<html>
<body>
<b>Ted, <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Jeff et. al.<br>
<br>
Thanks for your response. </blockquote><br>
<b>You are welcome<br>
</b> <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">However, the issue of US based
Internet corporations in complicity with the Chinese Communist Party
dictatorship in censorship, and the jailing of Chinese dissidents for
political speech, is only one issue regarding US corporations conduct in
China, an issue which is rather well documented at this time regarding
whether the conduct occurred (it did), so I'm puzzled by your signaling
you want to withdraw from this discussion to research this US Internet
corporate complicity with Communist China. </blockquote><br>
<b>I don't quite understand your insistence that I respond before I have
had an opportunity to adequately research this matter. I have been
looking into the issue and while I find a few threads that argue your
point, I have found equally compelling threads that would take issue with
your position. I will comment when I have settled the issues in my
mind - and clarified how the technology has been used. <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I won't elaborate on all the
points in your last response in this thread, some of which are not
central to the issues we were first discussing, except to say US
relations with China on the issue of Taiwan do rise to the level of a
"cold war," <b>in my opinion</b>, though I agree the term
"cold war" can be defined various ways.
</blockquote><br>
<b>As you so eloquently state, "...in my opinion". It is
not my opinion. I am comfortable to be in disagreement on this
issue.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I wonder, if China invaded
Taiwan for a full military takeover, would the US take military action to
defend Taiwan? </blockquote><br>
<b>Probably.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">There has been military
"saber rattling" by the US and China on this tense situation,
given the US has positioned military assets to send China a
"message" of "hands off" Taiwan, and China has
conducted military exercises that no one doubts were aimed at sending a
message to both Taiwan and the US that China still considers Taiwan a
legitimate part of "China," not a fully independent government
with full rights to national sovereignty. The answer to the
"Taiwan" question helps to inform the answer to the question
regarding whether China/US relations are a "cold war."
</blockquote><br>
<b>My read of that situation is very different from yours. China
and Taiwan approached the brink of war. Intervention by the US and
many other nations have helped to diffuse that situation - through trade
negotiations and relations. Military assets remain in place, but
trade relations have improved dramatically and the situation seems to
have cooled somewhat.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I am posting my response to
your last post answering my concerns about Wal-Mart, morals and
prostitution, from the thread "[Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed,
Missed Points," under the subject heading for this thread, which
seems more appropriate to the content. We are not discussing
pharmacies and access to drugs relating to Wal-Mart, though this could
factor into our discussion. </blockquote><br>
<b>I made no posts at all on the pharmacies and access to drugs question.
Changing to the Subject thread you are using is fine with me.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">A few other
"corrections" seem to be required, however, to your last
response to my last post under this thread.<br>
<br>
Jeff wrote "I implied no such thing" in response to my
statement below:<br>
<br>
"You imply the answer to my objections to US based corporations
engaging in violations of environmental, labor and human rights law when
doing business in other nations, violations that help these corporations
out compete their competitors, is the extreme response of restricting
international business with these nations." <br>
---------------------<br>
You had written in response to my objections to the conduct of the
Chinese Communist Party and US based multinationals in China:<br><br>
Should we stop selling our products to them? Should we stop buying
their products.? <br>
<br>
My sentence above in quotes was a response to these two
questions.</blockquote><br>
<b>So what is your answer? Should we stop selling our products to
China and other nations that engage in violations of environmental, labor
and human rights laws? Should we stop buying their products?
Just a simple yes or no would be a good start in responding to the
questions. "Depends" would require some explanation.
<br>
</b> <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">And please note that my sentence
above in quotes does not focus only on the egregious conduct of US
Internet corporations operating in China, but on any US corporation that
may be engaging in conduct impacting labor, environmental or human rights
moral issues in China. </blockquote><br>
<b>Good, because as I have noted numerous times, I am researching that
issue.<br><br>
<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 3/9/06, <b>Jeff
Harkins</b>
<<a href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com">jeffh@moscow.com</a>> wrote:
<br>
<dl>
<dd>At 01:43 PM 3/9/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Jeff et. al.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>So I assume then that you oppose the economic restrictions our
government has imposed on Cuba? We should follow the "economic
engagement" model you suggest with Cuba? </blockquote><br>
<dd>Yes - it is time that we open trade relations with Cuba.
Besides, we need access to their cigars, sugar cane and baseball
players.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>And that the economic sanctions against South Africa during apartheid
were a mistake? We should have engaged in business as usual with
South Africa? </blockquote><br>
<dd>Yes - they were a mistake. There is ample evidence that the
sanctions we imposed hurt the people we were trying to help more than the
separatists we were trying to harm. But that problem seems to have
been resolved. <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Or the sanctions against Iraq after Gulf War One? Those were a
mistake also?</blockquote><br>
<dd>Maybe - this one really depends on whether you believe the Hussein
regime had WMD. With hindsight on this one - maybe we should have
not stopped Gulf War 1 when we did.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>And the threat of sanctions against Iran now to persuade them to
alter their plans for nuclear developments? This also is a mistaken
policy? </blockquote><br>
<dd>I don't believe economic sanctions will be effective in deterring
Iran's development of WMD. I am not all that opposed to trying, but
I am not optimistic about the outcome. A religious ideology is difficult
to break with economics. <br>
</b>
<dd> <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>You imply the answer to my objections to US based corporations
engaging in violations of environmental, labor and human rights law when
doing business in other nations, violations that help these corporations
out compete their competitors, is the extreme response of restricting
international business with these nations. I provided a link to
information regarding the US Congress debating placing conditions upon US
based companies, like Yahoo and Google, to not cooperate with China's
Communist Party in violating the free speech and political rights of
Chinese citizens. Odd that you made no reference to the fact
</b>that US corporations are complicit in cooperating with China's
totalitarian dictatorship in sending political dissidents to jail for
exercising free speech rights.</blockquote><br>
<dd>I implied no such thing. In fact, you note that I made no
comment whatsoever. I am researching this question and if I am
persuaded to a position, I will be forthcoming with my thoughts.
<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd> I am suggesting what was suggested by the US Congress. I
did not suggest blocking all trade with China. Let our corporations
be a firm guide in promoting democratic values in other nations, not a
sleazy co-conspirator cooperating with a dictatorship to violate the
human rights of its citizens. </blockquote><br>
<dd>At this point, I have no hard evidence to substantiate your
allegation. I am aware of many positive actions by US companies,
including Internet companies. But I will seek to learn more about
your "conspiracy" allegations and, if persuaded by the evidence
I obtain, will post you on my findings. <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>As to favoring a "cold" or "hot" war with China,
I think to some extent we have a "cold war" now with
China. Witness China's recent release of a report on US human
rights violations, listing our treatment of prisoners in the war on
terror, and our treatment of people in the Hurricane Katrina disaster, as
human rights violations. China's response is partly aimed at the US
criticisms for China's human rights violations. This tit for tat
exchange of accusations is an expression of an ideological cold war now
under way between China and the US. If holding US based
corporations to a firm stand blocking egregious violations of human
rights, environmental standards and labor laws implies a "cold
war" with China, then so be it. </blockquote><br>
<dd>Well, labels are easy to apply - I think of a "cold war"
that focuses on weapons build up, DefCon 5, strong anti -your opponent
comments and so forth. The dialogue between the two nations looks
more to me like "establishing the conditions of trade and economic
markets and not cold war. Let's just agree to disagree on this
one. It is too rooted in definitions to lead to a meaningful
dialogue. <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>The notion that capitalism always implies democracy is a mistaken
idea. China no doubt is and will be a fierce competitor in the
capitalist world. But US corporations engaging in human rights
violations in China could just as well be a green light for the Chinese
Communist Party to continue their repressions of their citizens, rather
than an influence to democratize that nation. Why should the
Chinese Communist Party give up their firm hold on power when the world's
leading democracy assists them in jailing political dissidents who dare
speak out against the Chinese Communist Party? Or when Google
agrees to censor their search engine to block references to the truth
about Tienanmen Square? If I was China's leader, I would quietly
smile to myself thinking how successful China has been in compromising
the democratic idealism of the USA in gaining their complicity in
maintaining the Socialist Communists hold on power! All the Chinese
Communist Party must do to continue its dictatorial hold on power is
assure the American capitalists that they can make a killing off the
cheap labor and other competitive advantages China offers. Then the
USA will not take a firm stand against China's human rights abuses beyond
meaningless propaganda statements. </blockquote><br>
<dd>Again, let's just agree that we see the world differently on this
point. We have been attempting to build economic bridges with the
Chinese for decades. Our efforts have only begun to bear fruit -
but our trade relations really enjoy only about a 20 year history.
During the past decade, many thousands of Chinese have been schooled in
the US. It will take time for all that investment to bear a full
return. Allow a taste of capitalism (free enterprise, risk and return,
freedom of choice) and the appetite for other freedoms will grow.
<br><br>
<dd>Thanks for your response. As I get my head around the "US
Internet Corporations conspiracy with China's Communist Party" I
will weigh in.<br>
</b><br>
<dd>_____________________________________________________ <br>
<dd> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
<dd> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ <br><br>
<br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>