US wonders why others don't love them
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 3:34 AM EDT |
So our Official Representatives walk into another Sovereign Nation, and, attempt to strong arm them into accepting, not even something the US interest, but, the commercial interests of a Corporation already proven criminal. I don't even have words to describe how contemptible that is. And, we wonder why many hate the US??? |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 27, 2006 3:45 AM EDT |
I couldn't agree more. Talk about bought and sold, using the European Commission and S. Korea as only just the recent examples, M$ has the U$ government at their beck and call. Like we didn't already know that though. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 27, 2006 4:04 AM EDT |
That's what you get when (corporate) donations to political campaign warchests are legal. Lucky this side of the pond they were wise enough to outlaw it (mostly). |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 4:32 AM EDT |
Oh please. What are we here, Pollyannas in Care Bear land? Think the French government gave a damn about US opinion when it took billions from Saddam Hussein? Do you think the EU gave a damn about US opinion in twisting arms on behalf of Airbus? Etc. This is what countries do. |
| jsusanka Sep 27, 2006 7:18 AM EDT |
"Oh please. What are we here, Pollyannas in Care Bear land? Think the French government gave a damn about US opinion when it took billions from Saddam Hussein? Do you think the EU gave a damn about US opinion in twisting arms on behalf of Airbus? Etc. This is what countries do." Okay I guess that makes it right. I was highly pissed off about this and I wrote my representatives about it so I can make some decisions coming up in november. If I don't get an answer well I will vote and try to make a change. The only problem is the whole system is corrupt - companies pay both democrats and republicans so whoever wins they are covered. I would like to know from the representative who went over to do the dirty deed what has microsoft done for the people and how does he/she justify representing the people of the US by sticking up for microsoft. they are a convicted monopolists that only cares about taking money out of people's wallets and to keep taking it period. Now with drm the keep taking it will become a little easier. Glad I use linux and enjoy freedom. no company or money can destroy linux - it will be around for a long long time I will make sure my daughter and her friends know all about it. |
| jdixon Sep 27, 2006 7:38 AM EDT |
jsusanka Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute. Please keep in mind that's all I'm doing, and that I largely agree with you. > Okay I guess that makes it right. Well, in a general sense, it does. One cannot blame people for playing a game by the rules just because the rules are poorly or incorrectly written. That's in effect what the US politicians were doing. They were playing the EU's game by the rules the EU had written. It's the game and rules that are the problem, not the actions of the individual players. > I would like to know from the representative who went over to do the dirty deed what has microsoft done for the people and how does he/she justify representing the people of the US by sticking up for microsoft. In the politician's view, Microsoft IS one of their constituents. They pay their taxes, they provide jobs, and the generally obey the law (monopoly laws are an obscure point to most people, even politicians). Perhaps more importantly, they contribute to re-election campaigns. Your average politician feels their views need to be listened to and communicated to the EU (especially if it keeps those contributions coming). Within the system we have today, their view actually makes sense. I don't like it, but it is internally consistent, and it seems to work as often as not. Within that system, it's your place to lobby your officials to ignore US lobby attempts. It sounds like that's what you're doing. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 7:45 AM EDT |
jsusanka - Please don't misunderstand me. I don't like it any better than you do. However,. I would be very upset if the rest of the world were playing cutthroat while my government went about playing pattycake. Trade is a matter of national welfare, and I fully expect my government to be in there keeping it open to US companies. What I object to is the "Nasty US for acting that way." as if the US were some special devil. |
| boborooster Sep 27, 2006 8:25 AM EDT |
-- le boborooster entree dinotrac makes strong points, yes? It is this LX reader's understanding as well as others responding to this post (jsusanka), that the US Republican representatives are under the real threat of losing much of their party's positions in the November election to Democrats. Perhaps, as unlikely as it may be, it can happen that these new Democratic representatives will be less inclined to support the US Gouvernment's and Microsoft's heavy-handed lobbying with the EC. One can write, vote, and hope..... le boborooster |
| tuxchick2 Sep 27, 2006 8:39 AM EDT |
God forbid either party should set aside their naked lusts for power and control and demonizing and dividing and actually try to serve all of their constituents and do what's best for the country. /me waits for the laughter to die down /and waits /and waits Shut up, I can dream, sheesh. |
| SFN Sep 27, 2006 8:53 AM EDT |
Let me make sure that I have this straight. The original points here were that 1) a reason that others hate the U.S. is because our elected officials are trying to force other governments to do business with criminals and 2) this practice is "contemptible". Others are arguing that our government isn't unique as proven by the similar actions of other countries. In what way does that arguement address the original points? |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 9:02 AM EDT |
>In what way does that arguement address the original points? Well...Let's put on our thinking hat for a moment, shall we? I'll make it easy for you. When you say something causes people to hate the US, the unspoken implication is that they hate the US without hating all other countries. The logical conclusion is that something about the United States is different from other countries. In proposing a particular action as a reason why people hate the United States, one asserts -- whether or not the assertion is made explicit -- that the proposed action in some way sets the United States apart from other nations. See? That wasn't so hard. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 27, 2006 9:30 AM EDT |
Some pushing, shoving and lobbying is not uncalled for in international trade, but what the US has done here goes way beyond "some". |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 9:49 AM EDT |
> but what the US has done here goes way beyond "some". There must be other reports on this. What exactly did the US do? |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 11:37 AM EDT |
Dino, So first you argue that 'all the other guys do is , so, it's ok'. In other words two wrongs make right? Then you point to the historical record of various empires doing the same or worse. I guess that means we just continue 'tradition'? Finally, you say we need to defend and promote our crimin... er... business in foreign country's. I thought that was to defend Citizens, and support Business interests, but, guess I was wrong there too... And let's remember the US touts that it is 'always' the guy in the white hat... > There must be other reports on this The reports of the US supporting MS's sleazy business practices are legion... Do your own homework, JGI... |
| NoDough Sep 27, 2006 12:07 PM EDT |
U.S. did this. U.S. does that. Blah blah blah. The U.S. and every other country in the world are made up of people. In every large group of people, there are good and bad. In every country in the world there are people lusting for power in high government positions. It's the same everywhere. The reason "why many hate the US" isn't because this group of people is doing something different from every other group of people. It's because this group of people wins too darn much. In American baseball, there's a saying; "Anybody but the Yankees!" The saying refers to the fact that most Americans want "anybody but the Yankees" to win. Why? Because they win too darn much. Nobody likes to play a game with someone who wins all the time. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 12:30 PM EDT |
NoDough, More like everyone hates a bully. The US is not the only one beating on the little guy by any means, but it is the one that seems to do it most frequently. The current administration seems especially good at this. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 12:48 PM EDT |
Jimf - Clear the beans from your ears. I hear that the US went over the line. The US did awful things. This report pretty much says nothing, yet it what appears to have triggered the responses. I'd like to know what people think happened. I haven't heard, for example of the US ambassador barging in on an EU commissioner with a company of marines and shouting "Go easy or die!!!" Exactly what did we do that is beyond the pale? Lobbying and diplomatic arm-twisting is NOT beyond the pale. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 27, 2006 12:54 PM EDT |
Come on, the world should love us for our generous exports of democracy. We have plenty to share, since we're not using it. |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 12:57 PM EDT |
tc - Heck, Who wouldn't hate the US when there are wonderful democratic wonderlands like North Korea, China, Syria, and Iran to adore. Ahd Hey!! I hear Singapore's real laid back. And Mexico? All those folks are leaving because they can't stand that much pure unbridled joy in their lives. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 1:31 PM EDT |
dino, So NEWS FLASH there are worse places than the US? And that goes to point on the US bad behavior how? |
| jdixon Sep 27, 2006 2:33 PM EDT |
jimf: I think what Dino may be trying to point out is that reasons given for hating the US don't hold water. If the reasons were valid, the people giving them would hate other countries even more, which doesn't seem to be the case. So, I think it's safe to say that the envy/bully reasons are the real ones. Now, the question is, are the bully accusations justified. I can think of examples where they are (the recent detention of the Venezuelan diplomat, the arrest of the British gambling operator while he was in the US, the Iraq war, etc.), but most of those involve the people actually being present in the US or the use of or military power. I don't think they are in this case. In this case, as in the Pirate Bay case, the US appears to have used the same mechanisms available to everyone else, in the same way everyone else uses them. The fact those mechanisms are available should have the EU citizens yelling and screaming at the EU, not at the US. There's a lot to complain about where the US is concerned. Let's not devalue the legitimate complaints by making unjustified ones. |
| jdixon Sep 27, 2006 2:34 PM EDT |
TC: > Come on, the world should love us for our generous exports of democracy. We have plenty to share, since we're not using it. Well, to be fair, we never have used it. We're supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. :) |
| herzeleid Sep 27, 2006 3:19 PM EDT |
dinotrac: You keep pressing for specifics, wanting to know exactly what was done. IMHO exactly what was done isn't the point. The fact that the microsoft is able to employ US government officials as goons and thugs to go twist arms on their behalf is absolutely obscene. Where is the outrage? |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 4:13 PM EDT |
herzeleid - >IMHO exactly what was done isn't the point. Well, if that's the case, it doesn't matter for crap what is done. Everybody can simply decide EVERY FREAKIN' THING IN THE WORLD is wrong and a reason to hate the US. Let's see... Boeing sells airplaines in the EU. Not only that, their high-efficiency 787, which can enable point-to-point non-stop traffic instead of incessant hub-spoke interconnects, is beating the pants of the Airbus A350. The beating is so bad that the A350 has been sent back to the drawing board and delayed by several years. American Boeing employees need passports in order to go to Europe to facilitate sales. Those passports are issued by the United States government. The federal government is thus directly involved in efforts by Boeing to deprive Europeans of jobs they would have if international airlines bought the crappy Airbus proposal instead of the 787. Where is the outrage? |
| herzeleid Sep 27, 2006 4:20 PM EDT |
dinotrac: It seems you keep trying to steer criticism away from microsoft and their stooges in the government. Why keep drawing the discussion away from microsoft by throwing dust into the air with these other examples? |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 5:04 PM EDT |
Read the subject of this thread.
It pertains to the world hating the US. That is the topic I am addressing. As to the government going to bat for Microsoft, I support that completely even though I despise Microsoft and do not buy their products. I support that because the government is supposed to facilitate trade by American companies. |
| JackieBrown Sep 27, 2006 5:24 PM EDT |
I love the US and support most of what it does as far as foreign policy is concerned. It's attitudes towards coorparations, however, do leave a lot to be desired. However, most of the problems did not start in Bush Jr time (nor do they seem likely to stop either.) |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 5:35 PM EDT |
JackieBrown - The tinfoil hat in me sometimes wonders if Democrats and Republicans play this big "thou art the devil game" to keep us from noticing the assorted billionaires-millionaires and power brokers that are behind them. Maybe that's why we get finger pointing and name calling instead of solid proposals for real change. I gotta tell you...this whole DRM thing seems like proof of the pudding. WIth so many people using computers and relying on digital media, using cell phones on the internet and digital high-def TVs, the time seems really ripe for people to build campaigns around forces that endanger all of those things. But, that would endanger The Dems' billionaires at the very least, and probably more than a few of the Republicans' as well. So...we are advised not to hold our breath. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 6:54 PM EDT |
dino, My rant was not really against any specific party, although the current one is certainly notable. Actually I think large business interests run them all. The same candidate, Different mask . |
| dinotrac Sep 27, 2006 7:13 PM EDT |
jimf - I didn't think it was. I'm just horribly frustrated over the bickering and name calling without any constructive work being done. Frankly, I think they're all trying to keep us distracted while they go about doing as they perfectly well please. |
| jimf Sep 27, 2006 7:17 PM EDT |
> Frankly, I think they're all trying to keep us distracted while they go about doing as they perfectly well please. Agree, It's something that frustrates us all. |
| henke54 Sep 27, 2006 9:27 PM EDT |
Quote:
Microsoft is an experienced political mover. The company spent $8.7m in 2005 greasing the Washington machine according to OpenSecrets.org, who records donations to campaigns of elected officials and candidates, and cash spent on lobbying. Microsoft beat all other software, hardware and telecoms companies, and was second only in spending to the US Telecom Association.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/26/microsoft_eu_politic... Quote: Prior to 1998, the company and its employees gave virtually nothing in terms of political contributions. But when the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into the company’s marketing of its popular Windows software, things changed. The company opened a Washington lobbying office, founded a political action committee and soon became one of the most generous political givers in the country. [url=http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000115&Name=Microsoft Corp]http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000115&Na...[/url] |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2006 2:42 AM EDT |
henke54: So Microsoft has taken to making large political contributions since the anti-trust trial. In the US, this is perfectly legal, and even somewhat expected of large corporations. By itself, this is evidence of nothing other than Microsoft wanting to have their issues given a fair hearing in Washington. Again, the fact that US politicians lobbied on Microsoft's behalf, when every other country does the same thing for their companies, is an indictment of the EU process, not of the US politicians. They were doing what they're supposed to do, lobby on behalf of one of their consituents. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2006 3:14 AM EDT |
jdixon: Bingo. And they did it without secretly taking billions of dollars from Saddam Hussein and then pretending their moves to weaken or altogether eliminate international sanctions were driven by higher motives. There's lots of dirty to go around in international dealings. If anything, the US is a rank amateur at the art. |
| SFN Sep 28, 2006 5:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:When you say something causes people to hate the US, the unspoken implication is that they hate the US without hating all other countries. Sounds to me like your hearing things. If I say "I hate my ex-wife and here's why", that doesn't mean I don't hate anybody else. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2006 8:11 AM EDT |
SFN - I guess it all depends on what the definition of is is. If you want to split hairs to the point that nothing means anything, more power to you. |
| SFN Sep 28, 2006 8:24 AM EDT |
Do you work for Fox News? |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2006 9:25 AM EDT |
SFN - Again, what is that meaning of is? |
| SFN Sep 28, 2006 10:38 AM EDT |
1
a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as
b : to have identity with
c : to constitute the same class as
d : to have a specified qualification or characterization
e : to belong to the class of
used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication 2 a : to have an objective existence : have reality or actuality b : to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position c : to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted -- used only in infinitive form d : to take place e : to come or go Although I'm not sure I buy 1c. |
| henke54 Sep 28, 2006 10:55 AM EDT |
@dinotrac : >Bingo. And they did it without secretly taking billions of dollars from Saddam Hussein that's another story and other companies... (i have seen a recent film of these horrible 'birth defects' in Vietnam ... now more then 30 years after the fact) and the US has also 'covered their constituent companies' about that....they (civilians of Vietnam) got nada , while the US soldiers who suffered from this poison got all the help --> "From 1966 to 1972, the United States dumped more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange (a dioxin-powered herbicide) over about 4.5 million acres of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The government of Vietnam estimate the civilian casualties from Agent Orange at more than 500,000. The legacy continues with high levels of birth defects in areas that were saturated with the chemical. Tens of thousands of US soldiers were also the victims of Agent Orange." http://www.counterpunch.org/germwar.html |
| jimf Sep 28, 2006 10:56 AM EDT |
All of you guys are making Clinton look good. Monica, where are you now that we need you... :D |
| cheshire137 Sep 28, 2006 11:46 AM EDT |
"The reason 'why many hate the US' isn't because this group of people is doing something different from every other group of people. It's because this group of people wins too darn much." I disagree. I get pissed off at my country when it does things like this because it has no business doing things like this. I always hear conservatives griping about independence, letting states do their own things, not helping out other countries when we have our own people that need help, etc. There's this big theme of 'tend to your own knitting', then this kind of crap comes about from our current conservative regime. Hypocritical much? |
| SFN Sep 28, 2006 12:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:while the US soldiers who suffered from this poison got all the help Actually, there's a whole lot of soldiers who didn't get anything either. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2006 12:42 PM EDT |
>I disagree. I get pissed off at my country when it does things like this because it has no business doing things like this. Oddly enough, conservatives can get behind this kind of thing because the Constitution gives the Federal Government a very important place in internation relations generally, and international trade specifically. You are free to dislike it, but that's the facts, Jack. |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2006 1:27 PM EDT |
> I get pissed off at my country when it does things like this because it has no business doing things like this. Well, speaking as an American citizien, American citizens have every right to complain about such actions on the part of their politicians if they want. Citizens of other countries do not. Their countries have set up the rules under which the US politicians and other representatives have to operate. If such action is illegal there, then arrest or deport the offender. Otherwise, yell at your own government, not ours. This is especially true in cases like the Pirate Bay fiasco, where Sweden shouldn't have given the MPAA/RIAA lobbyists the time of day, much less have done what they demanded. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 28, 2006 2:10 PM EDT |
That's called abusing power. Like Microsoft peddles it's bundles crap under threat of market lockout, so does the US peddle it's corporate agenda's under threat of treaty lockout. "So, you want to be a WTO member? Please implement DCMA-style laws" "What's that? You'd like less import/export levvies? Sure, as soon as you let the MAFIAA and BSA act in your country" continue ad nauseum |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2006 2:15 PM EDT |
> So, you want to be a WTO member? Please implement DCMA-style laws"
"What's that? You'd like less import/export levvies? Sure, as soon as you let the MAFIAA and BSA act in your country"
continue ad nauseum And how hard is it to say no? Does the rest of the world really need the US that much? If so, then like any addict, you have to pay the pusher. Otherwise, a complete trade embargo would put US in its place fairly quickly. |
| jimf Sep 28, 2006 3:32 PM EDT |
> Again, the fact that US politicians lobbied on Microsoft's behalf, when every other country does the same thing for their companies, is an indictment of the EU process, not of the US politicians. They were doing what they're supposed to do, lobby on behalf of one of their constituents. Well, I agree that we are attacking this from the wrong end. The politicians in our country should be legislating big business Corporate contributions and lobbying out of existence. Obviously they and not the Citizens run the show, so I doubt this will happen. Power given, is almost never returned. Last time that happened, George Washington turned down a crown, something unique in US and perhaps World history. As far as the US, and, 'any other country that is playing this game' I repeat: 1) Two wrongs do not make a right. 2) Historical precedent does not in itself justify an action. 3) the mandate is to defend Citizens, and support Business interests... Don't say nothing about assisting convicted criminals in the pursuit of their endeavors. > Does the rest of the world really need the US that much? Personally, I think we should put that the other way, Does the US really need the rest of the world that much? Corporate business does, but has big Corporate business really done the US or its Citizens any favors? At worst of Governments are no more that legitimate thugs. The same is true of Corporations. These organizations need to be kept under control, The Governments under the tight reign of their Citizens, and the Corporations, by never granting them any Citizen's rights. |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2006 5:55 PM EDT |
Jimf: It may surprise you to know that I agree with almost every one of your points above. My complaint is with being called black by the kettle. Pretty much every country has enough of its own problems to solve that it should be a long time before they start worrying too much about the flaws of others. I honestly think it would do the world and the US a lot of good if we (the US) did largely withdraw from international affairs for a decade or two and concentrated on our own problems for a change. |
| jimf Sep 28, 2006 6:31 PM EDT |
Jdixion, I don't think we'll be given the choice :( |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2006 6:56 PM EDT |
jimf and jdixon - >withdraw from international affairs for a decade or two and concentrated on our own problems for a change. In theory, our involvement in international affairs IS a matter of concentrating on our own problems. |
| jdixon Sep 28, 2006 7:01 PM EDT |
> In theory, our involvement in international affairs IS a matter of concentrating on our own problems. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not. :) Our involvement in international affairs long ago passed the point of being concerned with our own problems. |
| henke54 Sep 28, 2006 9:23 PM EDT |
@jimf -
>All of you guys are making Clinton look good. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5388182.stm ;-P |
| jimf Sep 28, 2006 9:28 PM EDT |
henke54, More like http://deanfriedman.cf.huffingtonpost.com/ |
| herzeleid Sep 28, 2006 9:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:(dinotrac) I support that because the government is supposed to facilitate trade by American companies. Gee, that would be nice - so when do they start lobbying for redhat, novell, IBM, oracle? Why is it they *only* support microsoft, and crap all over other US software companies? |
| jimf Sep 28, 2006 9:32 PM EDT |
Good point herzeleid. |
| dinotrac Sep 28, 2006 11:15 PM EDT |
>Why is it they *only* support microsoft, and crap all over other US software companies? Why do you presume that's the case? I'm a thinkin' there's some selective seein' goin; on here. IE - Effort on behalf of Microsoft makes the news, so you conclude that's the only thing being done. |
| salparadise Sep 29, 2006 1:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:US wonders why others don't love them Cus the appearance is that the US doesn't just want it's cake and to eat it, but also wants all other cake makers to be shut down, cake ingredients to be cheaper for the US than anywhere else, convicted US cake makers are let off and not allowed to be legally addressed in other countries, accusations made against US cake makers are treated as laughable nonsense, non US cake makers to be considered as suspicious at best and downright dangerous at worst and that a phone call (or a visit) is all it should take to get another country to allow US cake to be the only available option. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 29, 2006 1:29 AM EDT |
/me applauds Sal |
| jdixon Sep 29, 2006 6:00 AM EDT |
Sal: > Long list of US faults... Well, yes. But so does every other country. The reason the US is hated isn't because it tries to do any of those things. All countries do. It's becasue they're successful at them. And, as I've noted many times above, the problem there isn't with the US, it's with the other countries that wimp out and do what the US tells them to do. It's perfectly right and normal for the US to lobby other countries on behalf of its citizens and businesses to the best of its ability. It the job of the governments in those other countries to tell the US to get stuffed, that their own citizens and businesses take priority. Doing so would do both them and us (the US) a world of good. |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 6:13 AM EDT |
jdixon - Yes. I have yet to hear anybody explain how the US acted in an illegal or dishonorable way. I'm sorry, but talking -- which is what lobbying is -- is a good thing. In other contexts, it's called diplomacy, and most people seem to consider that a good thing. Let's hear about the death threats, the military reprisals, the imposition of sanctions, etc. But talking? Anybody who can't stand the unbearable pressure of being talked to shouldn't be in public office. |
| jimf Sep 29, 2006 6:26 AM EDT |
jdixon, Well yeah, but we also maintain one of the biggest and most modern armies in the world. As I said, when misused, the bully on the block. It's hard to say no with that as a background. You notice when we come up against something like the current China, they pretty much do say no with impunity. The only difference from historical precedent, is that the threats become bigger and more deadly. In a perfect world, none of this would happen, fairness and human interests would be the only concerns. In reality, for every human right that's restored, a couple of others are taken away. It's said that ' those who don't learn the lessons of history, are bound to repeat it', and we do. Over, and over, and over again. |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 6:38 AM EDT |
> It's hard to say no with that as a background Hmmmm. I seem to remember much of the world finding no difficulty in saying no during the run up to Iraq. The world says "No" all the time. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 29, 2006 6:55 AM EDT |
> Hmmmm. I seem to remember much of the world finding no difficulty in saying no during the run up to Iraq. But that was a US begging, not a US theatning as is their usual M.O. |
| jdixon Sep 29, 2006 7:00 AM EDT |
> Well yeah, but we also maintain one of the biggest and most modern armies in the world. As I said, when misused, the bully on the block. Granted, and that is a legitimate cause for concern, but that's not what this discussion has been about. You'll also note that I listed the Iraq war as a legitimate complaint far above in this discussion. The US does abuse it's militiary and legal authority on a fairly regular basis, and complaints about that by other countries are fair. Complaints about lobbying aren't. > It's hard to say no with that as a background. Not really. The US is not going to use military force against its allies, and if we ever did, the rest of the world would justifiably unite agains us. Given the world allocations of resources and manufacturing capacity, the US would stand little chance unless we used our nukes, which would probably still result in our destruction anyway. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 29, 2006 7:06 AM EDT |
> The US is not going to use military force against its allies? Yeah? So that's why they signed in that law allows the US to invade Holland and raid The Hague when there's a US soldier on trial for war crimes? pffft..... |
| jdixon Sep 29, 2006 7:07 AM EDT |
Sander: > But that was a US begging, not a US theatning as is their usual M.O. If so, why did we act without their approval anyway. That doesn't sound like the actions of someone begging to me. Bush himself stated that the US would act with or without UN approval, which certainly sounds like a threat. The simple fact is, Iraq was even better at playing politics (i.e., spreading the money around) than we were, which is why we acted without UN approval. |
| jdixon Sep 29, 2006 7:08 AM EDT |
> So that's why they signed in that law allows the US to invade Holland and raid The Hague when there's a US soldier on trial for war crimes? The Hague does not have the authority to try US soldiers for war crimes. If they try to do so, that is an act of war and we're no longer allies. What part of that is hard to understand? |
| jimf Sep 29, 2006 7:12 AM EDT |
> The US is not going to use military force against its allies So, why do they line up behind us? It's obviously nice to have all that power on your side. As far as using it, well, we certainly hope they won't. So far I see that as just dumb luck. > Complaints about lobbying aren't. Well, as I said before, that's our internal problem. Unfortunately it connects directly to the other behavior. |
| jdixon Sep 29, 2006 7:18 AM EDT |
Jimf: Well, if the US ever does try to use its military power against an EU country because of a trade dispute, I hope we get what we have coming (and I suspect we will). I'll agree that the non-major powers have more to be concerned about, but with our military stretched thin by Iraq and Afganistan, and still in volunteer mode, I doubt anyone has too much to worry about (with the possible except of Iran, which continues to sabre rattle). |
| SFN Sep 29, 2006 7:21 AM EDT |
If the TOS had a grave, it would be practicing rolling over. |
| herzeleid Sep 29, 2006 9:25 AM EDT |
Quoting: dinotrac: IE - Effort on behalf of Microsoft makes the news, so you conclude that's the only thing being done. evidence, please? Please provide a single instance where any other US company has ever had the gall, or the influence, to dispatch US government agents to bully and threaten other governments on their behalf. This has happened many before you know, this business of microsoft pulling the puppet strings, using high ranking diplomats and other government officials as lackeys whose job is to parrot the microsoft party line. In case you haven't noticed, this sort of thing hurts american companies. Sure, a handful of people in Washington state benefit, but all their competitors are injured by this government favoritism of the convicted monopolist. In any case, your motivation in this thread is a mystery to me. What is your point in deflecting criticism away from microsoft? What is your message, that life is futile, that we must accept that crappy monopolists will always win, and we're doomed? I'd love to see a clear and concise expression of your message. |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 9:58 AM EDT |
>What is your point in deflecting criticism away from microsoft? Excuse me? Where have I done that? This thread is not a criticism of Microsoft. This thread is a criticism of the United States government. Microsoft is incidental, merely the thing that makes it a Lxer story. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 10:24 AM EDT |
"This is what countries do." It's amazing how many people think it is irrational to be an anarchist. Government is coercion. Why is anyone surprised that money chases that power? Microsoft has _lots_ of money. |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
Bob - I don't think it's irrational to be an anarchist. Most rational thing in the world, actually. Do what you want, nobody can tell you what to do, etc. It just doesn't work very well in a society where people are free to disagree and where things need to be done that require groups of people to do them. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 11:06 AM EDT |
Dino, I'm fully aware we disagree about the provisioning of "public goods". But concerning "disagreement", one unfortunate thing about government is that it becomes impossible to disagree, because participation is coerced. No matter how much I may disagree with, just for example, The Bureau For Indian Affairs, my taxes are spent to support it. It is only in an environment of liberty that disagreements _can_ coexist, even really fundamental disagreements that have otherwise caused people to kill each other for as long as there have been people, like the name of God, or any God at all. Only where, such as the US, government has been _restrained_ from interference in the subject has peaceful disagreement been possible. Large projects, such as transcontinental railroads, transoceanic communication cables, satellites, canals, roads and highways, even dams, have all been done privately. The Boulder Cement Company dam project was expropriated by government and renamed Hoover dam, for example. Let me give you a link or two. Please, I am honestly interested in your opinion after listening/reading: http://www.mises.org/story/1855 (check out the messages in the blog link at the bottom, quite interesting) http://mm.mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3 http://www.mises.org/story/1874 To get back on subject, the only reason that Microsoft can do such lobbying is that there is some pre-existing power that is for sale. Without the power of coercion, Microsoft would have to compete. That is why big business has always been in bed with big government, with rare and notable exceptions such as James J. Hill who gets put down in the government school textbooks as a "robber baron", while it was his competitors who went crawling to government for subsidies and handouts, and regulations in order to prevent competition. |
| jdixon Sep 29, 2006 11:19 AM EDT |
> Please provide a single instance where any other US company has ever had the gall, or the influence, to dispatch US government agents to bully and threaten other governments on their behalf. I pretty sure US officials tried to intervene on GE's behalf in the aborted GE/Honeywell merger when it was vetoed by the EU. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 11:32 AM EDT |
"where any other US company has ever had the gall, or the influence, to dispatch US government agents to bully and threaten other governments..." How about the present "war for oil pipeline rights-of-way"? |
| jdixon Sep 29, 2006 11:50 AM EDT |
> How about the present "war for oil pipeline rights-of-way"? I don't think it qualifies Bob, for several reasons. One, that's not a single company, but rather an entire industry. Two, those aren't US government agents as he's using the word. Three, I don't think that's really the reason we're there, though you are free to disagree. That said, the non-UN'ed sanction war in Iraq should be a much greater concern to US opponents than our lobbying of EU officials on any company's behalf. Most of the damage caused by words can be fixed. Damage from bullets and bombs tends to be a little more permanent. Our willingness to invade Iraq in the way we did should raise concerns around the world and cause everyone to view us more warily. The fact that I think the invasion was largely justified doesn't change that, nor would I expect it to (our continuing occupation is another matter, but being entirely political it is not a matter for discussion on LXer). |
| herzeleid Sep 29, 2006 11:52 AM EDT |
Quoting: jdixon: I pretty sure US officials tried to intervene on GE's behalf in the aborted GE/Honeywell merger when it was vetoed by the EU.Big difference between being pretty sure that "US officials tried to intervene" than the cases where a corporation blatantly uses US diplomats as messengers, threatening consequences to the government that doesn't cave in to the wishes of the US corporation. Quoting: bob_robertson: How about the present "war for oil pipeline rights-of-way"?Do enlighten us - |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 11:57 AM EDT |
"Do enlighten us -" I would love to, if I had all the facts. But I don't think anyone does. The BBC did a wonderful expose' entitled "The Power Of Nightmares", that doesn't actually depend on conspiracies at all. You might want to break copyright law and download a copy. It's wonderful viewing, and deserves all the "airtime" it can get. |
| jdixon Sep 29, 2006 12:58 PM EDT |
> Big difference between being pretty sure that US officials tried to intervene" than the cases where a corporation blatantly uses US diplomats as messengers, threatening consequences to the government that doesn't cave in to the wishes of the US corporation. A difference of degree but not kind. You asked for a previous example; I provided one. |
| dinotrac Sep 29, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
hmmm..... Well, herzeleid, I don't get the impression that you are the type to let facts or reason get in the way of your opinions, but, some examples of the US intervening on behalf of US companies... Let's see, a very big intervention in 2002 when Pres. Bush slapped a (very stupid) tariff on steel imports. Lots -- LOTS -- of back and forths between US and EU officials in 2004 when Boeing complained about government subsidies to Airbus and Airbus counter-complained about military contracts for Boeing. The thing is, and, if you are as smart as you seem to think you are, you know this, that most things in this world do not make the news. The Microsoft intervention is newsworthy primarily because the magnitude of the fine is newsworthy, so we hear about it. I doubt that I could find news articles confirming the fact that people in the EU breathe, but, between you and me, they do. |
| dcparris Sep 29, 2006 3:51 PM EDT |
> ...that most things in this world do not make the news. I have to confess, anyone who thinks the news is the only thing happening is obviously a little too glued to their computer monitor. I burped earlier. Maybe I should write an LXer feature about it. And to be sure it's fit for LXer, I'll release the burp under the GPL in a GNU/Linux-only version. :-) Now if I can just figure out how to upload it to a server somewhere... |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 29, 2006 3:52 PM EDT |
Ewwwwwww! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!