Slashdot Mirror


China Overtakes US as Supplier of IT Goods

Ant writes "CNET News.com is reporting that 'after almost a decade of explosive growth in its electronics sector, China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest supplier of Information Technology goods, according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.' From the article: "The most spectacular demonstration of China's ambition to become a consumer electronics heavyweight came in May this year when Lenovo, the Chinese computer maker, paid $1.75 billion to buy IBM's personal computer unit."

49 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if only their government didn't suck ass, they could be so great. they have immense cultural momentum, a well reasoned and disciplined populace, and a penchant for churning out intelligent people.

    1. Re:if only by m50d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've never considered that maybe the reason they're doing so well economically is that their government has absolute control and can do unpopular things that it thinks are necessary? Don't get me wrong, I certainly prefer living in a democracy, but it would be a mistake to think a democratic government is the best in every respect.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:if only by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's quite the opposite. A totalitarian government such as China's is their greatest chance - economically speaking at least. They don't have to wait for a hard-to-boost democracy to vote stuff up, they can just do it. And they've perfectly understood the game of modern economics as played by capitalism.

      Now from all other standpoints, the picture is different.

    3. Re:if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, it is very much the case that China's recent success is due largely to economic liberalization rather than a well planned authoritarian economing base. Under Deng Xiaopeng a number of "special economic zones" were open. Within these zones, exclusively near the coast and mostly (save for one) far from Beijing, the government allowed foreign investment and something of a free market in exchange for high tax rates. Beijing has been using the revenue from these cities to try to improve the interior, where rebellion traditionally begin. Most of the interior remains destitute, despite their economic successes on the coastline.

      One question I have about this article is whether it is counting Taiwan as part of China. Taiwans technicle infrastructure would make a huge difference in such numbers. The Nationalists (although there is a Taiwanese nationalist movement, though anytime Taiwan talks too much about independence the Chinese start target practice on neighboring islands) and the CCP still believe there is only one China, and there's only one China in the UN.

      ~Joshua Powell

    4. Re:if only by Total_Wimp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was correctly modded insightful. Assuming the government acted only as a hinderance to the current progress is ignoring the obvious. Ther government has done quite a lot positive to thet things to the point they are today.

      The Chinese government has some very big problems, but it also has two really important things going for it.

      1)The Chinese government has shown itself to be adaptable. The level of free enterprise that exists today in China was unthinkable 50 years ago. The level of general freedom as well. The government correctly saw that the country could not compete economically without change, so it changed.

      2) Change is coming relatively slowly. This has allowed the Chinese people to become comfortable with their new rights and responsiblities and therefore use them more wisely. In the Soviet Union, where change came quickly, the people and government could not effectively make use of their newfound freedoms. The countries suffered as a result. Perhaps if they had had more time things might have turned out differently for them.

      More change must come to China. My guess is that it will come, but it will take a few more decades to get close enough to the west that we feel comfortatble.

      TW

    5. Re:if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I prefer living in a democracy with true freedom of press and clear separation of church & state. You know:

      * where elections aren't corrupted by bribery (lobbyists & conflicts of interest) or unsecure voting machines,

      * where those elected actually work for their voters interests rather than a handful of people that helped them get elected,

      * where the press objectively investigate and report FACTS "that matter",

      * where leaders actually use time-honored values (like honesty, courage, compassion) instead of dishonestly wearing "faith-based" religions on their sleeves

      * where politicians don't try to steal or use the honor of our brave veterans to shield themselves from healthy political debate or honest criticism--especially if their rich families helped them stay out of war when most of their peers bravely went to fight

      Let me know when you find a country that offers such a democracy.

      Right now, I live in a country where:

        * we have over 60 (sixty!) elected federal officials under investigation for corruption this month (December 2005)

        * our electronic voting systems cannot even begin to be compared to the rigorous standards actually IMPLEMENTED & ENFORCED by our gambling systems

        * despite *failing* to prevent 3,000 civilians from being killed in NY or *failing* to catch the asshole who masterminded the attack, the only person to get fired for not sufficiently questioning evidenced produced by underlings was a TV reporter--and that was over something the President did/didn't do several decades ago! Think about that!

        * radical religious fundamentalists are destroying the separation of church & state and they appear to be succeeding by bribing religious leaders (by offering federal funds to "faith-based" organizations) -- didn't you see church vans/cars driving their flock to election polls so that the party offering the federal funds to "faith-based" organizations can win?

        * our press is so corrupted by advertising dollars that none of them is asking why we're not redeploying our troops to Afganistan where Osama bin Laden is reputed to be hiding! They continously shower the airwaves with 2 idiotic choices: "cut & run" or "stay the course" with no damned common sense discussion about moving the troops to the country where our original 911 attackers are hiding. At your job, what would happen to you if you decided to openly & publically criticize your biggest customers--now look at the oil companies advertising on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

        * our leaders are in bed with Mexico & China for dirt-cheap labor so that work can be outsourced both here and abroad, thereby destroying the long-term viability of our middle-class ($50,000/yr - $200,000/yr families) -- the "latino vote" is a red-herring: the real reason is to satisfy corporate campaign contributors & lobbyists that got them elected.

      "cut & run" vs "stay the course" argument is bullshit. Re-deploy our troops to Afganistan to find the original terrorists who attacked our country. Anyone who thinks we cannot find Osama given our current technology & resources is a fool--we didn't catch him because our leaders have other priorities.

    6. Re:if only by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...err, how long was it before anyone dared point out the gee-dub-yah had nothing to go into iraq with?

      Nonsense. He had the most powerful army in the world to go into Iraq with.

      The few that did were branded as anti-american: so, why do you hate america?

      Still waiting on that answer. ...and anyways, it seems to me that we're making pretty quick with the give-up-the-freedoms-for-security gig right now and we could be just half a step away from losing large chunks of freedom, and being no better off than the chinese...

      Apart from the freedom to get on a plane without first taking my shoes off, I'm at a loss to think of any freedoms I've given up lately.

      Yes, because of the PATRIOT Act the gub'ment (see, I can type with a stupid dialect while pretending to mimic your side, too) can now tap my phone if they tell a judge that I might be a terrorist.

      Before PATRIOT, they would have had to tell the judge that I might be a mobster, and tap my phone under the RICO statutes.

      Not a good state of affairs, but hardly a shocking change from what eight years of Clinton/Gore brought down on us.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  2. Is it unexpected? by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The day IBM sold it's PC business, this was only to be expected...

    In other news, India overtakes the US as the leading Supplier of Software Services... not too long either.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Is it unexpected? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Each country has roughly 3 - 4 times the number of citizens that the US has. On sheer numbers alone, you'd expect them to overtake eventually.

    2. Re:Is it unexpected? by ceeam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pakistan has roughly the same population as Japan. I've never seen a Pakistan-made car, or TV-set, or camera...

    3. Re:Is it unexpected? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even there, they lag behind. The Japanese were flying planes into ships in WW2.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:Is it unexpected? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The British mostly abandoned Pakistan after WWII (around 1947, IIRC) which left India (and Pakistan) to mostly fend for themselves, while post-war Japan for the most part had domestic policy dictated by the United States, which only lead to further modernization.
      Which still doesn't explain why Suzuki built one of its largest car-plants in India.

      Sorry, but there's no reason to blame the British for one's own policy failings.

    5. Re:Is it unexpected? by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the time of independence, both India and Pakistan had identical economic situations. If anything, Pakistan had an advantage - India had to tackle a wide range of diversity as well as a much larger area and population.

      The need for change has to come from within. India chose to be a secular democracy and made an effort to better their infrastructure, to educate their population and improve the economy.

      Pakistan on the other hand decided that religion and military were more important and they got what they deserved.

      Despite being surrounded by two hostile neighbors (Islamic dictatorship Pakistan on the North and Communist dictatoriship China on the East), India still has done well. She's still a democracy and in a nation of more than a billion people, majority of whom are Hindus, India has a Muslim rocket scientist President (who happens to be a vegetarian!), a Sikh economist professor as a Prime Minister and a caucasian Roman Catholic female Ruling Party President -- and her economy is doing extremely well.

      Pakistan on the other hand has had a hard time even maintaining democracy for any amount of time, and has a military general dictator and is an Islamic fundamentalist nation.

      It's not like the US had great resources when they started out. In fact, Japan did not have any great of an economy after WW-2, which was about the same time that Pakistan got its independence.

      To quote Neal Stephenson, gold (and money) is the corpse of value. Real value is in people, in their hearts, heads and their hands.

      So, while it might be nice to compare Japan and Pakistan, the need for change has to come from within. Pakistan has made a choice of putting religion about science, of putting military conquests above infrastructure and putting the people and their betterment below everything else.

      India made an effort and deserves what she's getting. It's always a choice that people make.

    6. Re:Is it unexpected? by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never seen a Pakistan-made car, or TV-set, or camera...

      No, but you've definitely seen some Pakistan-made clothes. Now what was the main export of the Asian "Dragons" in the early phase of their development, and what is the main export of China today ? (tick.. tick.. tick..)

      Of course, Pakistan is an unstable dictatorship with about a quarter of its territory living under State-subsidised anarchy (they call that "tribal zones"). Factor in rampant fundamentalism and you get remarkably un-ideal conditions for succesful development.

      Thomas-

  3. How can that be? by bit01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China has nowhere near as many IP lawyers protecting their "valuable intellectual property" as the USA.

  4. Hmm by jav1231 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frankly, after the shootings the other day in China I wish we'd stop doing business with them. Our relationship with China is nothing to be proud of.

    1. Re:Hmm by Narc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where I see your point, I don't agree with it.

      You can't judge a people by their govt and their ideology, especially such an oppresive one. It's like judging America by Bush. Refusing to do business with them or have any sort of relationship with them isn't quite as simple as "I don't like that cheerleader, she's a prissy cow and ignores me". On a international level, this hurts the people already being screwed over by their govt in the long run more so.

      You have to build some form of relationship, positive ones more often than not are better, regardless of your opinion of someone. Positive relations are more effective at bringing about change.

    2. Re:Hmm by martinmcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah, They should learn that they should only do bad things to people after flying them to a different country, or if they report things they don't like, or have oil or stuff.

      I really don't think America can take the moral high ground on anything atm.

    3. Re:Hmm by Kev_Stewart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you'd spent any time in China you probably wouldn't say that. Or maybe YOU would.

    4. Re:Hmm by modernbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately this idea seems to make sense with the exception of the fact that we are not a democracy or a republic. The only people offered up for election are rich people and the pawns of those rich people. When someone does manage to gain some national attention that doesn't fit in the power group they are ignored by the press and often times made to be non-competitive. An example of this is in national debates where lessor known candidates are not allowed to compete. Perhaps this national debate would be their opportunity to show they are a better leader, we will never know. Our country has become complacent and lazy. We have had to much for to long and it shows in our culture and in our leaders. We should not be surprised when another culture whips our ass because they understand what went wrong in the past and endeavor not to do those things in the future.

    5. Re:Hmm by Newton's+Alchemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to build some form of relationship, positive ones more often than not are better, regardless of your opinion of someone. Positive relations are more effective at bringing about change.

      Unless the country doesn't have nuclear weapons, then you're of course free to invade.

      The "helping the people not the government" argument is utter bullshit. It helps US Corporations to do business in China, period. THAT's why we still do business with them and not in places like North Korea. It has NOTHING to do with helping the average Chinese.

  5. Re:I for one by TheBismarck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Red Dragon awakens...

  6. "impose its own technology standards"? by sczimme · · Score: 4, Insightful


    From the article:

    Also, China's efforts to impose its own technology standards across a range of consumer products, including mobile phones, digital photography and wireless networks, are widely interpreted as a strategy to dominate the global market for information technology goods.

    That approach will probably serve them quite well within their own borders, but I don't see how they can hope to impose their own standards on the rest of the world. There are already standards (e.g. 3G) in place across the globe, accompanied by hardware produced by manufacturers in several countries. The Chinese standards would have to displace the incumbents (so to speak) and become widely adopted by those same former incumbents. It sounds like a very difficult - if not insurmountable - obstacle.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:"impose its own technology standards"? by BananaPeel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Move your IP standard to match those in the US 2. Patent you new stuff based on your standards at home and abroad 3. Supply your new equipment at cost into new markets 4. Dominate the market 5. Up your prices fractionally 6. Profit until some other country does the same to you The US IP laws are really a rod for their own backs. IP people just don't seem to get that they can be totally out competed and then have their own IP laws used against them by foriegn companies to exclude them from their own domestic markets..or am I missing something?

    2. Re:"impose its own technology standards"? by Laura_DilDio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like they've simply taken a page from Microsoft's playbook.

  7. Only the beginning by Markvs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    JP Morgan and some other firms are now outsourcing finance positions to India for the first time. If the US doesn't wake up and go for FAIR trade, FREE trade will cut all of our collective throats.

    --
    46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
    1. Re:Only the beginning by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Shipping is a very small cost, especially for small, lightweight goods like mp3 players.

      At the moment China is a lot cheaper because their cost base is so very much lower. As people become wealthier there, so things will go up in price - housing, food etc. And they will become less competitive (unless they are wise and spend money on educating even more Chinese to compete with the world).

      The problem for many parts of the world (like the EU and USA) is that they are doing exactly the wrong thing. Government (by will of the people) are creating more and more tax breaks/programs to ensure that their people maintain an improving wage structure, instead of letting costs slide and getting closer to being competitive with China. The longer that you do so (and run up larger and larger debts), the worst the eventual slide is going to be.

  8. Re:Why this is by Malenfrant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because the companies can no more survive without employees than they can without customers, giving the employees a powerful bargaining position. This is the reason labour rights have progressed over the last century or so. As we (the workers) are not prepared to accept peanuts for our labour, the only way to keep industry in western nationa is to impose minimum labour standards on all companies we do business with

  9. Free trade is fair trade by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What we have at the moment couldn't remotely be called free trade.

    --
    Deleted
  10. Really? Are you sure about that? by sczimme · · Score: 4, Insightful


    our new chinese overlords. Better than the old ones...

    I'm not so sure.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  11. PATENTS & IP by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess giving patents to everyone for everything, lengthening copyright to forever and a day, and criminalizing minor infringements didn't work. Which is funny given that the proponents of this IP regime argue that this is what the USA can make money selling.

    Now if only the EU isn't so dumb as to fall for the same rubbish....

  12. The great red planet??? by dbleoslow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was growing up in the 80's, there was a big anti-communist thing going on (Most notibly, the great war epic Red Dawn). There was also a big "buy American" movement due to a strong Japanese economy. Now we have a communist economic powerhouse and noone seems to be raising a stink. Why is that? My only thought on this is that with China, US executives are still making money. The Japanese kept everything from manufacturing to management in-house. China just does the manufacturing and leaves the US management to their big salaries. I think you will only see the "Made in China" issue come to the forefront when they start managing everything, thereby screwing the US upper management.

    1. Re:The great red planet??? by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's just scary to realize how similiar the Chinese economy is to the Japanese economy of 20 years ago, and how China is pretty much guarenteed to hit the wall within the next decade, just like Japan did.

      Yes, and the difference now is that the Chinese economy is propping up the American government, both by financing our massive debt/deficit and providing our consumer based economy with cheap goods, fueling our economy and tax base. What happens when the Chinese economy hits a wall and that support goes away, eh?

  13. In a way, it's overstated by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm typing this on a 12" Apple PowerBook. Made in China. It's currently charging my 'Assembled in China' iPod. These would be tallied into the Chinese total, though they are clearly 'American' products and the bulk of their profits go to the (shareholders of the) American company.

    While the advances in the Chinese IT industry are nothing less than phenomenal, I suspect that it will be at least a few decades before The States is knocked from the #1 position in IT.

    In an oblique way, TFA says the same thing:

    It is foreigners who have driven much of the growth, with heavy investment from global giants like Intel, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft and Cisco Systems. Figures from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce show that companies that had received overseas investment accounted for almost 90 percent of 2004 exports of high technology products.

    Oh yeah - and this OECD study only measures exports, not production. With Americans also leading the world in resource hoggery, American production may still lead Chinese production.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  14. Re:Why this is by penguinoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't forget that having a minimum wage can result in less jobs in some areas. It can also cause some jobs to disappear entirely, as the cost would be too high. The obvious solution is to allow illegal immigrants to work at illegal wages :-). On the other hand, higher wages (and less jobs) tend to motivate people to learn more (so they can compete, but also because the pay is better), and to replace dull jobs with robots whenever possible (robots are only as valuable as the equivalent human labor).

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  15. Re:Wait, we were #1? by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only reason America was better off the latter half of the 20th century was because it wasn't devastated by severe war during the first half.

    Remember, significant portions (including the populations) of France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium was destroyed twice during the first two world wars. The western Soviet Union took quite a beating, too. Of course, Greece, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, North Africa, Japan, China, Korea, and many Pacific islands were also quite devastated by conflict.

    It's no wonder that those who were able to progress, rather than rebuild, took the lead.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  16. subtle paranoia by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "China is quickly becoming an innovator and, as we know, it has the money to turn those ideas into weapons," he said.

    Why is it that commentators and news writers are always paranoid about China becoming a dangerous military superpower, yet apparently noone has a problem investing billions of dollars in the country as well as freely using their cheap labor to manufacture goods? Wal-Mart says about 60% of their goods are manufactured in China. Why all the paranoia if we are so willing and able to use them to make a profit?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  17. Re:Why this is by damsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unions are specifically exempt from anti trust law by statute. So are the Major League Baseball Association and insurance companies.

  18. Not imposing standards: dodging royalties by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the idea that they are attempting to impose standards is misplaced. I suspect that their main motivation is the desire to have standards that don't involve royalty payments -- at least, not external ones. It's a massive drain on profitability to be paying per-unit license fees on all these things.

    Another thing to note about standards is that they are primarily a matter of ubiquity. You really don't have to care what encoding your digital mobile phone uses, or your video disc uses, etc., so long as its quality is "good enough" and you don't run into compatibility issues. Microsoft knows this, and uses their dominance of the desktop as leverage: if they want something to be a de facto standard, they just include it in the next Windows service pack. So long as enough goods are manufactured which support a particular protocol, that protocol becomes a de facto standard.

    --
    proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
  19. Services moving overseas, too by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've read a lot of posts about how the US is becoming a services-based economy. I have news for you, the services are being offshored as well. I went to my doctor for my annual physical last month, and while there was a nurse in the office performing the physical, the doctor was on an LCD screen from his office in, you guessed it, India.

    Did you also know that there are law schools in India now that teach AMERICAN law and not Indian law? I'm guessing that paralegals and other support functions in Law will shortly be available for cheap offshoring.

    I used to think that Medicine and Law would be the last things to go, but it seems I was wrong about that. As I scramble to find a safer profession than Engineering, I'm not even sure where to go. I thought of teaching, and then realized that there are movements afoot to move this overseas, too, with a cheap security guard in the classroom to maintain order and a cheap teacher overseas in front of a camera.

    So, while it's not so untrue that America is becoming a services based economy, I think it would be more accurate to say that it is becoming an UNSKILLED or lesser-skilled services economy.

  20. Had to happen...here's why: by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Chinese have a lot of advantages. The first is sheer numbers...a higher number of people can be educated and work in the technology field. All other offshoring destinations (India, etc.) have this same advantage. The second is control; the Chinese government can still crack down and force people to do things that may otherwise be unpopular. The Soviet Union was famous for this when they forced the industrialization of Russia in a very short period of time. The third is an educational advantage. The only way to get ahead in Chinese society is education, and it seems from the numbers that parents drum this into their kids' heads right from the start.

    I think that one of the things we could do to reverse the trend is to find a way to graduate more students in math/science/engineering. They're being scared off because they think that the only jobs left in this country will be in management. I can't say I blame them either.

    1. Re:Had to happen...here's why: by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Government control is no guarantee of long-term success. Soviet dictators turned Russia into a great power, but look at it now. China's iron hand can squash just as easy as it pushes. Frankly, I don't think China can maintain its current groth as a totalitarian country.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  21. So? No country can by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Doesn't it crack anyone up that germany of all countries has the gall to tell the rest of the world what is right or not? For that matter japan? Yet both want a seat on the security council. Lets see, we have had two world wars both started by the germans. How about eh. NO.

    Application denied forever. Comeback in a thousand years and maybe we lets you back.

    England? Read up on their empire and it is their politics that led to the whole mess in the middle east with how the formation of Israel was handled, they should have created a palistine at the same time or at least given Israel better borders (the whole golan heights issue is because it gives syria a very easy front to attack from and a very difficult for Israel to defend). Oh and who created the situation between India and Pakistan.

    So the axis nations are out. Maybe france? Can you say vietnam? No thanks and that leaves out the US as well. China is out for obvious reasons. Russia? Oh boy no.

    Maybe a small country like say my own the netherlands? Nope, indonesia and our other former colonies show that we are just hitlers on a miniature scale and anyway our behaviour during WW2 was appaling.

    The belgians? Please they got a goverment so corrupt that it makes the italians look capable.

    Australians? Maybe after they do somthing to right the wrong committed against the natives.

    It doesn't exactly leave anyone? Sooner or later pretty much every country has done stuff in the last century that shows that if a country/society/ethnic group has a change they will murder rape and slaughter those they think of as less important.

    The only reason some countries at the moment behave is because they would get their asses kicked if they didn't. Nazi sympathy in germany is still sky high but the russians would never tolerate them getting in a position of power to the power that be in germany sit on it at the moment but still refuse to deport war criminals or lock them up.

    No kiddo, no country can take the moral highground. Wich isn't going to stop anyone of course because rule one of real life. It ain't bad if it is you doing it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:So? No country can by guanxi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Whoopee! We're better than Saddam Hussein! I'm so proud.

      Seriously, try thinking for yourself and not parrotting the party line.

      Anyone who says we shouldn't have gone to war is saying that Iraq was better off with Sadam.

      It's fun to put words in other people's mouths, but that's not really what anyone says. For example, I think it was a bad idea because,
      1. It undermined the international system that managed conflict without war: Look at the international conflicts before the post war institutions (UN, Geneva conventions, etc) and after. Not many countries invading each other since 1945 relative to before then. It's better for all concerned: People die in wars, the survivors' lives and cities are ruined, their societies are in ashes and take a generation to rebuild. Some never recover. Lots of money is spent. Nobody with experience in war recommends it as a solution to any problem, just a last desperate resort.
      2. Undermining that international system will lead to more net suffering: Now others will say pre-emtive war as justified, even when only supported by weak intelligence and loose conjecture.
      3. It will also increase costs to the US: We have many interests worldwide; we can't afford to invade someone every time we don't like them. The old system provided a way to manage those issues much less expensively.
      4. It may not have been worth the cost to the US: Much as I'm happy to see Hussein gone, I saw a mother ask, 'what did my son die for'? Well, what? Are you sure it's worth it? And if so, why Iraq? There is far more suffering in the Congo, Sudan and other places. Should we invade all these countries? Would you raise taxes to pay for it?


      The Iraqi people are greatful

      Says who? Grateful for what? In every survey I've seen, Iraqis say they dislike the U.S. occupation.

      we're doing far more good than is ever being publicized.

      Out of curiosity, if it's not publicized, how do you know about it?
  22. Re:Not Surprising by Locke2005 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    the US will catch back up (say 20 years?). Or I am moving. Just like the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Ottoman Turks, British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and even the Chinese... all once superpowers just like the US is now. No, I'm sorry, the US is an empire in decline while China is an empire on the rise (economically). 50 years from now Americans will be in the same position the French are now -- pissed off that they are no longer the pinnacle of culture and technology, and venting they're frustration by being rude to anybody that doesn't speak their language perfectly. Of course by then China will be the most like world economic superpower. Sorry, but it may take thousands of years, not 20 years, before the US gets it's turn at the top again.

    Of course, the rise of China COULD have been prevented by simply not buying goods made in China, but that's never going to happen. Case in point: go look at your Christmas lights. Where were they made? That's what I thought...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  23. WMD, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ahh, okay, today's reason for going to war: Mr. Saddam Hussein.

    Do you even know that the US administration was on best terms with Saddam even when he was already killing kurds with nerve gas and that Mr. Rumsfeld served as a special envoy to Iraq during that period?

    The US administration probably had a couple of reasons to invade Iraq, but humanity was certainly not included.

  24. Re:Really? Are you sure about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As do american police; and your point was?

    You are a complete asshat. The American police routinely shoot protesters? America has its problems, but to compare its treatment of citizens to China only demonstrates that you are an ignorant fool.

  25. Re:I was just listing them all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Northern Ireland has democratically voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.

    If Americans would've only realised that, they might not have funded the IRA and their terrorist activities.

  26. Re:Why this is by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Absolutely right. It is the poor, poor, executives that make the sacrifices here in the US while the over fed, over indulgent, over rich workers make out like bandits.

    Actually that is the way it was before unions caught on. You had super rich and super poor in the US. Unions equalized things for about 60 years. Now the wealth differences (as measured by ratios) are growing again. I hope you like the 1890-1920's because we are headed there again.