadership is deadset in following through with thier agenda regardless.
It will be interesting to see if this tacking to the right of the Democrats proves fruitful, and if so, if it continues and the tables truely turn in a substantial way and not just on a political agenda way.
However, the Democratic party uses big government to impose complete equality only because equality allows disadvantaged people to enjoy their personal freedoms. They are the champions of civil liberty, even when those civil liberties seem completely and utterly absurd (as they often do). The Republican party is all about disregarding civil liberties in the pursuit of a better life, but lately that better life has been a more secure life, and a more secure life is one with increasingly more laws and more invasion of personal liberty in order to force safety onto everyone.
If you use big government the power to impose even something that seems good, the next election cycle may bring to power someone who can use that power to do something not good.
The only smart thing to do is to leave the government out of it. Civil liberties don't need protected. The big 'civil liberties' violations that everyone always points to, Jim Crow Laws, were just that, Laws. The recognized and legal governent supported and enacted those laws. Without them, people would have been able to do as they wished and there would never have been a government sanctioning of such behavior.
It's just as bad to have the government force good things on us as bad. This is why every fascist and totalitarian western government has grown out of a socialist society.
Gotta agree w/ Connor on this one. People here in Japan ask me if I like W and I tell them he's not conservative enough. Not by a long shot, especially on the domestic side of things.
OTOH, I say "Run, Hillary, run!" Both for President and from my vicious barbed comments. If she makes the Dem nomination, she'll lose. And that makes me smile.
When you talk about getting your own army and attacking another country and asking if it's "legal," you have to define what "legal" is. Do you abide by US law? Which US law might deal w/ private citizens attacking rogue nations? Um, none. So, what, internat'l law? To be honest, int'l law is nothing more than CONVENTION, which, strictly speaking, means SUGGESTION and vague agreement.
But a really good question to ask oneself is whether the war is just. A long-standing Christian tradition of the Just War exists especially in the writings of Thomas Aquinas (and I think Augustine as well, but I get a little fuzzy there). One of the premises of the Just War theory is that war must be carried out by a legitimate gov't. Thus, a private militia attacking Iran would not be just.
On a personal note, it sounds like a cool idea. ;-)
So, I realized I never really addressed the 'specific policies' that mention.
Those kinds of actions are not actions of a conservative Republican (in the traditional sense). They are the actions of a Statist, someone who believes that the government should control all of the power.
I always love how people point out the 'big government' actions of Bush, but not once did anyone ever bat an eye at the actions of Clinton. I suppose people expected it of Clinton and didn't of Bush.
The one that always blew my mind was how the Clinton White House, very early in his first term, obtained huge amounts of FBI files on lots of prominent people. Especially people that could be considered 'enemies' of the Clinton's. They did this illegaly.
Nixon was impeached and resigned over a single (I believe it was the file on his political rival only, but it could have been more than one.) FBI file and a hotel break-in.
I think that taking a step back and seeing that both of the major parties in this country are horribly corrupt is what needs to be done. Neither of them are the answer at this point.
Oh, and rhology, good points on the international law bit.
Yes, Rhology, excellent points. I suppose I mean US law, as the US attempts to enforce law for the world, and as I am currently a US citizen. However, there is also certainly UN convention to consider - they might simply attack such an army, or they might support it after it's taken power, or they might attempt to ignore it altogether.
Post a Comment