Slashdot Mirror
Beijing's New Enforcer - Microsoft
QuatermassX writes "The New York Times editorial page comments on the responsibilities of American technology companies doing business in China. From the article: 'Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. Some in the American Congress are talking about holding hearings. Microsoft has responded to criticism by saying, 'We think it's better to be there with our services than not be there.' This is a false choice. China needs Internet companies as much as they need China.'"
I take it you've lived in both countries....
It's called the interstate commerce clause. Or did you sleep through high school government class?
Ahh the fine teachers unions and their education!
The interstate commerce clause was written to prevent individual states from taxing, tariffing or embargoing trade with other states.
Read your history, you'll see this to be true.
nuclear attack? It'll probably just be the filthy Jews vs the towel-heads.
Let's just get back to playing WoW some more, dude! You got your MegaSwordOfDoom yet?
"nucular" hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha HAHAHA
If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
That clause is also the reason the recent talks on the treaty fell to bits.
Israel has at least 200 nukes on Iran's doorstep and has made numerous threats against Iran. Iran makes for a formidible enemy even without nukes. It has a large, sophisticated military that gives it the potential to shut down the oil trade via the strait of Hormuz and rain missles down on Israel. The US know Iran will not be "pushed around" as easily as Iraq, but that won't stop them from rattling their sabre. On a more optomistic note, the rest of the world seems to be sick of hearing wolf cries from the whitehouse and are refusing to help remake the middle east in GWB's image.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"use Iran as a warning to the rest of the world that we're crazy and will do anything to get our way."
War is the failure of politics, the people left standing do not "win", they simply survive to fight in the next one. The strategy "I'm violent and crazy so give up" did not work in Vietnam, did not work for Hitler and nor did it end the cold war, why do you think it would work in Iran?
I have to say I find your suggestion the most repulsive idea I have ever read on slashdot. It is born from the same "us and them" philosophy fertilizes terrorisim.
"I simply believe that there's no way to deter Iran from using nuclear weapons- the best option would be to get the hell out and leave them alone."
The MAD theory of strategic balance says that either everyone "wins" or everone dies. It depends apon all sides having nukes but no side is willing to risk destroying themselves by striking first. The best option would be a lasting peace (MAD or otherwise), the second best is trade and diplomacy. I don't belive the US can stop Iran obtaining nukes if it is determined to do so but I doubt it will attack Israel for the same reason Pakistan did not attack India when it eventually obtained nukes. Iran has seen the enormous boost in international respect given to Pakistan since it joined the MAD group, why would Iran not want to follow suit?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The US is not worried about or threatened by the possiblity of Iranian Nukes, it's worried about loosing control of the oil trade.
Is it a coincidence that March 2006 is also when Iran is due to open the world's fourth oil exchange, trading exclusively in EURO's? Do the other world powers (Russia, China, EU) see this as a chance to open up competition and free themselves from a US dominated oil trade?
The US quickly looses it's enthusiasim for capitalisim when it works against them. Last year they told China that it's (USD based) money is no good when it comes to buying US based oil companies. China (with the help of Russia) is simply using Iran to secure their own oil supplies and at present it seems to be working.
I don't subscribe to grand conspiracy theories but I do agree that the western media feeds it's readers the story the US wants them to hear. It's much more like "group think" than overt censorship, either method results in a similar level of ignorance amongst the general population.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As for the remainder of your post, the fact that you see no operational difference between a large, stable democracy like India having nukes, and a totalitarian regime like Iran which has stated as a matter of policy that it believes that another nation in its region should be obliterated having nukes tells us much more about your reasoning than anything else you've said.
Okay, that's not quite true. Your ignorance about jthe world oil economy tells us a lot too (hint: can you name the top 10 nations selling oil to the US? Do you think the list supports your claims about the importance of Iraqi, Iranian, and Russian oil? Well, do you?).
Oh, I was paying attention. I've also been paying attention to the last two and a half decades of statements by Iranian leadership when they speak to domestic and pan-Islamic audiences. Judging a nation only by what they say at the negotiating table isn't very bright, after all.
But enough dodging the question: do you believe that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons? Do you?
It must also be mentioned that the planned invasion March 2006 was announced half a year ago, the western propaganda to justify this planned invasion is extremely easy to see through if you had been paying attention the last decade.
Oh, is it March now? Do you realize that you guys are beginning to sound like the folks who keep telling us that the Rapture will happen on such and such a date, and then hastily rescheduling when no one disappears? Just look at the `certain' dates of US war with Iran which have been declared so far:
Since you yourself seem convinced that the last of these three dates is correct (even if the first two were not), let's make an agreement: let's revisit this thread on April 1, and if the US has not invaded Iran, will you admit that you were wrong?
Will you?