Slashdot Mirror
2-D Avatar To Be Pulled From Theaters In China
SimonTheSoundMan notes that Avatar is being pulled from screens in China for being too successful, and too provocative in its anti-authoritarian message. (The 3-D and IMAX versions will remain.) "The communist nation's state-run movie distributor China Film Group is unexpectedly yanking the James Cameron-directed blockbuster Avatar from 1,628 2-D screens this week in favor of a biography of the ancient philosopher Confucius starring Chow-Yun Fat. ... According to a report in the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, the move was made at the urging of propaganda officials who are concerned that Avatar is taking too much market share from Chinese films and drawing unwanted attention to the sensitive issue of forced evictions."
It might be wise for editors to check the link before placing a story - just a suggestion of course.
Your link is broken. You added an extra h to the front. Potentially for hyperbole? I don't know, I'm not a computer geek.
This just means it'll spread all the more fervently via sneakernet. That we're doing business with this government while calling Cuba an international pariah is all the more disgusting. Maybe if the Cubans had oil or massive quantities of cheap labor rather than cigars and a nice view....
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Well this is just going to increase the amount of piracy in China. Which of course will piss off the US and the MPAA even more. Great job China!
interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
...in favor of a biography of the ancient philosopher Confucius starring Chow-Yun Fat
I expect an outpouring of sympathy from the international community at such a flagrant disregard of the basic human right to not suffer through another Chow Yun Fat performance.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
This just validates that Avatar has any kind of noteworthy message that we haven't heard before.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
So the extra D in 3D is "dictatorship"?
Maybe the PRC government did it at the request of the MPAA to cut down on piracy? You can't video tape a 3D movie from your seat. Seriously, when are corporations going to realize that the PRC is an oppressive government and no matter how much they let Wal-Mart grow, or let us feed them KFC, or build our toys for us, we are not making them more free? They are playing capitalist so they don't go the way of the Soviet Union, but if you threaten their leadership, they will shut you down.
Is that one of the movies they force prisoners to watch?
My though was the same during the burst of "OMG, Avatar hates American and the Marines!!!!" sentiment.
Avatar is a fairly simplistic (but very well animated) tale of the good guys and the bad guys. Even if the direction hadn't been so heavy handed, the good guys would have been obviously in the right and the bad guys obviously in the wrong. One side was on the other's planet, busy machine-gunning them for their resources. They didn't even have a sincere-to-them-but-monstrous-in-retrospect motive along the "saving the heathens' souls" lines.
Given that, asserting that "OMG, Avatar hates China" or "OMG, Avatar hates America" is basically equivalent to saying "OMG, the policies of the national entity I support could plausibly be seen as being allegorically represented by the cartoonishly evil bad guys in this sci-fi movie!". Why would you admit something like that? Why not just say "Eh, nice pictures, should keep the kids happy, pity the plot was shallower than a wading pool" and keep conversation from drifting in unfortunate directions?
Theaters pulls YOU !
Yours In Voronezh,
K. Trout
The 2D version is "too provocative in its anti-authoritarian message" and draws "attention to the sensitive issue of forced evictions" but the 3D and IMAX versions are ok? And censors realized it one week after they approved the movie and a lot of people already watched it? I'm puzzled. Instead could that be a not-too-harsh message to the USA and the world after last week Google affair?
At first I had thought they had done this to prevent any further deaths from overexcitable patrons, but they've gone and left the 3D version wide open - risky!
... which Chinese actress is their equivalent of Barbara Streisand?
Have gnu, will travel.
I thought Avatar was about the people triumphing over big business. You'd think that would go down well in supposedly communist China.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Chow-Yun Fat as Confucius? I don't recall Confucius firing away round after round against Ye Old Bad Guy or running someone through with a sword.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
"In a follow-up statement, the China Film Group explained that they could not ban the 3D version of Avatar because it was 'too fucking awesome'. They also explained that they were re-shooting the Biopic of Confucious in 3D, and in this 3D version, Chow Yun Fat plays the title role as a 12-foot smurf."
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Those who imagined that Google was taking a principled stand against Chinese dictatorship might want to read this article in Foreign Policy:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/14/chinas_foreign_internet_purge
It builds a strong case that Google was simply cornered into protesting by an extreme and deliberate provocation - the most recent of many that have chased out by blocking or having their buttons pushed until they walked.
After reading it, I can't help but think that this is yet another case of protectionism disguised as censorship. That sounds strange - to most at /. that's like disguising a common assault as a kidnaping. But, of course, to the money guys at the top, protectionism is by far the worse - and more actionable - sin.
I wonder if the film about Confucius will have any mention of his teaching on The Mandate of Heaven. Perhaps I'm just a Westerner, but it seems toe like Chinese government failed to fulfill this mandate long ago.
IMHO District 9 was an equally biting movie with its critical viewpoint to modern day government censorship and control, as an aside I wonder how that movie went over in the People's Republic of Corruption.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
The people of China have a natural right to view Avatar. The fact that their current government does not respect that right does not diminish that right's inherent truth.
Remember that those theaters belong to "the people" and the representative of "the people" decided it would be a good idea if they were used for something else. There are only 4,000 screens making them a limited resource, after all, and they must be used efficiently. This is strictly an economic decision.
Hey, big Chinese brother is only looking out for you.
Cuba is small and within our sphere of influence. Therefore, it can be abused as much as we like, maligned, embargoed, scapegoated, and even invaded. After we tried to turn it into a puppet state, the local population revolted and threw us out. It continues to remain a symbol of successful resistance to American control. (Critics will point to it's economic failures, which have almost everything to do with the results of our desire to crush it.)
The West tried to the same intervention in China, and the result was the Boxer Rebellion. If China were smaller and closer to the United States, there would be no difference in the way they are treated. Now China has money and a manufacturing sector, so they are "worthy" of being dealt with. So much so that even the hardline nationalists don't dare to insult China and publicly restate their support of a "One China" policy, so when Beijing absorbs Taiwan, America will be able to save some face.
Decades later we are still somehow surprised by the ferocity of indigenous revolt to foreign rule. Though we can turn to romance when it's our ancestors who are doing the revolting.
Twas hard the woeful words to frame
To break the ties that bound us
But harder still to bear the shame
Of foreign chains around us
And so I said, "The mountain glen
I'll seek at morning early
And join the bold United Men
While soft winds shake the barley"
It seems to me that Avatar is a pretty straightforward telling of why mercantilism never really works out like it is supposed to. It takes huge amount of resources for a nation to occupy another nation and subdue it so that it can plunder the resources.
You would think people would know this story pretty well by now, but then again, people still fall for Marxism.
Look. I can not hold a grudge against any man who takes pride and preference in his own; family, kind, nation, company or foot ball team.
China actually has a good thing in my opinion. While Hollywood moves to feed crap to whoever will watch, they seem to also decide to give those same people something a little less media driven. I wish the United States did something like this, maybe people might gain a sense of patriotism or pride, maybe the United States could make theatres do a mandatory showing for two months out of the year, what Brittany Spears looks like before the plastic surgery, minus the choreography, minus special FX, plus everday cloths. But, men don't like looking at ugly girls is what Hollywood research has found... Point is, a lot of people actually believe something in each one of these movies, and to be reminded of reality isn't such a bad idea. However it might be done, exposure to Hollywood techniques to fabricate sex icons, or diversion into more historical and culturally relevant themes. I mean seriously, it's so bad in America that Americans actually watch "Reality TV Shows"... god forbid they knock on their neighbors door and say "Hi, I'm Jack, how are you?".
Guys, this really isn't a time to try to bash the commie here. China had these cultural integrity programs in place for a long time. Enter Avatar a film that Americans apparently love, slot it to be inevitably cut short by predefined schedules, well known in Hollywood... only to plaster the calculated results across American news outlets to garner a social reaction to the issue. Mean while China is like... what?
I saw Avatar... I thought it was OK. Who the hell am I to get angry because China decides not to show it's citizens something else? This anger steams from some fucked up idea that we have a right to business where ever. You're stealing my customers! This is going to result in potential loss! China has billions of people, I have a right to take a dollar from each of them! This is stupid fellas. It's their decision, and as far as I'm concerned, I applaud their willingness to use the theaters sometimes to give the people something of value, even if it's less "entertaining".
Go China!
Or maybe Baidu is just doing a better job at slipping money into the right pockets. This is China after all.
Considering the facts that most large and successful Chinese Internet companies -- Baidu, Sina, QQ, Alibaba, ... -- are actually subsidiaries of corporations registered in the likes of Cayman Island, Bermuda islands, they are strictly Chinese companies. Most like they are protecting the portfolios of the officials.
basic economics
1 Avatar 2D only accounts for 1/3 of revenue for Avatar in China
2. a lot fo demand for imax and 3D edition which greatly suppressed the demand for 2D
3. China film group's next big film Confucius is to be released to theater.
I'm not sure the old classification schemes, such as "communist" mean much anymore. In the old days political control and economic control went hand-in-hand. However, economic freedom and political freedom have become relatively independent factors over time. China offers a fairly high amount of economic freedom but not political freedom. France is almost the reverse.
(A third factor may be sexual/family freedom, being that some nations heavily regulate sexual and family arrangement issues.)
Table-ized A.I.
I wouldn't take anything Apple Daily says too seriously... The reason that the 2D version is being pulled is that they want to yield the 2D cinemas to the Confucius movie. If they are pulling it for political reasons, why would they leave the 3D and imax version alone?
When the Chinese became part of the WTO, they signed treaties stating:
"China will provide non-discriminatory treatment to all WTO Members. All foreign individuals and enterprises, including those not invested or registered in China, will be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to enterprises in China with respect to the right to trade." - WTO, 2001
In other words, "all foreign enterprises will be treated the same as domestic enterprises in China".
By pulling Avatar in favor of domestic movies, limiting foreign films to 10 days run time, and limiting the number of screens available China is violating its commitments under the law. It would be like the US banning Chinese manufactured imports because those imports were too successful compared to domestic brands.
China needs to honor its commitments to free trade, or be kicked out of the WTO. Which, coincidentally, would make it legal for the US to ban their imports.
Perhaps they found unobtanium in 2D film rolls.
In Avatar, Pandora's atmosphere is deadly to humans due to the presence of hydrogen sulfide gas. That's the same stuff that in real life has been found to be emitted by Chinese-made drywall.
China has almost 1 billion peasants. Peasants are poor simple traditional people who live relatively close to nature. Peasants are also the people whom governments uproot for resource extraction. Sound vaguely like any movies you've seen recently? Good. So now China's 900 screens running the 3D version are located where exactly? I thought so.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The Na'vi would be a lot less lovable if they strapped suicide vests on their women and children and sent them toward the nearest Terran checkpoint.
Like the suicide bombers in Battlestar Galactica?
That's a very odd thing to be puzzled about. Presumably, being in harmony with nature, they have a very good diet and look after their bodies. Do you also wonder why animals have such good teeth, even though they don't have toothbrushes?
Is it? A friend of mine is an archeologist, she has spent a lot of time studying human remains, she told me that ancient people on average generally had excellent teeth. Their teeth would sometimes be worn down by things like softening leather by chewing it, by grit in their grain due to the way they made flour by grinding grain rather than crushing it or they'd have starvation markings on the teeth but since ancient people rarely had any large amount of sugar in their diet they often had teeth in better condition than those of most modern humans. It was mostly the aristocracy that suffered from tooth decay on anything like the scale that modern humans do.
There are several versions of Confucius' teachings available out there.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
What Cuba has is SUGAR far below the artificial price in the US. With the 1960 embargo, we lost one third of our sugar supply, and someone makes big bucks filling that void. Along with citrus and tropical fruit, this makes a seriously large campaign contribution source for incumbents that are willing to keep this potential new source of products shut down.
If we wanted Castro to fall, all we had to do was allow American money to have effect on Cuban agriculture. It is a hard thing to sit by and watch wealth being created and have no part of it (except for being the stoop labor, of course). The problem with HAVING peons is keeping them from finding out that something better exists... once they know they start doing crazy stuff like going to sea on an inner-tube. If enough of them are aware, then they burn the palace.
It's a moot point because nothing will happen with Cuba until Imperial Sugar, ADM, C&H, Dole, Chiquita, Sunkist, et al have some kind of a market lock in place... after all, that's what they paid for.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Posting stuff like this in YRO has always drug Slashdot down. It's interesting, but not online. It should get throw into one of the fluff categories. Your rights online used to be about your rights online. Don't give me any of this, "No, it's 'your rights, online'" bull.
The folks in the US who lambasted the movie for its alleged denunciation of the authoritarian Bush administration must be placing foot soundly in mouth right about now. It's bad when the only ones who agree with you are the Chinese government, because it also means that the alleged denunciation in question was very much deserved.
"Everything is America's fault" is just Castro's propaganda to justify the failure of the communist regime. Cuba had the Soviet Union and now Venezuela pour money over it on large quantities, and yet the "ferocious local population" would risk their lives and their families' by crossing the sea in a homemade raft just to escape the regime's oppression and failure to provide even basic things. When your government is some crazy military who has remained in power by force for 50 years and has isolated the country from the rest of the world, you don't need foreign enemies to ruin your economy.
I think they still refer to them as Chinese Citizens.
Weston Price also "found" that sugar causes tuberculosis and that root canals cause cancer. Please spare Dr. Price and his homeopathic dentistry crap.
So despite all of the ripping on the movie for being simplistic, I'm amazed at how much conversation it has spawned on this site alone. Pretty good for a simple story. Don't you think so?
Say what you will of "economic failure", they have become extremely successful at being self-sustaining and keeping their people's basic needs met. I recommend watching this documentary: http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_cuba.html
A lot of things ARE America's fault. Cuba is a case of both sides being wrong.
When your government is some crazy military who has remained in power by force for 50 years and has isolated the country from the rest of the world
In case you forgot, America has had an embargo on Cuba for decades, which has only recently been relaxed. Cuba never isolated itself from the world; America imposed that isolation because it didn't want a communist country sitting off its coast.
Communism is certainly a crappy form of government, but that doesn't give America the right to try to force its preferred form of government on foreign, sovereign countries. If the Cuban people want to try communism, that's their right.
The other big reason America was so oppressive towards Cuba is because American corporations owned a lot of land in Cuba and used it for sugarcane farming. When Castro took power, he seized all this property and nationalized it (just like Venezuela nationalized their oil industry under Chavez). American corporations whined and the American government acted as their enforcement arm, and tried to oust Castro.
From an objective, moral viewpoint, America is completely in the wrong. That land belonged to the Cubans, not American corporations who had somehow bought it up, and it was the Cubans' right to take it back. There's a simple lesson here: if you're not a citizen of a foreign country, then you don't have any rights there, especially when a new regime takes over. Stay in your own country. If you want the same rights and privileges as citizens of another country, then emigrate there and apply for Citizenship. Otherwise, don't act surprised when they change their minds one day and kick you out.
Cuba is just another example of America's imperialism throughout the 20th century. If we really believed in freedom, we would leave other sovereign nations alone to do what they want, and stop trying to control them with military power, bribes, etc.
If America had had a "hands-off" policy towards Cuba under Castro (i.e., no embargo, no assassination attempts, no invasions, etc.), and people were still trying to escape by homemade raft, then you could rightfully criticize that nation for not working very well. But you can't screw around with another country and then criticize them too. It's like tying one of a boxer's hands behind his back and then making fun of him for boxing poorly.
America is the main reason crazy leftist leaders like Castro and Chavez have been able to come to power and stay in power in Latin America. When the locals of these smaller countries are faced with a choice between exploitation by American corporations, or leadership by a nutcase who'll at least provide for them better than what they were getting, they'll choose the latter. It's not too different from Germany in the 30s: they were being oppressed by the Allied powers under the crappy treaty terms set down at the end of WWI, so in comes Hitler who turned them back into a major power, though he was a nut. If countries would stop screwing with each other so much, and mind their own business, we wouldn't have all these problems.
Compared to the US-backed Batista regime, Castro was more or less a Santa in green clothes.
I am pretty sure an open cuba with free trade would immidiately transform the regime. The embargo stabilises the regime in its niche.
"It continues to remain a symbol of successful resistance to American control"
If that's a successful symbol, what does an unsuccessful symbol look like? Hawaii?
The Cuban people live like cavemen in falling down cities, with all personal wealth stripped away, where you disappear if you have a cell phone or TV that isn't approved, where "knowing too much" isn't a joke, it's a crime.
Seems to me they can brag about something theoretical, while people are starving, you're not allowed to express yourself, and people will do anything to get away, but of course, it's illegal to leave.
Just kidding of course. We all know that Cuba is the worker's paradise, where all are equal. I'll bet the people are sure glad they showed the United States who's in charge. Hooray for them.
I would like to see an erudite and academically sound biography of Confucius. Maybe it's a great movie that is replacing Avatar -- but there's an equal chance that it is somewhat presentist and ceremonial.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Every kid of a certain age who has seen "Avatar" correctly notes that it's a mash-up of "Fern Gully" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/ and the Disney version of "Pocahontas" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114148/.
The plot of Avatar is hardly new. It was an entertaining movie, but let's not pretend any of this was a new idea.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Yesterday(1/19) afternoon, UME theater, Hangzhou China. I checked all the seats of afternoon today(1/20), for 3D version only a few seats are left- first row, corner... While for 2D version, the whole afternoon, only 2 seats are booked. Maybe this could be the reason.
There are so many things wrong with your post, I don't really know where to begin. First, Communism is not a form of government, but an economic system. Unlike Capitalism however, communism only tends to survive when supports by an authoritarian regime, and normally they tend to be more totalitarian than anything. This is because economics permeates everybody's day-to-day lives, and dictating how the economy works requires dictating how day-to-day lives work.
On another note, you mention that it is IMMORAL for a corporation or any foreigner to own land in another country, and yet, you blame the US for the embargo.... This does not compute. First, the whole premise of free trade essentially requires that foreigners can own land, or own "something" in another country. Otherwise, why would they trade with the other country? What would they get back in return. Currency needs to be backed by something, and normally it is based on the countries economy, and being able to buy things from the economy. By your own logic, China is an evil immoral country, not because of their human rights violation, but because the government and the people/corporations in the country own huge chunks of land in the US, as well as trillions of dollars in government debt. Do you think the US should be allowed to write off the debt, never paying it back because they don't want another country to own so much of our country? In my view, that is stealing (what a government does best), and is immoral. It would also likely result in a huge war with china.
I agree that many US policies were constructed in fear, but I don't think we're the reason cuba is a disaster. Unlike Cuba, China threw away much of their communist control over the economy, and has reaped the rewards. If China was still a highly communist country, the fact that they are pulling Avatar wouldn't surprise anyone. It would have been more surprising that Avatar was played in their theaters in the first place.
Also, your argument of: "If the Cuban people want to try communism, that's their right." implies that the Cuban people wanted the system Castro through in place. Like many communist revolutions, the Cuban people wanted changed from Batista, as he was doing some bad things. Many of them desired freedom, and a free form of government, and Castro, at the time of the revolution praised those ideals. Batista got toppled, and Castro took control with an iron fist, quickly jailing many of the same people who helped put him into power because they wished for a limited government, and the freedoms associated with that. Some of the people may have wanted what Castro wanted, but I doubt the majority of those who fought for the revolution would have if they realized that A) Castro would retain power for the next 50 years or so, and B) the ideals of freedom would quickly be dropped, etc. This is a case of people making a bad decision, acting rashly and making a bad situation much worse. Governments are quite good at doing that.
Phil
Dear American geek,
American courts and tribunals have held on many occasions that your country has violated WTO and other treaties in regards to softwood lumber from Canada. Please return the money or perhaps urge your government to drop out of the WTO.
Yours in Stunned Silliness,
A Canadian
Is that ultimately Avatar and films like it side in critique against colonialism. In other words, the Chinese people would be the good guys, not the marauding dudes [read European powers], and they could use Avatar to discuss for their people some of their own colonial history. They could say, "Avatar is about... just like how the Mongols took us over, how the British got us all high on Opium, the Americans sailed their gunboats on the Yellow River, the Japanese performed biological experiments on us...", and so forth.
This is my sig.
What you are essentially saying is that extreme nationalism is okay. I wonder if you felt that way during the Bush administration.
You're also saying that military might in that uprising equals right, regardless of the backer. Well, that's what the Cubans did with their communist backers, yet if the US tries to do the same thing and loses, the US is the great wrong and should have backed off.
What hypocrisy you advocate.
"There's a simple lesson here: if you're not a citizen of a foreign country, then you don't have any rights there,"
Holy F man. Does that mean we get to shoot all the illegal immigrants in the US?
Every international corporation in the US can be nationalized because they are international?
Hell, I'm pretty pro-US, but even I think that if the Koreans own part of Los Angeles, that's their property right. Same with the Japanese or anything else.
"Stay in your own country."
And people often point to how internationally ignorant and isolated Americans are, then I read crap like this.
It is your attitude that leads to more war and more misunderstanding. Stay in our own country? Fine. When we want to EXPAND our own country, we'll do it, and then we're right back at the very point you are arguing against.
But hey, argue power through uprising all you want. That just gives more justification to the backers and those who want to do the uprising. But blame America for Castro and Chavez. Your argument gives more reason for us to get involved, not less.
We choose not to do business with Cuba. If they want relations with the USA, it is very simple what they need to do. They are free to trade with the rest of the world as much as they want. We aren't stopping them.
If they open the door to USA trade by taking appropriate steps, they can then choose to close that door, once USA companies are all excited. That will teach us a lesson, right?
Sounds a lot like Zimbabwe.
Yea, the only reason people are trying to escape on rafts is because of America's embargo, and a couple of lame attempts to kill castro 40 years ago.
Fine, if you don't want "exploitation" by corporations, then take off all your clothes, turn the computer off, and go lay in the woods naked.
the whole premise of free trade essentially requires that foreigners can own land, or own "something" in another country... Do you think the US should be allowed to write off the debt, never paying it back because they don't want another country to own so much of our country? In my view, that is stealing (what a government does best), and is immoral. It would also likely result in a huge war with china.
If China demanded all of their money back and collapsed the American economy, could we then write off the debt? If the American economy completely collapsed and China bought nearly all of our arable land, kicked out the agribusinesses that were running them, and then exported most of the food back to China, would you support nationalizing our farmland? We have done similar things to a dozen countries.
The premise here is that we never asked Cuba if they'd like to trade with us without showing them the gun in our other hand. We said, give us everything we want, or we will take everything that we want. We said, we are going take all the land that belongs to local farmers, kick them into the cities to drive down wages for manufacturing, and then turn the whole country into a profit center for sugar producers, and send all of the profits back to the US. That's not free trade. It's thinly veiled colonialism.
Stop jumping through mental hoops to protect your belief system. It's slightly pathetic at this point.
When your government is some crazy military who has remained in power by force for 50 years and has isolated the country from the rest of the world, you don't need foreign enemies to ruin your economy.
Are you talking about Cuba or America?
You're not seriously stating that communism is purely a form of economics are you? Really? Interesting. All economic systems are inexplicably intertwined with politics and state vision. Always. Trying to separate them is like trying to separate hot from fire.
As for whether we're responsible for Cuba's current situation. Not directly. However, our stance enables their state to easily promote an us vs. them propaganda and makes it significantly easier to create a closed society. Our embargo policy doesn't work. It doesn't help Cuba and it doesn't help us. The best way to change Cuba is to welcome it to the modern world with open arms and give them a big, fat hug. Anything else is childish, ineffective, and a waste of time. Our policy cements their current state. Isn't it interesting after all these years that we still embargo them? Ever wonder why?
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Foreign nation pulls bad foreign movie in favour of local movie. Film starring Chow-Yun Fat at 11.
Seriously, could this be less of an issue, it's still playing in 3D cinema's. It's not censorship, after seeing avatar I'd rather watch a film about Confucius and I cant speak Mandarin (or Cantonese).
More like non-troversy
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And here I was thinking it was Dances-With-Wolves-With-Blue-People http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099348/ . From two years prior to Fern Gully.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Why is this a tech news????
As a reality check, look at the feet of the humans around the world...they are immigrating into America from (e.g) Cuba and China, not the other way around. These people appear to consider the USA to be the lesser evil.
www.cgstock.com
On January 18, 2008, the U.S. government filed a second arbitration request regarding Canada's measures implementing the SLA, specifically the provincial implementation programs of Ontario and Québec.[14] Canada responded on February 18, 2008.[15]
On March 4, 2008, the London Court of International Arbitration ruled (in the first arbitration initiated in August 2007) that Canada was in violation of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement in its eastern provinces, but not in its western provinces. [16] The panel had been made up of a Belgian arbitrator nominated by Canada, a British arbitrator named by the U.S., and a panel president from Germany.[17]
On February 26, 2009, the London Court of International Arbitration announced its ruling (in the second arbitration initiated in January 2008) that Canada was in breach of the softwood lumber agreement as a result of its failure to calculate quotas properly during January-June 2007.[18][19][20] The arbitration body ordered that sawmills in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan must pay an additional 10 per cent export charge (up to $68.26 million). The tribunal imposed a 30-day deadline to rectify the breach. We have had many agreements of which Canada keeps breaking it. NAFTA court, WTO, and even London court all keep saying that Canada is wrong. Only once, did a NAFTA court side with Canada 4 years ago.
And yet, you point though an AC with a crooked finger.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
LOL
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Ohhhh, so you're the neo-con who posts here occasionally. Welcome. :-)
What you are essentially saying is that extreme nationalism is okay. I wonder if you felt that way during the Bush administration.
No, extreme nationalism is very dangerous. However, if the people of a country want to do that, that's their right, as long as they don't bother anyone else. It's when they start invading other countries (like Germany in WWII) that it becomes other countries' business.
You're also saying that military might in that uprising equals right, regardless of the backer. Well, that's what the Cubans did with their communist backers, yet if the US tries to do the same thing and loses, the US is the great wrong and should have backed off.
Huh? No, I'm saying the people who are citizens of a country are the ones who get to decide what to do in that country, not some foreigners. If the Cubans want to install or overthrow communists, that's their business. If the US gets involved in Cuba's government, that's wrong. How'd you like it if China tried to have a say in our elections?
"There's a simple lesson here: if you're not a citizen of a foreign country, then you don't have any rights there,"
Holy F man. Does that mean we get to shoot all the illegal immigrants in the US?
No, because our laws don't allow that. However, if a sovereign country wants to make a law allowing their citizens to kill illegal immigrants, that's their right as a sovereign country. Don't like it? Don't go there.
Hell, I'm pretty pro-US, but even I think that if the Koreans own part of Los Angeles, that's their property right. Same with the Japanese or anything else.
So you'd be OK with China buying up tons of land in California (or better yet, Washington DC), and then demanding that that land be turned over to China's control?
And people often point to how internationally ignorant and isolated Americans are, then I read crap like this.
This has nothing to do with international ignorance, it's simply about minding your own business and not telling other sovereign countries what to do.
It is your attitude that leads to more war and more misunderstanding. Stay in our own country? Fine. When we want to EXPAND our own country, we'll do it, and then we're right back at the very point you are arguing against.
Expand? Expand where? In case you haven't noticed, all the land on earth is spoken for now, and has been for over a hundred years. You don't need to expand, because it would come at the cost of someone else. Figure out how to make do with what you have, because you don't have the right to take someone else's land.
You're a neo-con, right?
As a reality check, if you have the choice between living under the boot of British rule, or moving to England and enjoying the fruits of imperialism, which are you likely to choose?
People are not fleeing to America from England and France. If you say that we are better off than the countries we exploit and China, well, color me unimpressed.
If you wanna be all historical, maybe you should look past 1648 and rethink the total lack of empathy embodied in the Treaty of Westphalia. Don't peer through your professorial spectacles at me. You don't get it either. International governance is a wee poor thing compared to a real human government for all humans equally. " In 1998, at a Symposium on the continuing political Relevance of the Peace of Westphalia, then-NATO Secretary General Javier Solana said that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order" and levied a criticism that "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty#Modern_views_on_the_.27Westphalian_Systems.27
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/SuperChargedShenanigans/news/?a=12734
The original article doesn't quite say what this title suggest--CENSORSHIP. Especially if 900 3D screens remain. Unfortunately, this post appears to be more yellow journalism than journalism--making news instead of reporting them.
If the Cuban people want to try communism, that's their right.
Are you sure that they do? Do they have a say in it at all? Maybe Cuba is different but in other places people were rather happy when they got rid of the communists ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989), my guess is Cubans will be too.
From an objective, moral viewpoint, America is completely in the wrong. That land belonged to the Cubans, not American corporations who had somehow bought it up, and it was the Cubans' right to take it back. There's a simple lesson here: if you're not a citizen of a foreign country, then you don't have any rights there, especially when a new regime takes over.
That's a perfect attitude to take if you want to instantly end all foreign investments in your country. I don't know of any country (with the single exception of North Korea) who would consider that to be a good policy.
If America had had a "hands-off" policy towards Cuba under Castro (i.e., no embargo, no assassination attempts, no invasions, etc.), and people were still trying to escape by homemade raft, then you could rightfully criticize that nation for not working very well.
I think we have every right not to trade with a country where, according to a recent Amnesty International report:
- Freedom of expression remained limited, with all mass media outlets remaining under state control. Journalists working for independent and alternative news agencies continued to face harassment and intimidation
- Opposition political groups and many civil and professional associations continued to be barred from gaining legal status.
- The justice system continued to be used to harass political dissidents opposed to the Cuban government, in particular using charges of "dangerousness".
- Cubans were allowed for the first time to buy mobile phones and computers for personal use [in 2009!], but access to the internet remained restricted.
etc etc.
Assassinations and invasions are a different story, but that was part of the Cold War. I don't see those happening now.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
America has had the same leader for 50 years? Really? And does that leadership take active steps to prevent people from participating in the modern world? Such as BANNING computers? I would think even a Slashdot teenage/college idiot like yourself could appreciate the impact of the government NOT ALLOWING its citizens to even purchase a PC. But, I guess it is too important for you to bash the US while whacking off to pictures of Castro, Mao, Lenin, and Marx. Have fun with that.
we're idiots for letting foreign countries own our land
The majority of people immigrating from China and Cuba are impressed with the United States, regardless of it's foreign policy. Their native governments engage in unethical, exploitive behavior, too (the US doesn't have a monopoly).
I'm married to an immigrant, and most of our friends are immigrants (from the Philippines, a former US colony). They laugh at America bashing. Having lived in the Philippines myself, the attitude I saw there was "Yankee go home...and take me with you!".
I don't hear of Westerners moving permanently to the developing world because they believe other nations are more noble. I hear some Westerners make wholesale condemnations of their own country while still enjoying the benefits of living there.
I'm grateful to have been born in the West, someplace with clean food and water (my wife grew up in a different world, and is lucky to have survived). I can criticize my government openly, and I do....but I don't completely condemn the country that has given me, my wife, and child a great deal. If the American government or people have taken, they have also given...if they are flawed, they are not alone in being flawed. To ignore that and completely condemn the US is simplistic and (if you are an American) shows a lack of gratitude for benefits you enjoy and so many others do not.
www.cgstock.com
Yes... what could the Philippines possibly illustrate about my point that people flee countries destroyed by imperialism, often for the imperial country itself.
Oh wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War
All developing nations are those that have been victims of colonialism, whether traditional invasion or more modern forms of economic corruption and sabotage. No one is denying that imperial nations benefit from destroying more poorly armed or less violent cultures. The question is, if you believe at all in morality, is it just?
(All due respect for you and your wife, but arriving from the Philippines doesn't mean you know anything about it's history, or the nature of colonialism. Just ask any American on the street what year the Civil War started.)
...(just like Venezuela nationalized their oil industry under Chavez)...
just to show you how much you DON'T know what you're talking about I'll tell you this:
the oil industry in Venezuela was nationalized on Jan 1, 1976 during the 1st presidency of Carlos Andres Perez, the same Carlos Andres that Chavez would try to oust in his failed military coup attempt of 1992 during CAP's 2nd presidency,
how's that for irony? it was actually the so called "democratic" and "pro-yankee" regimes that nationalized oil here in Venezuela...
but i guess Chavez loves it that you think he did it, when actually it was a military dictator, just like Chavez (Juan Vicente Gomez) that gave the land and exploitation rights of our soil to the US oil companies for pennies...
(sigh)
They are free to trade with the rest of the world as much as they want. We aren't stopping them.
No were stopping the rest of the world from trading with them instead. Which pretty much amounts to the same thing.
Repression and censorship work poorly for suppressing dissent and making populations obedient.
Re-education and relentess repetition through propaganda are far more effective.
Instead of forbidding critical content, you just make the thoughts it would provoke
ridiculously *unthinkable*.
For example, in the US, there are no issues with Avatar causing people to realize the horrible
genocidal atrocities We committed against the *real* Americans, and certainly, there is no danger
of drawing parallels with the Mexicans, who were displaced forcibly from their homeland
to make way for the expansion of our great nation, and although these people are *ethnically*
more rightfully American than most of us, it is *them* not us who are called "alien".
These thoughts are ridiculously unthinkable from within the mainstream social consciouness.
They do not have to be forbidden, they have been filtered out of our political dialog altogether.
There is no fear of the public ever realizing that We are still vigorously engaging in the most
brutal violence against local populations around the world to disposses them of
the natural resources our corporate overlords crave, whether it is Bolivia's water or Iraq's oil.
Therefore, We have no need for censure, and should it ever become necessary,
it will be *corporations* not the government who will exercise it.
That land belonged to the Cubans, not American corporations who had somehow bought it up, and it was the Cubans' right to take it back.
Waitaminute ... American corporations bought the land (ie, exchanged money for it) ... so it belongs to the Cubans?
That''s a rather sadistic kind of love you've got there - we "love" passive, culturally different, exploitable, indigenous populations - they're "cute" and curious, until one of us foreigners takes advantage or behaves in a culturally insensitive or destructively murderous manner, and then we get all self-righteous and pissy at them when some of them sacrifice themselves to get our ugly boots off their faces. Captn. Christ had words about "no man has such love as to give his life for his brother". It's so peculiar how that maxim doesn't gain traction when it's "them" doing it instead of our valiant "honorable marines".
I'm so happy that the Pope is upset about Avatar, and I personally love the blood fury of the Na'vi exterminating the invaders. Squirrelly blue poly-sexual soft porn and "Dances with Smurfs" aside, hopefully one of the messages that people pick up from the movie is that humanity is on the fast track to destroying its own supportive ecosystem, egged on by corporate-sponsored consumerism. "There's no green left on Earth". I don't give a rat's arse about rising sea levels, a few less people on the planet won't hurt much - and YES, I subscribe to the voluntary human extinction project - no children for this couple. But it's the fucking chemical, toxic pollution that we're using to destroy our foodchain. Stupid fucking humans.
Grishnakh: "The other big reason America was so oppressive towards Cuba is because American corporations owned a lot of land in Cuba and used it for sugarcane farming. When Castro took power, he seized all this property and nationalized it (just like Venezuela nationalized their oil industry under Chavez)."
I like that "just like under Chavez" is meant to apply *legitimacy* to your argument. Oh, well, Chavez took land from the owners, so Castro did to, so OBVIOUSLY it must be fine GEEZ!
"American corporations whined and the American government acted as their enforcement arm, and tried to oust Castro."
Whined? Like, if a government decided to take your property, would that be "whining"?
"From an objective, moral viewpoint, America is completely in the wrong. That land belonged to the Cubans, not American corporations who had somehow bought it up, and it was the Cubans' right to take it back. "
Somehow? They paid money to the Cubans (who the land belonged to, and who willingly sold it to the highest bidder- in many cases, Americans). Did the Cuban land owners own the land, or not? If they had the right to sell to Americans, then they owned the land. That was everyone's belief, after all- I'm sure that if you bought land in Cuba, you would expect, you know, that the folks selling it to you had the ability to actually *do* that. In your mind, do Cubans not have the *ability* to sell the land to any one but another Cuban? Or something? It doesn't matter, you'll edit your philosophy to suit your needs.
From an "objective, moral viewpoint", the situation is actually, and brace yourself here, *complex*. America acted in an imperialistic fashion, but did so in a nonviolent fashion. The US was prohibited (by itself) from annexing Cuba, and required itself to give Cuba a government representative of the people, upon the Spanish leaving the scene. But years later, phobia about communism definitely crafted how American treated the nation, and the rules that the US expected Cuba to follow definitely did NOT give it the status of an independent state.
To claim the that the US acted as a villain to its neighbor is simply wrong. To claim that the Cubans were the REAL owners of land after freely selling it to others is also wrong. The US definitely did not act purely benevolently, but you aren't even giving history a fair shake.
They are famous in being "emotional" in their reporting. A huge grain of salt is recommended.
The reason for the cuban economic demise is not the US trade embago but the weak cuban industry. During the cold war era, the Soviet union bought cuban sugar at above-market price and sold oil at below-market price. When the USSR collapsed, cuba fell in an economic crisis and starvation was close. Things nowadays is a little better, but the cuban leadership's reluctance to liberalize the economy and allow more private enterprises has kept cuba poor. Because of the weak economy, cuba also have to pay all their import in cash.
It's true that the cuban goverment stole US-owned property but it was 50 years ago. I think that enough time has passed for this to be forgiven and the blockade to be lifted. The blockade is probably also counterproductive, because it allowes the cuban government to blame it for the economic problems.
Has anyone mentioned Hitler yet, or should I trawl further into the morass of political, um, debate?
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
I can only dream with a day when I enter a movie theater and I have the chance to actually see something entertaining and not mind-numbing.
Like the documentaries of some time ago. Today documentaries are or conspiracy theory or some hippie crap that tries to explain simples things like quantum mechanics as some sort of good karma.
The same thing happened to Mexico, only worse (or better, if you prefer). Just shortly after defending herself againt other influences (Spain and France) she was attacked from the north by a nation under an ever expanding quest for imperialism. We are nearing integration critical mass, as the southwest continues to be colonized by many people from everywhere.
Even now though in Texas, the school board wants to take all hispanic leaders (Cesar Chavez, etc.) influence out of the school history books. The imperialists' overwhelming power structure wants to keep these people in line by lessening their role in history. They still hold to the "remember the Alamo" mentality, while our federal government allows them abusive rights against latinos, mainly Mexican Americans.
So far the claim that China sensoring this movie is no more than speculations.
Facts:
1. Foreign movies are rarely shown in cinemas for more than 10 days in China. China is very protective of it's own film industry.
2. Avatar has been running well more than 10 days in China before being taken off
If chinese authoritys wanted to sensor this movie, why allow it to run in the first place?
I'm an American living in Chongqing, China and saw Avatar in 3D on the 18th. There were 3x as many showings of the film in 3D as anything else, including the 2D version, so I can see no reason yanking the 2D version would make any difference. The movie is hugely popular here with many of the showtimes sold out well in advance. Aside from that, bootleg copies are available on any street corner or DVD shop around here. Copies were also available on the streets of Shanghai before the theatrical release in the states. Useless and stupid for the government to yank 2D showings. Then again I never doubt the stupidity of the CPC.
...I accidentally tried to submit this story long after this one was posted. The article in the China Daily is here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-01/20/content_9345465.htm But I come here in hopes of enlightening some people about the situation. After I read the article in the CD, I tried to go to imdb.com (an unrelated incident) but the connection was reset, which is a common sign that a website has been blocked by the big ol' government. I was able to confirm this by IMing some friends out of country. Now, I don't know how long it has been blocked because I can't remember the last time I was able to use it, but it seems it wasn't so long ago. I leave it to you conspiracy nuts out there (read: fellow slashdotters) to speculate on that particular revelation. P.S. I will try to post more information regarding the blocking as soon as I can. Don't hold your breath.
From an objective, moral viewpoint, America is completely in the wrong. That land belonged to the Cubans, not American corporations who had somehow bought it up, and it was the Cubans' right to take it back.
So if you "somehow" were able to go into Best Buy and buy a movie, it's Best Buy's right to take it back? Don't sell it if you don't want it gone.
Please explain how USA and USSR managed to trade without any opposite land ownership.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Currency needs to be backed by something, and normally it is based on the countries economy, and being able to buy things from the economy
That's not true. Since the fall of bretton woods, America hasn't had any backing for their currency other that pure confidence. that's what economists have been calling, since the 90's, "the grey matter" that keeps america financially backed when it comes to treasury papers. Read some Modigliani and Miller for capital costs and risk assesment. It's kind of old, but still will give you a pretty good idea about why currency doesn't need to be backed by anything but trust.
Some of the people may have wanted what Castro wanted, but I doubt the majority of those who fought for the revolution would have if they realized that
that's a no-no in any college paper or reasonable discussion. if you don't show credentials, citations, quotes, etc. you don't get to say what you think and expect people to take you seriously.
There are so many things wrong with your post, I don't really know where to begin. First, Communism is not a form of government, but an economic system. Unlike Capitalism however, communism only tends to survive when supports by an authoritarian regime, and normally they tend to be more totalitarian than anything. This is because economics permeates everybody's day-to-day lives, and dictating how the economy works requires dictating how day-to-day lives work.
That is an over-simplistic and misleading interpretation of how capitalism and communism goes. First of all, the communal organization of settlements is not only naturally occurring but also the preferred organization system for new autonomous settlements, particularly those where resources are pretty tight. That's how monasteries are organized since their inception, military camps and even how space exploration missions are organized. So, claiming that people have to be coerced into a communist system is at least misleading.
Having said that, you then go off claiming that, somehow, capitalism leads you to freedom while communism doesn't. The truth is that capitalism is inherently more authoritarian than communism, simply due to the fact that in a communist system you account for resource sharing while in capitalism it is defended that property is unalienable and in full control of their owner, leaving out those who are in dire need for it. Moreover, capitalism is also ineviable more authoritarian (and arbitrarily so) than capitalism because (and this is something which is tend to be forgotten or ignored) as the capitalist doctrine imposes that the property's owner have full control over their property, you still have totalitarian control over your daily life, which easily and recurrently oversteps on your personal freedoms.
On another note, you mention that it is IMMORAL for a corporation or any foreigner to own land in another country, and yet, you blame the US for the embargo.... This does not compute.
You seem to be confused. The presence of absence of any right to own property does not, nor it can ever, justify any embargo. If you believe that not authorizing a person or legal organization to own property in a region not only justifies but also should have, somehow, the natural consequence of imposing an embargo then the reason that does not compute is because your computations are poorly executed.
First, the whole premise of free trade essentially requires that foreigners can own land, or own "something" in another country.
By "foreigners" you mean people. Legal organizations are not people.
Otherwise, why would they trade with the other country? What would they get back in return.
You seem to be confused. There isn't a single reason why a person and even a legal organization must own property in a specific place in order for it to be able to buy/sell goods and/or services.
Currency needs to be backed by something, and normally it is based on the countries economy, and being able to buy things from the economy.
That fails to explain why exactly someone must own property in a certain region in order to conduct business.
By your own logic, China is an evil immoral country, not because of their human rights violation, but because the government and the people/corporations in the country own huge chunks of land in the US, as well as trillions of dollars in government debt.
Now, you are being idiotic. You are putting your own words into OP's mouth and, as anyone with half a brain can easily understand, it's perfectly possible to "be evil" simultaneously for more than one reason. You don't get to attribute all malevolent claims exclusively to a single aspect of their behaviour, clearing every other aspect in return.
"Unlike Capitalism however, communism only tends to survive when supports by an authoritarian regime"
Which explains why US capitalist interests have inspired the US government to overthrow so many democratically elected (but "leftist") governments, only to replace them with US-friendly dictators?
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html
http://killinghope.org/
The Chinese government really knows how to irk the rest of the world. Yes, don't go see the movie avatar, and force a revolution, or better yet, force all your population to immigrate out of your stupid country just to be able to say they saw Avatar, that should do the trick! I know nothing about running a country, and base whatever opinions I have from Canada, and the US, maybe even a lot of Europe as being the best way to run a country, but omg, if I was Chinese, and had my cousin telling me he watched Avatar and was one of the best movies ever, and then the government pulled this sh*t, it definitely would be an eye opener for me, as to what my country really represents on censorship. I swear I would immigrate after hearing this, maybe all Chinese needing to see this movie should to!
Good luck to all Chinese people who want to see the movie,
cuz you ain't getting the same effect without the glasses, and with someone using a camcorder to pirate this movie.
The point is, that [list of bad things] happens in many other countries that the US is/was perfectly happy to trade with (China, Iraq, Saudi Arabia...), so it just seems vindictive to pick on Cuba just because they're close to you and metaphorically giving you the bird day by day.
Also, the embargo is not purely an internal US affair, it affects how/whether other countries trade with Cuba too.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the oil it sent to Cuba stopped almost literally overnight. On approximately half of their old energy usage, they have survived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Community:_How_Cuba_Survived_Peak_Oil
Oil is America's achilles heel. We're less than 5% of the world, and we use 25% of the oil, which means our society is largely dependent on it's cost.
So you'd be OK with China buying up tons of land in California (or better yet, Washington DC), and then demanding that that land be turned over to China's control?
There is nothing wrong with that. But the land will still be US soil and subject to US laws. But yes, you can buy that land and do whatever the hell you want on it.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
" Communism is certainly a crappy form of government, but that doesn't give America the right to try to force its preferred form of government on foreign, sovereign countries. If the Cuban people want to try communism, that's their right."
Stop being a fracking douchebag and grow a brain you uninformed retard. I have friends whose relatives were betrayed and executed because Cubans didn't want communism. And based on your logic, if we don't want a nutjob psycho sitting next to us who at one time was going to host nuclear missles that were to be pointed right at us for the USSR, then it is also within our damn rights to try and stop him and put him out of power. I am so sick of you buttwads who think that people who live in these dictatorships just wanted to give up their freedoms. Sometimes the bad guys win, so stop thinking Cubans had a friendly get together over rice and beans 50 years ago and said, "lets try communism - its the fun way to supress, uh, we mean, govern, people".
I think we have every right not to trade with a country where, according to a recent Amnesty International report:
That sounds suspiciously like China. Why are we such good asshole-buddies with them, then? Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?
No, if it all belongs to China, they can demand (with military threats even) that the land become Chinese soil. That's what the Israelis did, after all: bought up a bunch of land, moved a bunch of people there, and then demanded their own state.
The rewards being a lower income than Cuba, lower HDI, worse healthcare, worse education, lower literacy, lower life expectancy, horrendous pollution, millions in prison, sweatshop labour etc.
No, the reason the US hates Cuba is because unlike the rest of Latin America, they won't bend over to American imperialism. The US has spent the last half a century overthrowing various democratic governments and replacing them with murdering, right-wing dictators who support American interests. Cuba, right on their doorstep, kicked out the US puppet and American nationalists have been sore ever since.
Where does capitalism survive without a heavily-armed state there to enforce business interests? How would modern Western capitalism ever have evolved without government people coming along and forcing native people off common land at the point of a gun (or spear), to hand it over to the gentry?
Why did America, via the CIA, spend so much money on so many guns to force free-market capitalism on Latin Americans who didn't want it? Why did it need a totalitarian dictator like Batista to enforce the business rights of American corporations and mafias? Why did Pinochet have to torture so many people before they'd agree to the benefit of privatising national resources and handing them over to the rich?
So... by this thinking, if American corporations bought the oil fields in Iraq (for pennies on the dollar, since the government there is basically a puppet government for the USA), then it would be OK for American corporations to keep those and the Iraqi people shouldn't have access to their own oil?
Just because money is exchanged for something doesn't make it an equitable transaction. The only thing that guarantees you ownership of land that you "bought" or "own" is the government in that country backing up your claim to that land. If that government disappears or is overthrown, all bets are off. You have no more claim to that land unless the new government agrees with you. If they don't, too bad. Now, if you're a citizen, this might be cause for a revolution, to get back what's yours. As a US Citizen, if the government decided to steal my land (assuming I had any that was worth anything), and that of many of my neighbors, and seize all our possessions and assets, I'd consider that sufficient cause to rebel violently. If I could get enough of my wronged neighbors to join in, we actually might have a chance at making a serious change. However, if I'm some rich dude with a primary home here in the US, and some vacation spot in Mexico, and the Mexican government decided to seize it for some reason, sorry, but I'm SOL. What am I going to do, sue the Mexican government in Mexican courts? Good luck with that.
The moral of the story here: if you're going to buy land in a foreign country, make sure it has a stable government so you don't wake up one day and find your land seized. Obviously, there's no guarantees anywhere (after all, the US government could decide to seize my land one day, but looking at history that's extremely unlikely, unlike many other countries), but certain places simply carry far more risk than other places. If you decide to buy land for your company in, say, Germany, you can probably feel safe that the government isn't going to seize it one day. In Zimbabwe or Uganda, you're really rolling the dice. Take that into account when you make investments in these places, because you might have to write them off when another regime comes to power as is common in countries like that.
I agree completely. The only way for the US to favorably influence Cuba to change its ways is to be open with it, the way it is with China; the people will eventually demand change and improvements. Things are still pretty bad in China WRT human rights and all, but it's a lot better than it was 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. The availability of information on the internet helps a lot too.
Hate to point this out, but there IS "an open cuba with free trade", just not with the US .. and that's an embargo placed BY the US. Cuba trades quite freely, with the EU for example.
Sorry, no. The difference is that the BB store and I both reside in the US, so we're subject to US laws as long as the government here is intact (though I'm starting to wonder how long that'll be... that's for another discussion). If you buy land in another country, you're subject to the laws of that country. If that country has a revolution, and a totally different form of government comes to power, then all bets are off; that's the way it is in revolutions: everything changes, very quickly. Maybe you'll get lucky and the new regime will recognize your claim, but maybe it won't.
Besides, what kind of idiot would ever buy anything from a Best Buy?
I guess you lost the argument, since you had to resort to name-calling.
People who live in dictatorships do so willingly. If they don't like it, it's their responsibility to rise up and overthrow their government. If enough of them agree, it's entirely feasible, just as has happened in many revolutions throughout history (of course, if only a few are angry enough to rise up, or if most of the populace is too scared or spineless to try, then their attempt will probably fail).
Who's responsibility do you think a government is, anyway? Do you think some foreigners have a responsibility to come "save" you if your government is being mean to you? No, it's your job to make sure your government is one of your own choosing. If you don't like your government, but you're too scared or lazy to do something about it, then too bad. Everyone has the government they deserve.
Whined? Like, if a government decided to take your property, would that be "whining"?
No, if my government took my property, I could appeal to the legal system. If that didn't work, and enough of my countrymen agreed with me, we could start a revolution. (Obviously, if not enough of my countrymen agree with me, an attempt at revolution would be ill-advised, so you have to pick your battles.) That's one of the perks of being a citizen of a country: you have a say in its government.
Somehow? They paid money to the Cubans
So, by this logic, if the American government tells the Iraqi puppet government, "we want you to sell all the Iraqi oil fields to Halliburton for $10", and the Iraqi government complies, then that's OK?
Your claim to any land is only as good as the government that controls that land, and its willingness to back up your claim. When I buy a house here in the USA, I only get to call it "mine" because the legal system here says it's mine, and anyone who tries to take it away from me will have to deal with the courts and police.
If I buy land in Mexico (which is impossible, as I'm not a citizen there and they don't allow non-citizens to buy real estate), then I only get to call that land "mine" because the current government recognizes that claim. If they have a big revolution and some communists come to power, then that claim is null and void if the new government and legal system don't recognize it. If a bunch of Mexicans decide this new regime sucks and overthrow the communists, that's their right as citizens. But I as a foreigner have no say in their government.
If you want to buy land in a foreign country, without also becoming a citizen in that country, then it's a bet that that government is going to last a long time so you don't get your land seized. In a stable country like the US, UK, etc., this is probably a safe bet. In some little 3rd-world country without a history of stable governments, this is most certainly NOT a safe bet, and you better be ready to lose your investment.
To claim the that the US acted as a villain to its neighbor is simply wrong. To claim that the Cubans were the REAL owners of land after freely selling it to others is also wrong.
Again, that land belongs to Cuba, the nation, no matter who "buys" it. It's not very often that you can go buy some land in a foreign country, and then have that country's national boundaries changed so that this land is now part of your country. Land belongs to governments, not people or corporations; they only have temporary claims on it, subject to government agreement. If some wacky new government comes to power, your claims may be null and void, and that's what happened in Cuba. The companies that bought land there should have made safer investments. Don't make a risky investment and then whine when you lose your shirt.
What a pile of crap. "Lack of empathy"? What are you smoking? You think people should be bound to laws based on where they came from, so that someone from the USA is subject to different laws in France than French people are? That's just idiotic (and exactly how it was in Roman times).
International governance is a wee poor thing compared to a real human government for all humans equally.
So you're arguing in favor of a single world government? No thanks.
what... the.. fuck.. ?
The Jews have always live there.. for like thousands of years. They've been killed off and purged several times. WWI and WWII drove hundreds of thousand of Jewish refugees back there because the world didn't want them. Then the Brits left and the UN made Israel official: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Palestine
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
My understanding is that some Jews always lived there, but after WWI, lots more of them started moving back to that area, and buying up the land individually. Also, at that time, the land was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, and then taken over by the British when they won WWI. Eventually (esp. after WWII), there were so many there that they petitioned for their own state, and Britain and the UN agreed. The Arabs surrounding them got pissed and immediately started a war to eliminate them.
So this one's not exactly that clear-cut; we've got governmental control changing due to spoils of war (the Ottomans had to hand it over to Britain), a large migration of immigrants, etc. This is a little different from some foreign corporation buying up valuable, fertile farmland and then screaming foul when a revolution happens and the country retakes that land. It seems to me that the Arabs were (and still are) in the wrong; if they didn't want Jews living in the area, they shouldn't have allowed so many to move in there before. This wasn't one Jewish corporation buying an oil field or farmland; this was millions of individual settlers coming to make this place their new home.
My basic philosophy (which apparently many people don't agree with) is that the people who live in a region should have self-determination, and control over their own destiny, without being oppressed or taken advantage of by foreigners. They should be able to decide their own form of government, and their own rules for everything (something that the one-world-government people here on Slashdot I'm sure totally disagree with). The people in any region also have responsibility for their government; if their government is bad, it's their job to replace it even if it costs a lot in blood, otherwise they have no cause to complain if their government oppresses them.
So when a large number of people immigrate to a place and displace the previous residents (who willingly sell their land or don't put up a fight), these new people now get to set the rules and choose the government. However, this doesn't apply to corporations, which are not people, as much as some Slashdotters and Americans refuse to believe, so a corporation buying land and exploiting it isn't the same as a person buying land and living there as a resident or citizen.
So Chavez is now a military dictator... not to defend the GP nor Chavez, but guess who DOESN'T know what he's talking about now...
The way most western countries works is that anyone who owns land is in fact just renting it(for a onetime cost) from the government. The government can if deemed neccessary for the good of the public buy it back or under extreme conditions choose to seize the land.
When a government is overthrown then your deal with said government is obviously useless unless the new government chooses to give you the same deal you had with the previous government. If they do not then the land defaults back to the government. Fortunately such changes in government is quite uncommon in western countries and as such forceful government seizures rarely happens except to enforce judgment on a convicted felon.