We need to rationally discuss foreign influence on our policy

[Lerkfish]

we need to determine why and if its a good idea for our nation's security and posture to be unduly influenced by other nations, including:
1. Saudi Arabia
2. Dubai
3. Isreal.

We further need to determine why and if its a good idea for other nations to spend millions lobbying our country to influence our policy,
as in:

1. The Carlysle Group
2. AIPAC


These topics need to be discussed, rationally and fairly.

[Webster Green]

1. How about Murdoch and Rev. Moon?

Why are they allowed to pollute the US with their propaganda?

[Kelly Rupert]

2. And so, the rational discussion lasted 0 posts. n/t

[blm]

16. You're wrong, KR - Moon is a way bigger player than many realize - and not just

his media empire that has way more influence on networks like Cspan and CNN and FOX than most other print papers do....BUT....he also bought many of the studios around the DC area and gives the networks 'deals' they can't pass up.

He also has spent years buying and gaining control over our nation's fishing industry - more than half this nation's fishing industry is controlled by Moon.

He has also acquired in recent years, a million acres in Paraguay and now controls ALL the land above the world's largest fresh water aquifer - the Guarani Aquifer.

And in the not so distant future, the eventual water wars will dwarf the oil wars.

[Lerkfish]

5. add them to the list, although I was specifically referring to actual countries or their extensions

but the Rev. Moon could be argued to be an extension of his home country, I suppose

My suggestions were not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to spark the conversation.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Good point!

Murdoch has also been polluting the UK for years with his propaganda. Then there are (in the UK) the editors and writers for the Daily Mail, and other poisonous tabloids; I gather that the American equivalents are people like Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk-show hosts.

[Kelly Rupert]

3. I think you need to first determine the level of influence you consider

to be "undue." In many ways, Dubai and America share a common interest, as do SA and Israel.

Taking the isolationist route and claiming that the United States' interest is to be completely disconnected from the rest of the world is completely unrealistic, in the same way that claiming that the United States ought be able to act without regard for the welfare of other nations is.

[Mojorabbit]

4. Would that common

influence be oil? Otherwise I don't see why we are supporting anyone in that region.

[Lerkfish]

6. that's an excellent question. Where is the dividing between what is "undue"?

I would argue allowing Dubai to patrol our coasts would be "undue", as an example. I don't think a foreign country should be in charge of our border security, for obvious reasons. (at least obvious to me).

I am specifically thinking of areas where foreign influence actually affects our policy or our economics. That's a bit different from isolationism.
In other words, should our domestic and foreign policies be determined by foreign nations with a vested interest in that policy?

Dubai, for example, has Halliburton moving their headquarters there, Is in charge of patrolling our ports, and has recently purchased 20% of our stock exchange.
China controls immense debts and thereby determines our trade arrangements.

I'm trying to engender discussion of how much is too much, and how do we control it if so?

[northzax]

7. what is the Carlisle Group doing on this list?

it is a US-based and owned Private Equity firm.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Before deciding whether it's a good thing...

you need perhaps to decide whether America IS being unduly influenced by other countries - as opposed to influencing *them*, or mutual collaboration.

There are quite a few people in other countries that may feel that their governments are being influenced excessively *by* the American government. The UK is certainly one!!! (Of course, you could say that's because our governments have chosen to be.) So to a lesser degree are some other Europaean countries. Israel is IMO more influenced by America than the other way round. I don't know about Saudi Arabia.

As regards the organizations you mention: the Carlyle Group is IIRC a group of rich and influential people, mostly Americans, who meet for discussions of policy. I doubt that it's a matter of other countries influencing America. More likely, a bunch of rich people, getting paid even more money to chat together about doing what they would have done anyway. And AIPAC is an organization exclusively of Americans, who support Israel but are not Israelis.

I daresay other countries *do* lobby and try to influence America, as well as the EU and other countries, through their diplomatic and intelligence services. I don't know how much influence it has; it might be worth finding out, so that the *really* neediest countries might have more influence.

[cali]

10. Yes, a rational discussion of those issues

would be a good thing, and your OP is for the most part, a good start, but it's important to be factual. Both the Carlyle Group and AIPAC are U.S. groups funded by Americans.

[Lerkfish]

11. ok, bring up other more appropriate examples, then. The point is still valid apart from the examples

[cali]

12. No, I think we should talk about

AIPAC and other groups that advocate a dangerous and unbalanced foreign policy and exert what I believe is clearly undue influence. I just think that any group should be correctly identified.

[tears4terra]

13. Okay then...

Why does AIPAC push for the US to go to war which is clearly not in the US's best interests?

[cali]

14. How would I know what they consider to be

in the U.S.'s best interests. And AIPAC is a large organization, as I understand it, made up of many groups, some of whom are anti-war. It's not some simplistic little matter. And what other organziation push for war? AIPAC isn't the only one.

[tears4terra]

15. Oops!

I thought you wanted to talk about AIPAC. Sorry!

[cali]

17. Indeed I do: Why don't you tell me what

you think?

[tears4terra]

18. Okay...

I think that they have a dangerous influence over US foreign policy. Your turn...

[H2O Man]

19. Perhaps you are

thinking of US District Judge TS Ellis's memorandum opinion (Case 1:05-cr-00225-TSE Document 343-1, pages 10 through 16, which found that AIPAC intelligence operatives Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman "were agents of a foreign power quite apart from their First Amendment activities"?

[cali]

20. Why? Sorry, if you want to engage in dialogue, you

have to expand upon your one sentence.

[tears4terra]

23. Huh???

From your post #12, I thought you agreed with me. Or was that just flamebait?

What is YOUR opinion of AIPAC?

[cali]

24. I think AIPAC has far too much influence

over our elected officials, but us repeating it over and over isn't a discourse. Why do you think they have so much influence? What are the remedies?

[tears4terra]

26. I agree...

What can WE do about it? I honestly don't know. Not being afraid to speak out about it is a start, I guess. Letting our representatives know how we feel about lobbying and campaign finance too.

Also, I'm open on voting third party if it comes down to choosing between the better of two evils. Any other suggestions?

[H2O Man]

21. The Memorandum Opinion

by US District Court Judge TS Ellis (Case 1:05-cr-00225-TSE Doc 343-1) noted that "the FISC had ample probable cause to believe that the targets were agents of a foreign power...." This is from the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal, where US intelligence operatives were "sharing" military secrets with a foreign power.

[Lerkfish]

22. Thanks for bringing that up

That's one overt example of undue influence.

but I'm also concerned, for example, of the Dubai 20% ownership of the stock markets, and their control of our ports.

What happens, for example, if Dubai suddenly became our enemy? I dunno that that would happen, but then again, things happen quickly in this perverse world.

for the sake of argument, lets say Dubai declares war on us, and blockades our own ports. OR, mines our ports, OR allows WMDs to enter our ports?
And what if they decide to take their 20% ownership of the stock market and intentionally crash it, causing economic collapse?
And what if, simultaneously, China decides to call in their markers after the economic collapse?

In just three moves, all from "trusted" foreign partners, USA is checkmated.

The point is it COULD happen, even if it wouldn't. What do we have in place to protect us from that eventuality>?

[H2O Man]

25. It's an example

that shows the influences that are intent upon spreading violence in the Middle East. It is unfortunate that it isn't discussed on DU, considering it involves our government's policies, and the criminal role that US citizens are playing.

[DemReadingDU]

27. morning kick