Comments interspersed:

And let me add here that I am not referring to protecting ourselves. I am
refering to situations like you allude to below. When American business
comes into a country they often behave in ways that would not be tolerated
at home. When the people resist this the coercion begins. If we were to
perceive our actions as "bullying" then our morals would demand we cease,
but since (by definition) we are there for economic reasons we have to
find
a way to justify our actions.


It is my position that corporations, U.S. based or otherwise, operate under
the laws of the country in which they do business, and they should not be
expected to do anything nicer than what is legal. If there are abuses, then
it is the responsibility of the host government to enact and enforce laws
that ensure their populace's well being. I am looking at this from a macro
scale, meaning that as a CEO I would not tolerate any unethical business
practices, but my individual actions would change the situation little
because my competitors will more than likely be happy to carry through the
unethical but legal business practices that I shunned. Doing business with
a country that wants my business more than they want the same standards as
the workers get in my country is not bullying in my book. It's just
business. I mean, should Europeans shun business with U.S. firms because
most of our workers don't get the kind of pension guarantees and healthcare
as in their countries? I contend that each country must be held responsible
for its own rules, since who else is qualified to set these standards?

snip


You left off a choice here. You only have unemployed or "greedy American
corporations". Shouldn't a third one be the choice of working for an
"Amercian" corporation.


I didn't mean to dichotomize so surgically. Of course there are many shades
in between, and that proves my point even more. People who work for "greedy
American corporation" probably have a choice of working for domestic firms,
for themselves, for the competitor of the corporation, etc. My conclusion
is that they decided to work for GAC because that is what makes most sense
for them financially. Couple this conclusion with the reality that most
U.S. firms pay better and have better working conditions than the average
wage in the area, and the judgmental 'greedy' moniker fades a bit. It's
only greedy if you judge the wages/ conditions in first world terms.




Agreed. All I ask is that they/we apply the same *moral* standards that
apply here. And if that means making a bit less profit then they must be
prepared to accept that. This is one of the conflicts we are unwilling to
address: It costs money to do the right thing.

Corporations doing businiess abroad that are held to the same standards
they
are here will not make as much profit. If they are not held to those
standards they will most likely at best damage our image, and at worst
cause harm.


This is Deja-vu, I tell you. I've been discussing this moral vs. legal
issue with my wife for the past few weeks. Again, I think that the only
thing that is able to make a difference is appropriate passage and
enforcement of laws. If there is a market opportunity that is legal but
morally dubious, you can expect at least two things, IMO. First, that many
people will evaluate the opportunity, and decide they're not willing to go
there on moral grounds. Bravo for them. Secondly, however, there will
ALWAYS be someone willing to go there. So all of the Good Guys that decided
not to go there are hurt by their competitor's lack of morals. Is that
moral? Is that desirable? Did it change anything for those on the butt end
of the deal? My conclusion is that if there is anything to blame, it's the
lack of legislation that created an uneven playing field for competitors
that want to do the right thing. In the meanwhile, nothing changes.


influenced by the political winds. To expect a country to be 100%
consistent is asking a lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but
no one should expect fascist style consistency.

I would not expect 100% consistency either. And I probably could have made
it clearer that I was referring to one adminstration living up to past
commitments first. The current adminstration usually has a sense that
since
they didn't sign a treaty they aren't really bound by it, especially in
the
case where negotiating a new one isn't expedient.


Agreed. I wish there was more respect on the part of the current
administrations for past commitments. However, this is the political
reality. I will take this (and a hell of a lot of other issues) in the next
election and vote for someone more diplomatically savvy.

consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights
people
were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life.


I take a bit of exception to the word "all" here.


You should take exception. I don't normally use absolutes. I should have
specified "all the human rights people that I've met here in Iowa City..."

I am very glad Saddam has been ousted. Once the war was started I
supported
the idea of seeing it to a quick end and doing right for the Iraqi people.

But the way it was handled before hand was terrible and this was the
source
of a lot of opposition.


Agreed 100%! I was actually for the war, but I did think the administration
put on a poor show. It made me more than a bit uncomfortable. Just not
more uncomfortable than the thought of Saddam pushing the envelope even more
and becoming more confident that he can get away with whatever he wants.
We've all seen what he's shown to be capable of when he thinks he can get
away with it... Since the U.N. didn't seem keen on enforcement, I supported
the war.

I was not against the war because of short term loss of life per se. I do
think that war should always be a last resort because of this
consideration
though. And I don't think it was at 'last resort status' when we started.

No, for me the opposition came from the policy of "preemption". I believe
this is what most people protesting were really against. I'm sure you
would
agree that "preemption" is the epitome of "bullying".


I always saw this current war as simply a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War,
and so had no problem with 'preemption' since I don't think it was really
preemption. IMHO, it's not bullying when one wrongdoing is punished, and
then the punishment escalates when the first punishment is not served.



point is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic,
snip

I agree with what you write above and I don't think I'm asking for
absolutes. But debate on many issues, not just the war, is not taking
place. The Bush administration has taken secrecy to frightening new
heights
and that has perverted our system. There is little respect given to
opposing viewpoints which is supposed to a hallmark of our society. On the
contrary, opposition is often scorned and branded as "traitorous".

snip

I am disturbed by the way all of this transpired as well. The current
administration has done some very scary things with respect to civil
liberties. I do everything I can to voice my opinion on those issues. I
have the office numbers of my congresscritters on speed dial. I talk to
people about the issues, and I carry a battered copy of the constitution
with me at all times. I've had it since 6th grade, and I'm quite smitten by
the document :-) Next election I'll be voting for the person who has the
most respect for it (it ain't Bush).

snip
So you do see it as a violation though? Just not "huge" enough to be of
concern?

Actually I'm being harsh on you. My point was not whether or not Iraqis
have
the same right to bear arms as we do. My point is that very few Americans
will even consider the connection between the debate on gun issues here
and
armed citizens abroad. Another double standard if you will.


I'm so glad that you can see that I DO see the hypocrisy, that it makes me
uncomfortable, but that I only justify it temporarily based on some judgment
of the reality of the current situation. Your point that not enough
Americans see the connection between their civil liberties and others'
abroad is well taken. Indeed, it's my opinion that not enough Americans see
the connection between THEIR civil liberties and the laws and actions that
are taken by their government. It's scary how little people know about
their own constitution. This is where a battered old copy of the
Constitution comes in handy. :-)

snip
This is another way of making my point. We are way to willing to violate
other peoples rights for our own expediency. Would we tolerate it if the
situations were reversed?


In this case I actually think it's for their expediency as well. Also, it's
a stretch to compare the two countries and situation so directly with
respect to guns, given the very recent history of Iraq. Would we tolerate
it if the situation were reversed? Interesting hypothetical. I don't know.
Probably not. But this would take into account that the baseline is way
different for each country, i.e. if you disarm Iraq, you're disarming the
group collectively known in the region as the Saddam Henchmen (since no one
else was allowed to carry), whereas in the U.S. you would be disarming the
populace at large. Of all of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the
second is the one that can most drastically affect the others in times of
turmoil, and it is based on the idea that firepower should not be too
concentrated. In the case of Iraq, firepower is concentrated so that it is
necessary to do something about it in order to move forward.

This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but
it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by
its
leader.


If the last sentence is true, and I hope it is, then it was bungled badly.
We gave up way too much and will recoup way too little for the PITA we
endured.

Time will tell. You may be right, but it will be a judgment call since not
all of the benefits (and costs) of the invasion have been tabulated, and
they may never be tabulated. How do you measure the relative worth of the
loss of trust with Germany versus the Syria's pullout from Lebanon and the
diminishment of Syria's Baath party's power? Read about Decree 408, recently
passed in Syria, he
( http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=519 )



Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ.

I would differ along with you....

Sorry, that came out wrong. I need to proof read these things better.

What I really meant to write was that much of America's trouble today is
*illustrated* by how we are handling and how we view the Israel/Palestine
conflict.


Whew... I'm glad that this is the case. This clarification puts everything
in a whole new light. I was a bit thrown off by the original statement
because it seemed way out of character in an otherwise reasonable and
thoughtful post. I responded to it in the way I did because sometimes
people become very emotional when discussing the middle east, and all of a
sudden an enlightening political discussion becomes, well, less cerebral.

And I'm not talking in terms of recent history, I'm talking about the last
20 years or more. I will not defend the current (recent?) tactics of
suicide bombing.

Good. I wish that more people would unequivocally condemn suicide bombings.
I've spoken to Amnesty International folks that are completely consistent
with respect to human rights but somehow refuse to condemn this most heinous
of human rights violations. It's just so strange how emotional people can
get about this conflict, and how often they throw their moral compass out
completely.


But if I wrote about how a people were repressed, harassed, and denied
basic
human rights and how they fought for their freedom without revealing I was
writing about the Palestinians any red-blooded American would support them
in their cause.


The Palestinians are in a bad situation, no doubt. But I think that enough
people realize that this is a complex, multidimensional story that has
everyone involved suffering terribly, not just the Palestinians. At this
point, many people would like to help the Palestinian cause for statehood.
However, a large minority of Palestinians are not fighting for this cause.
They are fighting for the destruction of Israel first, and an Islamic
Palestinian state second. No red-blooded American I know supports this.
And in fact, the difference in the various Palestinian faction's causes is
the crux of the problem on the Palestinian side, and supercedes all others.
Abu Mazen needs to bring all of the factions and terror organs under control
if he hopes to lead his people to statehood. This is what's spelled out in
the roadmap, and nothing of the sort has happened so far. IMHO, more
red-blooded Americans should be demanding that the Palestinian Authority
dismantle the terrorist organizations that keep killing innocent Israelis
and in effect stopping Palestinian aspirations for statehood. The Bush
administration apparently is being slack with this stipulation of the road
map, and allowing the Hudna (tactical cease-fire) to substitute for it. It
soon will be evident how critical a mistake this is.


I know I got you started on this with a badly written statement but the
suffering of both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be measured over
a
longer period than the last 3 years.


Agreed, but the last 3 years have been the most deadly. And all of this
after the rejection of a plan for a real Palestinian state. No matter what
you think of the 2000 Barak proposal, would the differences between that and
any future Palestinian state have been worth more than 3,000 lives?

Our handling of the Rwanda genocide (and that's what it was) will forever
be one of the most shameful episodes in our history.


I agree, but why are WE the only ones that feel shame? What about the U.N.?
Germany? France? The U. K.? Also, if we would have gone in, would we not
have caused the same sort of bad feelings as we got when we went into
Somalia or Kosovo? Philosophically speaking, how do we know when it's OK to
intervene?


Just some
perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes
from the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water.

I cannot apologize enough for writing this. I never meant it to come out
this way. (I want a computer that does what I want it to do, not what I
tell it to do!)

OK, understood.


kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people
forget this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is
basically
surviving on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army
and air force.


What you say here is absolutely true. But the argument is no longer
relevant.
No one is suggesting that we withdraw support from Israel. The Arab world
in particular, and the rest of the world in general, understands that
eliminating Israel is not an option.

Israel surely doesn't feel that secure. Do Hamas and Islamic Jihad know
this? Does Iran know this? What about Hizbollah?

If any of the countries you list were
to attack today they would surely face a large coalition force.

Again, Israel doesn't feel that secure. A supersonic flight from Damascus
to downtown Tel Aviv would not last one tick of the Hobbs meter. Then it's
already too late. Wars over Israel are quick, and wouldn't allow 6 months
for a coalition to gear up like in the Gulf war. That assumes that someone
would be willing to fight for Israel, and many Israelis are no where near
convinced that they have enough friends in the world to rely on.

What I am suggesting is that we support the Palestinians more, to the
point
where we are essentially neutral. They are an oppressed people and our
policy is (and should be) to help the oppressed.


The United States is putting pressure on both sides to come to an agreement
and orchestrating with others a plan to reach for a Palestinian state. I
don't see how that is not neutral. Just because the support comes with
pressure to stop operations of wholesale slaughter in pizza parlors and
hotels? Seems reasonable to me.

Again I apologize for the typo. But IMO we are not doing "exactly what we
should be doing". See above. And I don't expect to please everyone, just
to
use the same yardstick everywhere.



The precise position of neutral is debatable, so let's jut agree to disagree
on this one.



Thanks for the discussion. You must have struck a nerve because I haven't
written this much for a long time.

These topics always strike a nerve with me. So when I find a fine
interlocutor to discuss the issues dear to my heart, I spend the time to
compose my thoughts, even when I should be working on my thesis...
This has become way off topic for a flying forum, but it's been fun in any
case.

-Aviv