Ok, how was the longevity of the new government (often dictators) relevant here? The point was that the US military is overthrowing governments and behalf of corporate America. Even if the dictator/new regime doesn't last long - the economic changes stay in place because the succeeding governments know touching those changes will just bring the US back.
That's one of the perquisites of being a very powerful nation, though, isn't it? The way it's always been and always will be. I'm sure that if Canada had equivalent power, it would be throwing its weight around on behalf of its wood products, oil and mining, and fishing industries as well, though in that case you'd probably be defending your government and I'd be the one harping about how nasty it is of the Canadian government to be assisting Canadian business interests.
Well, the Canadian government is currently spending money to promote oil sands development and I'm vocally opposed - not because I'm opposed to oil sands development but because I feel it is a violation of free market economics when a government uses my tax dollars to advertise on behalf of corporate interests.
I'm opposed to them advertising - now imagine how I would feel if they were assassinating people, ruining foreign countries, and starting wars on behalf of those companies?
So, unlike you, no - I wouldn't defend my government going abroad and killing people and destroying lives to make my corporate masters richer. Why do you?
"That's one of the perquisites of being a very powerful nation, though, isn't it? The way it's always been and always will be."
I do not accept that might makes right.
And never will.
"Might makes right"? No.
Right isn't in the picture.
It does get results, though.
I'm not someone who believes in metaphysical ethics.
According to this scholarly study in The William and Mary Law Review of gun ownership up to the American Revolution, "...individual gun ownership n every published study of early probate records that we have located ranges from 50% to 79%, only 32.5% of households today own a gun." (pg 1835)
There's a lot of people that feel it's somehow an evil and dangerous thing to have around. They're right about the dangerous part, however the evil part depends on who owns it and takes care it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Lot of people that didn't grow up with households that owned and shot guns are freaked by them.
I'm one of those people. Don't own a gun and probably never will. Don't belong to the NRA and see them as very radical, just like a lot of anti-gun people.
@Unseen - Exactly, it is not Australians problem - it is a mentality, of fear. To see Americans at gun shows, with their children, it is all part of the indoctrination of the 'right' to buy guns.
@ Noel - Excellent comment - the love of guns has nothing to do with protecting themselves against marauding armies. They maybe need missile launchers and flame throwers! Bit hard to park a tank in the back garden.Then you have 'them thar folks up in the mountains' waiting for Armageddon, with their guns ready to shoot anybody who wants to take their rice and flour????
As for the soccer match shootout, I think these people watch too many cowboy movies. Truly frigging scary.
Gee Suzanne, why am I NOT surprised to see you ignore Gregg's question?
20.000 dead Americans each year.
Promoting gun control is about as ethical as preventing hunger, ref. another post on this site.
What are the underlying causes of the American gun deaths each year?
Wouldn't you consider it "ethical" to address those?