24 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell...
[b]The US does not have fair trade relations with the rest of the world.
What are "fair trade relations"? Be specific please.[/b]
A fair trade relation is one where United Fruits doesn't milk Southern and Central American farmers for every penny they are worth, while the CEO's earn billions each year and support both the Republican and the Democratic party.
For example, that is.
24 May 08
Originally posted by shavixmirGot some actual figures to back that up, or are you just making up vague statements? If central/south American farmers aren't getting enough money for their bananas from the US, why don't they sell them to someone else?
Well...
A fair trade relation is one where United Fruits doesn't milk Southern and Central American farmers for every penny they are worth, while the CEO's earn billions each year and support both the Republican and the Democratic party.
For example, that is.
24 May 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThey were.
Got some actual figures to back that up, or are you just making up vague statements? If central/south American farmers aren't getting enough money for their bananas from the US, why don't they sell them to someone else?
England and France were giving about 5% of the farmers fair prices for their products.
United Fruits (Chiquita, Del Monte, etc.) took them to court over this, saying it was unfair trade (basically equating the fair price to a subsidy) and the World Trade Organisation sided with United Fruits.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Bananas.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/mar/05/eu.wto3
And to add some vanilla ice-cream to the Banana split:
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/international-news/portfolio/2007/09/17/Chiquita-Death-Squads
24 May 08
Originally posted by shavixmirOh hell, what the US buys from other countries isn't fair to them either? Just can't do anything right can we? How about if the US didn't buy any crap from anyone, would that make you happy? Then they could watch their stuff collect dust or rot on the vine. Or see if someone else will buy it and give them more. Which they won't.
They were.
England and France were giving about 5% of the farmers fair prices for their products.
United Fruits (Chiquita, Del Monte, etc.) took them to court over this, saying it was unfair trade (basically equating the fair price to a subsidy) and the World Trade Organisation sided with United Fruits.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Bana ...[text shortened]... p://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/international-news/portfolio/2007/09/17/Chiquita-Death-Squads
24 May 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWell congratulations my friend. May your economy continue to flourish like it does, and may your citizens be always as happy and content as they are now, and illuminate the worlds of us poor unfortunate barbarians in the deep dark distant "rest of the world".
The "reality" is that the United States is sovereign nation not beholden to "the rest of the word," the opinions of the EU, nor the U.N.
24 May 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamDid I say that? No. Stop projecting your petty frustrations on me.
Oh hell, what the US buys from other countries isn't fair to them either? Just can't do anything right can we? How about if the US didn't buy any crap from anyone, would that make you happy? Then they could watch their stuff collect dust or rot on the vine. Or see if someone else will buy it and give them more. Which they won't.
Someone wanted an example of non-fare trade, done by US companies and backed by US politics. I delivered.
Stop whining.
24 May 08
9 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydHe's right about the rest of the world telling it is NOT OKAY for you (Americans) to drive your SUV's, eat all you want, and keep your thermostats set at 72 all the time.
Man, this guy must WANT a Republican in the White House! He's said some boneheaded things, but that quote out of Oregon today? That sealed it. He announced that the rest of the world was not going to just "keep saying it's okay" for us (Americans) to drive our SUV's, eat all we want, and keep our thermostats set at 72 all the time.
1. Just who does effete elitist in this jerk. Once again, the party "of the people" has feet of clay.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd:
1. Just who does he think he is to tell us what to drive, how much we should eat,and what temp to keep our homes set?
2. What does the "rest of the world" have to do with it?
..... you'll soon find out.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd:
Does he think WE care what they say or think?
.... no .... but still he's telling you guys the truth.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd:
But I see nothing but an effete elitist in this jerk.
This "effete elitist jerk" is telling you the truth .... better keep it in mind.
24 May 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn reply to your 3 comments:
He's right about the rest of the world telling it is NOT OKAY for you (Americans) to drive your SUV's, eat all you want, and keep your thermostats set at 72 all the time.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd[b]:
1. Just who does he think he is to tell us what to drive, how much we should eat,and what temp to keep our homes set?
2. What does the ...[text shortened]...
This "effete elitist jerk" is telling you the truth .... better keep it in mind.[/b]
1. I REALLY doubt it.
2. I doubt it.
3. I think not.
24 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydTop oil producing nations:
Unless we turn into the bad guys and start taking resources by force from other nations (which I find ridiculous), then I don't see a problem.
1. Saudi Arabia: despotic regime in cahoots with U.S.
2. Canada: Ok, neighbour state in no immediate danger
3. Iraq: Illegally invaded and taking of resources by force is ongoing as we speak.
4. Iran: propaganda machine is building Iran as a big danger to US. Military action would be accepted by US people.
5. Kuwait: under US control following GW1.
6. UAE: No comment.
7. Venezuela: propaganda machine building Venezuela as bad guys, or at least Chavez. Venezuela may need to be invaded to save the Venezuelans from Chavez. Military action would be accepted by US people.
8. Russia: Always on a knife edge. US have recently deployed "anti-missile systems" on Euro border with Russia. Military action would be accepted by US people.
9. Libya: "Terrorist state". Military action would be accepted by US people.
10. Nigeria: Despotic regime in cahoots with oil using nations. As long as resident dictator complies with oil requirements, no further action needed.
How many of the above would the US have to invade before you started to believe you are the bad guys?
D
24 May 08
Originally posted by RagnorakIt would depend on the circumstances of the invasion. I'll give you this: it'll be a lot less likely that ANY of them will be invaded as soon as we get that crazy man out of the White House.
Top oil producing nations:
How many of the above would the US have to invade before you started to believe you are the bad guys?
D
25 May 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeCuba dissidents back Obama pledge
This "effete elitist jerk" is telling you the truth .... better keep it in mind.
"A group of Cuban dissidents has backed a call by the US presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, for direct talks with the new Cuban President, Raul Castro. The organisation, Women in White, is made up of female relatives of Cuban political prisoners. In an open letter to Mr Obama they wrote of their hope that his policies may help free their husbands and sons. Mr Obama told Cuban exiles in Miami on Friday that America needed to talk to its enemies as well as its friends. Mr Obama also said that - if elected in November - he would lift President George Bush's restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba but maintain the US trade embargo."
(BBC News online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7418941.stm)
Now, this is good news - don't you think? Something that could unite 'left' and 'right', surely? When Obama talks like a statesman, as in this case, the 'empty suit' fears fade a little.
25 May 08
Originally posted by FMFWhy, exactly, is there a trade embargo on Cuba?
[b]Cuba dissidents back Obama pledge
"A group of Cuban dissidents has backed a call by the US presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, for direct talks with the new Cuban President, Raul Castro. The organisation, Women in White, is made up of female relatives of Cuban political prisoners. In an open letter to Mr Obama they wrote of their hope that his policies m ...[text shortened]... n Obama talks like a statesman, as in this case, the 'empty suit' fears fade a little.[/b]
25 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf enough american people are of your attitude "I'm not going to cut back on my gas usage just to stick one up at the rest of the world" combined with your "US is best, don't provoke us to wrath", then the US is going to have absolutely no option but escalated military aggression as time goes by and oil gets scarcer and scarcer.
It would depend on the circumstances of the invasion. I'll give you this: it'll be a lot less likely that ANY of them will be invaded as soon as we get that crazy man out of the White House.
We're being fleeced at the moment, but at least we're being forced into thinking about the alternatives to fossil fuel consumption.
The US policy (determined by oil execs) is to denounce any and all alternative technologies, while keeping oil prices low through lack of tax, and "appropriation" of Afghanistan and Iraq's natural resources. This will only do in the short to medium term. Long term, either people like yourself will have to change their mindsets, or the US will have to invade more and more countries.
D