READ THIS!

[alaric]

First, I would like to apologize for serveral of my posts recently. They were overly-aggressive and entirely lacking in candor. I have had serveral "issues" recently that have left me with pent up anger and aggression. Rest assured that I have "dealt" with these "issues".

Now that my mind has cleared, I have realized that those "issues" affected my views on many things, not least of which, the war. I would like to apoligize in particular to Mauti for my harsh words.

This article explains in exacting detail how I really feel on the subject of American Foriegn Policy.


I'm not really sure I made it clear how important it is for EVERYBODY to read this article. So I think I'll try to be more clear this time:

READ THIS!!! http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp READ THIS!!!
READ THIS!!! http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp READ THIS!!!
READ THIS!!! http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp READ THIS!!!
READ THIS!!! http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp READ THIS!!!
READ THIS!!! http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp READ THIS!!!

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Fantastic article Alaric.

Well written and thought out.  I even agree with about 90% of it =D.  I hope everyone here that really gives two shits, those debating the war, spend the few minutes to fully read this article, and not just skim over it.  I learned a few things (I didn't know Bush increased foreign aid by 50%), was reminded of even more (I completely forgot that France built that reactor), and think things out more.

The only things I didn't quite agree with were 1) the situation with Turkey.  I think there is more behind it then he does.  With Turkey's own troop movements, it may have had it's own agenda all along. And 2) I don't think war was assured when he did.  I think that if Saddam had actually complied, it would have been avoided.  Sure, it was unlikely for him to fully comply, but I think that chance was there.  

More then anything, I agree that if our President and VP could act like they even knew how to spell diplomacy, the world would accept this much more for what it is.  I've often said he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and I ignored his insulting tone and looked towards his actions.  Well, I can see better now how the tone of most of his administration can put out the Europeans and other countries.  But, I hope that they read it and recognize that they need to not condemn the country, or it's actions, based just upon the man's tone.

He's right about one thing.  The USA didn't get blasted like this over Kosovo, and this isn't really much different.  The big difference is Bush.  Not so much the man, but just how he says things.  Colin Powell should be the only one allowed to speak in that administration for the rest of it's term.  =D

[*DAMN Mauti]

Interesting article although first I disagree with many points or how some facts are presented and second I just wanted to stop after I read "...He gassed 60,000 of his own people in 1986 in Halabja..." - First only 5000 died(still enough but to exagerate isn't necessary, 60.000 - 70.000 was the whole population of Halabja),second the gas attack was march 1988 not 1986 and third it were kurds not iraqis. So to say his own people is simply wrong. Kurds are the world's largest nation without own state. Nobody wants them - Turkey, Iran and Irak always fought against them for years because they fear that the Kurds build up an own Kurd country. This makes this article unserious and I don't know how to trust in the other facts and numbers.

However if this article reflects your opinion Alaric it helped me to understand you better.

Bye,

Mauti

[cookie]

yes!   so true.

[tasty]

I disagree that:

1. Maximized American power is good for the rest of the world

2. That we need to stop subsidizing American business and open our borders more to foreign goods. How is losing 1000s more of American jobs (which are already hard to come by) going to help anything?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

- First only 5000 died(still enough but to exagerate isn't necessary, 60.000 - 70.000 was the whole population of Halabja),second the gas attack was march 1988 not 1986 and third it were kurds not iraqis. So to say his own people is simply wrong.

You're right Mauti, he did jumble a bunch of facts together there.  Iraq was shown to be using chemical warfare since 1984.  In 1986 and 1987 Saddam bombed over 20 villages with chemical weapons.  Halabja, the most talked about, happened in March of 1988.  And yes, approximately 5000 died in that single attack on Halabja.  60-70 thousand is around the figures I've seen for totals, not just Halabja.  

A quick comment about the Kurds vs Iraqi thought.  I don't think it's as black and white to Americans Mauti.  They are living in Iraq, aren't they?  I don't think that the wholesale slaughter of Kurds is seen much differently then the slaughter of Native Americans here.  And that strikes a nerve.  

A few more facts about Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

Iraq's chemical weapons program has been blamed on the USA here a few times.  And yeah, Ronnie Ray-Gun should have blasted them for it in the 80's, but the weapons themselves, and the tools for making them came from many countries.  Including France, West Germany and Austria to name a few (just for those Europeans that like to point fingers)  Everyone, and that does include all countries, knew about the use.  Everyone knew it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, International law, and even UN Resolutions.  

There were letters to the UN (Van Der Stoel in particular) about Iraq using chemical attacks within it's boarders again on Sept 28, 1993.  After the Gulf War.  What did the UN do about that?  

One final thought.  I came upon this web site from Sweden.  For those of you who wonder how bad Saddam is, and haven't seen the horrors of war for yourselves, take a look.  The english isn't the greatest, but it doesn't have to be.  And I'm not promoting this site as a credible source.  This is just for those wanting to see, in pictures, what a monster he is.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

2. That we need to stop subsidizing American business and open our borders more to foreign goods. How is losing 1000s more of American jobs (which are already hard to come by) going to help anything?

I disagree.  Until they open their doors equally.  

[Precious Roy at work]

I read the article and disagree with most of the conclusions.  However, it's well written, and certainly worth consideration.

[kami]

I read the first three parts in Newsweek just now, I'll read the last tomorrow, but surprisingly I agree to like 95% of the content... Bucc, it's amazing how people who obviously think along the same lines can have so fierce arguments...

[tasty]

I disagree.  Until they open their doors equally.  

I'm not entirely sure that makes sense. You disagree that we should protect American jobs, but if other countries remove trade tariffs and whatnot then we should protect American jobs? Why? I'm confused.

[cookie]

sad pictures bucc.

anyhow, i feel the general idea of that article is pretty accurate the way i see it, i haven't really seen any good reasons presented why it wouldn't make sense/be true.

Would the world be in such uproar if algeria invaded iraq?

[alaric]

Would the world be in such uproar if algeria invaded iraq?

I think it's interesting the way the article parallels Kosovo and Iraq. It does make be wonder if things would be different if Clinton were president. I'm not trying to make this a Clinton=good Bush=bad thing, it's just an interesting observation about the differences in the way the two administrations handle foreign policy.

If you guys liked this article, make sure you read "The Ugly American" it has a very similar view of American Foriegn Policy and is very interesting reading.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, it's amazing how people who obviously think along the same lines can have so fierce arguments...

Actually, arguing over the fine points, not the broad strokes spurs debates on much more often.  If I thought you a complete blithering idiot, like I do some few people, then I wouldn't bother as much.

I'm not entirely sure that makes sense. You disagree that we should protect American jobs, but if other countries remove trade tariffs and whatnot then we should protect American jobs? Why? I'm confused.

See, that's why I usually don't make short answers.  I don't do them well =D.

I don't disagree that we should protect American jobs (if you are getting that from the Roger&Me post, that's not what I meant).  I do look at it a little different.  I think we should protect the American economy.  We give away billions each year when we have a deficit, ok, but we give much of it to countries that have unfair trade practices with the US.  That burns my ass hairs.  I really don't like unfair trade relations between nations.  I'm a fan of NAFTA, but I don't think it went quite far enough (there are still some weird tax/duties with Canada and the US I've noticed.

So, I'm for protecting the USA's economy with fair, equal trade.  I think the American economy can handle things just fine in the open market.  Sure, it could change things, maybe the guy working the assembly line wont make as much as a doctor anymore, but that's ok, I'm not a socialist.  The best thing that could ever happen to the USA's economy would be a free world market.  This would lead to the second best thing to ever happen the the USA's economy, the end of the UAW.  All of a sudden, car prices would drop by 50% (and the car industry really does drive the American economy in many ways).  Bah, don't get me started on the UAW, we'd be here a month on that rant alone.

[tasty]

Won't companies just move their jobs to poor countries then? It's one thing to take a pay cut and another to lose your job alltogether. Plus, union workers don't make THAT much. Doctors earn at least 200 g's a year. Common knowledge says that NAFTA was good for companies and bad for workers, at least American ones.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Won't companies just move their jobs to poor countries then?

No, for a couple reasons.  There are initial moves like that, but companies know that if they go too far, then nobody could purchase their products.  It's in the companies self interest to keep jobs in the market it sells in.  Also, if you look at the trend with the Automotive Industry, they have moved some low tech jobs out of the country, while making more high tech jobs within.

America's job market would shift, but not shrivel up and wilt.  Remember, most tech still comes from America and America is very resource rich.

Look at it this way.  Nothing is stopping American companies from doing this now.  Why do you think your shoes come from Asia even though Nike is an American company?  Or your cloths coming from Indonesia?  Or Mexico?  Look at your Mac!  What you are talking about is already happening with the difference that we can't sell American made products in their countries at an equal footing.  In other words, we already have the bad side of it, we may as well get the good too.  No?

Plus, union workers don't make THAT much. Doctors earn at least 200 g's a year.

Not all doctors make even $100k per year Tasty.  Not all PEOPLE doctors make that much.  Add to that Dentists, Veterinarians (my dog's Vet makes under $70k/year, and she does better then most around here).  And do you think there aren't UAW workers that make $200k a year?  I'll introduce you to a few if you want.

Newsflash, they (UAW) are even trying to lower the overtime thresholds for double time and triple time pay.  Again!

The last big UAW contract I have numbers on (since they try to keep them secret for many reasons) the starting UAW pay was $25 an hour in 1999.  Take into account that the average worker in the UAW puts in 49 hours a week (add double time, carry the 1 and) that's over $70k a year to start.  To push a broom!  Now guess what they pay a typical engineer with a BS?  To start, right out of college, a little more then half that (without OT even though working more hours).

The average increase with that contract was $30k per worker over 3 years.  Ten thousand dollars a year in raises average!

Now, I know most of you haven't had the displeasure of working in an auto plant, but guess how hard they work?  Can't get rid of them, the UAW protects them like you wouldn't believe (you can't even write up a worker for being a no call / no show until they have done it five days in a row).  Let's just say that productivity is a dirty word in UAW shops (you don't want to cut into their overtime, they'll knife you in the parking lot if you try to take that away from them).  Need that fax machine moved?  Better not touch it, if a UAW worker sees you doing it and writes you up, that's $100 in his pocket (ask him to do it without you writing up a 970 authorization for his OT, and it will be moved in a month or so).  

The UAW is, IMO, the single worst thing for our economy.  They drive up inflation while bringing productivity down.  They protect all workers, no matter how bad, taking away too much power from the companies.  

[tasty]

I acknowledge that some unions like the UAW have gotten out of hand. How could the job market "shift" though? I think the most important objective of our trade policy should be to make sure that as many Americans as possible have jobs that pay a living wage. Increased economic cooperation on a global level is an inevitable reality, but I don't really think that the US has much of a right to whine about trade relations. After all, US based companies have the unwavering influence of the US government making sure that foreign governments do not regulate their  labor or environmental practices. US policy is directly responsible for getting coca cola and McDonalds in China. If we are going to use our government to help companies grow, then I think that the companies owe it to America to keep sufficient jobs here too. Look at Nike. They don't manufacture a single product in America. In the movie "The Big One" Michael Moore questions Phil Knight about this practice, to which he replies that American workers don't want manufacturing jobs. Michael Moore proceeds to go to Flint (Michigan, as if you didn't know) and round up 500 unemployed workers who would be happy to work in a Nike factory. Moore asks Knight to create a plant or move a plant to Flint, where he would have so many willing workers. Of course, Knight refuses.

There is no place on earth where as much wealth and power can be accumulated in the business world as in America. I think for this privilege, America owes something back to its workers.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

How could the job market "shift" though?

How hasn't it?  More and more of the basic, manual labor jobs have moved out of the country, even while our unemployment was down.  If our economy is strong, jobs are there to be had.  They may not be the same jobs, but there are different jobs (like the shift from producing cloths to the retail marketing of them).

After all, US based companies have the unwavering influence of the US government making sure that foreign governments do not regulate their  labor or environmental practices. US policy is directly responsible for getting coca cola and McDonalds in China.

And we still get screwed on the world market more then we make from it.  Do you even know what the trade deficit is?  Have you looked how high some of the tariffs imposed on foreign goods in other countries are?  Do you take into account that other governments take those same tariffs and subsidize their own industries?  

Ever hear the statement that two wrongs don't make a right?

Oh, and do you think that China's economy isn't helped out with McDonalds and Coke being there?

Look at Nike. They don't manufacture a single product in America.

No shit.  And if we had the same tariffs that other countries had, they wouldn't find it so profitable to continue that practice, would they?  Or, if there were no tariffs, It wouldn't matter as much.  Because while they were selling more shoes here, we'd be selling more high tech products everywhere else (the shift I was talking about), after all, America still produces over half of all high tech goods.

One other example for you.  Look at Nissan and other Nippon car companies.  Labor is cheaper in asia, but they've found it economically sound to build some cars in America (they are in non-union states not dealing with the UAW - The thing I like best about North Carolina).  So it's not as bleak as you seem to think.  Some things it will make sense to import, some things it wont.  And, more importantly, our export market will sky-rocket.  Think how some sales will improve when some goods drop up to 50% in other countries if tariffs went away (yes, that is worst case, but still true).  

I think for this privilege, America owes something back to its workers.

That's like saying America owe foreign aid to the world, just because we have the wealth.  Guess that makes you a socialist, doesn't it?

Well, I don't think America owes foreign aid to anyone.  I'm all for giving it, but it's not owed.  Likewise, I don't think American companies owe anything back to their workers other than a fair wage and bennies.  But, what American companies have to do (and I think they know this lesson) is to ensure that their largest consumers can purchase their own goods.  That would be making sure that there were jobs in America.  Thus, it's not owed, but in their own self interest (one of the basics of capitalism).

BTW, I didn't respond to that Moore comment on purpose.  I could go on for a week about the bullshit he pulls.  He's as credible as John Edwards talking to dead people IMO.  I know full well the theatrics he pulls, and the facts he completely blows off.  Using him as a source is as stupid as a conservative using Rush Limbaugh.  Even worse, doing it with me, since I remember the troubles in Flint, and it's just down the road.  If he wanted to blame someone for what happened to Flint, he should have mentioned the UAW.  Their strikes pointed a gun at GM's head.  But he never really talks about that.  And I'm so glad he was boo'd from the stage at the Academy Awards.  I really can't stand the guy.

[kami]

Hah, he was boo'ed from the stage? That tells you a lot about the climate in the US I guess, I don't think he would've been two years ago.

You're clearly a real capitalist Bucc, here in sweden I'm seen pretty much as a capitalist as well, you'd probably call me a socialist though. I think solidarity in the sense that we owe support to the third world is important because the position of the west world hasn't been built on it being better than the rest of the world per se.

[jn.loudnotes]

Just thought I'd chime in to say that I read it. . .I feel about the same way roy does. . .I'll comment more later maybe.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Hah, he was boo'ed from the stage? That tells you a lot about the climate in the US I guess, I don't think he would've been two years ago.

Well, you should look it up.  They didn't boo his work, they boo'd his comments.  And honestly, I don't think you could find a more liberal group of workers than actors in the USA, so that has to say very much indeed.

You're clearly a real capitalist Bucc, here in sweden I'm seen pretty much as a capitalist as well, you'd probably call me a socialist though.

Heh, I'm not a socialist anymore, but I leaned that way back when I was 18.  Blame my MBA for the change.  That and working in the world of international business for a few years.  It changed my views on many things.

I think solidarity in the sense that we owe support to the third world is important because the position of the west world hasn't been built on it being better than the rest of the world per se.

Difference is, I don't think it's owed.  I'm not against aid, not at all.  Especially to the third world.  But the USA supplies aid to plenty of countries that aren't the third world either, unless your definition of third world is pretty wide.

[tasty]

I never said anything about foreign aid. I said we owe American workers essentially the same thing you said: fair wages and benefits. And yes, I am in many ways a socialist. Do you really think that companies would pay their workers fair wages if they didn't have unions? Look at the industries that aren't unionized, like fast food and meatpacking. They attract primarily foreign workers and they get paid minimum wages to do some of the toughest work there is. What do you define as a fair hourly/yearly wage anyway? I'm curious to know. I tend to look at these problems from the point of view of the worker first and the economy second.

 And its kinda funny that you reported Moore was booed of the stage, it has really played into the whole liberal v conservative media thing because some sources are reporting he was booed off the stages while others report that he received a standing ovation. I watched the Oscars and can honestly say that it was a mix of both. BTW Moore pwns you... I don't take him as a very serious political source but more as a political cartoonist, here to bring light but also attention to serious problems. There really isn't anyone that represents today's American worker as well as Moore does IMO. Even you admitted his work was good, at least I think you did.